Replies

It's anybody's guess how long they could have continued owning people if they had won their rebellion.

It's guaranteed that they would have continued owning people had they submitted to Lincoln early in the war. Quit ignoring that fact.

You want to keep hammering the Immorality of owning people, then you need to hammer on Lincoln for agreeing to continue it. Stop giving him a pass.

But, they lost and it was that loss that made the 14th Amendment seem to be politically possible and necessary.

It is only that loss that made it possible. Had they never seceded, slavery would have continued. Had they not had Union guns pointed at their heads, they never would have voted to ratify it. Not only is the 14th amendment horrible in it's results, it is horrible in the way it was coerced into existence.

What is the point of this pretense of "ratification" when the State legislatures were merely the Puppets being manipulated by their Union Masters? The Union ordered them to ratify it, because they wanted to create the illusion that there was still a "democratic" process, but the reality was quite different. The Illusion was for the Papers, but the masters of the Union intended to have their power grab.

Read the 1st Amendment and ask yourself if, without the 14th Amendment, states and local governments might be able to deprive you of many of your most basic rights.

Wasn't a problem for the first "four score and seven years" of the Nation's existence. Why would it have been a problem thereafter?

Well, once again, you just disagree with the "secessionists" who saw a real threat to the institution of slavery by remaining in the Union. They felt that they had to "secede" or lose their slaves. From the Mississippi declaration of secession:

"Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

What do you think they meant by "the loss of property worth four billions of money" in that document? They were talking about the loss of slaves.

You can disagree with the "secessionists" if you wish, but there is no mistaking what they believed. (You should also read the whole document to understand just how threatened they felt.)

But, that's all done now. Your real problem in repealing the 14th Amendment is that it is popular. A lot of us don't trust state governments. Maybe you should settle for a "repeal and replace" compromise. .