It sure does live. It had very little to do with slavery. It was all about States rights.
Yeah, the states rights to own slaves.
Exactly.
Precisely. Slavery was patently Unconstitutional and would have been deemed so over time.
Instead, we have one man, Lincoln, send 600,000 men to their deaths because of this. In the process, he did away with habeas corpus, jailed those who disagreed with him, and shut down newspapers. And we are sold the line of crap that he is some sort of here? BS. Possibly the worst President ever.
Imagine any modern day President doing the things listed above.
What State’s
Rights were they defending?
Leonard M Scruggs, “The Un-Civil War: Shattering The Historical Myths”
It was about states rights, but possibly not as you may think.
The Federal Fugitive Slave Act required northern states to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves to their self-styled "owners".
Many northerners were outraged by this filthy law and acting as private citizens, or through their local and state governments, subverted it.
What the south wanted was for northern states to surrender their states' rights and knuckle under to this federal law. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, secession ensued.
“It sure does live. It had very little to do with slavery. It was all about States rights.”
Whether or not Secession had anything to do with slavery is really irrelevant. I mean we can talk about how clear the north made it that they were not fighting over slavery, or how the South had many other reasons for leaving. All of that however is thoughts and opinions of people in conflict.
The real point is the right of secession and its role in retaining a fair and legitimate Constitutional Government subject to the Consent of the Governed.
Frankly without the right of revolution/secession all people and their states are prisoner subjects of the Federal Government just like the colonies were claimed so by the British empire. That of course invariably leads to abuse and tyranny not consent of the governed or constitutional government for that matter.
Lincoln’s arguments against secession were all specious on the grounds his understanding of contract law under a system of 3rd party judges & law superseding natural law. Even more hypocritically they came in direct opposition of his earlier pre-presidential opinion on the subject of the inherit right of revolution. Thus painting Lincoln and his supporters as power crazed and corrupted despots, more upset that some people did not want to be submit to their rule than anything else.