You seem to be suggesting that even unconstitutional federal action is somehow “’legal’ and...supported by the Constitution,” simply because it is undertaken by the federal government. And that State action taken in direct support of the Constitution, “isn't 'legal' and isn’t supported by the Constitution” if it is opposed by the federal government. Yes - no? Perhaps you can address an example: please explain how State militia protecting Jewish Americans (or gun owners, or homosexuals) from extermination by federal troops would be violating the law. Be specific: what law, exactly, would the States be violating? Does the Constitution permit genocide? (Don't bother with the Nuremberg defense - it won't fly... ;>)
The South did not have an honorable cause.
Now tell us: exactly what 'intolerable oppression' the Federal government imposed on the south in 1860 that justified rebellion?
Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States. As Mr. Jefferson noted:
”...(T)he several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes... that to this compact each State acceded as a State...[and] each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. “
Unless you qualify as a “State,” your opinion would seem to be irrelevant. It was a matter for the citizens of the Southern States to decide.
That, after all, is what the radical south slavocracy wanted --- slavery from sea to shining sea.
Please enlighten us – when, precisely, did the union amend the Constitution to abolish slavery? Was it before the war, during the war, or after the war? Perhaps you can tell us which government, in the spring of 1861, proposed an amendment to the Constitution, which would have permanently prohibited national abolition legislation? Hmm? While you’re at it, tell us all which nation’s President, in December 1862 (if I remember correctly), proposed a constitutional amendment that would have permitted slavery to exist through the end of the century? And which nation’s President emancipated the slaves – but only in the other nation’s States, and specifically not in those States over which he held any constitutional authority? And finally, which nation’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly defeated an abolition amendment in the summer of 1864 – an action directly comparable to Congress refusing to condemn National Socialism on the eve of the Normandy invasion?
A word of advice: when folks play the ‘slavery card’ in these debates, they tend to get trumped by historical fact.
Great role models you have --- nothing honorable about them or their cause.
Gosh - sorry you don’t approve of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison. But pardon me if I don’t lose any sleep over your disapproval...
;>)
You seem to be suggesting that even unconstitutional federal action is somehow “’legal’ and...supported by the Constitution,” simply because it is undertaken by the federal government. And that State action taken in direct support of the Constitution, “isn't 'legal' and isn’t supported by the Constitution” if it is opposed by the federal government. Yes - no?
What 'unconstitutional action did the Federal government take in 1861? The Federal Government has and has always had a legal right and even duty under the Constitution to put down rebellion. The Southern states were in rebellion.
What clauses of the Constitution did the Confederate states cite in declaring secession? What was Constitutional about their actions? Nothing. They were rebels.
Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States.
Why not? You claim the Federal Government was trampling the rights of the South, but you don’t want to discuss it? How odd.
The South was fighting for the expansion of slavery. As you pointed out, neither Lincoln nor the Federal Government had indicated that they would attempt to end slavery where it existed. As you say, he even offered to support legislation that would guarantee it for another 40 years. That would have effectively ended Lincoln’s political career and the Republican party if it had passed, but Lincoln was willing to do that to preserve the Union. BTW. To say that the South was fighting for slavery does not say that Lincoln and the North went to war to end slavery --- a straw man argument that the neo-confederates always try to make. It’s a stupid argument. Lincoln and the North went to war to preserve the Union. Lincoln did plainly state that he would not allow slavery to expand and the majority of congress was with him on that issue. That economic and political issue (seats in the Senate) is what drove the South to secede. The North was growing rapidly. The South was not. They were losing the demographic war.
If secession was not about slavery, why did every southern state say it was the major cause in their secession articles? Why did the Confederate Constitution include an article that mandated slavery not only in the 11 existing states of the confederacy, but in every territory that would obtain statehood in the Confederacy? Not simply allowed it, but mandated it! Because their grievance was that the North would not allow slavery to expand to the West?
As to your distortion of the Emancipation Proclamation, I'll reply in detail later when I have time. But your words show that you are either being intentionally deceptive, or that you do not understand the limitations imposed on the executive branch by the Constitution. Far from being the tyrant you insist, Lincoln respected the Constitution far more than any of the slavocracy did.