Texas and the other states of the confederacy and the Indian nations seceded to defend slavery. They said so in their Ordinances of secession:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html
The states remaining in the union initially invaded the south to preserve the union. This was not a moral invasion. At a later time (that is, with the Emancipation Proclamation), the war became a war to end slavery. Only then was the invasion moral. With regard to the U.S. Constitution, while states remained in the union, they could not be forced to end slavery. Once they left the union, any country could morally invade them to free the slaves. God help them! And God help California when it secedes in order to have open borders.
(I could give an alternate justification involving the debts of Mississippi and the other repudiation states that joined the Confederacy. But, with the international agreement of 1927, invasion for debt-collection was outlawed.)
Now, let’s move the clock forward to the present:
If the U.N. and other international agreements weren’t so effed up, the human race might be near the day when the free countries of the world are collectively so powerful that no country would dare to threaten their neighbors or violate the basic human rights of their own people. If our so-called allies weren’t a bunch of sissies, bullies like Kim and Putin and that asshole in Iran would be very afraid to upset us.
As it is, we, the U.S., are almost alone as the defender of peace and human rights in the world, and there is a limit to what we can do. Pretending to be the world’s policeman in this effed up arrangement is a formula for bankruptcy. So, as much as I am sympathetic with the causes of peace and human rights, we have to put this country and our people first, do only what is prudent elsewhere, and work to reform our trade deals, alliances and other international agreements so as to make them work.
We have tried globalism and peace through appeasement, and that doesn’t work. The good news is that Donald Trump isn’t the only advocate of nationalism in conjunction with peace through strength. We are being joined by others throughout the democratic world.
So slavery was the political meme horse used to perpetuate the war to maintain the union AFTER the war started.
“Texas and the other states of the confederacy and the Indian nations seceded to defend slavery. They said so in their Ordinances of secession:”
That is an interesting comment. Can you cite the language in - say the Florida ordinance - where slavery was mentioned?
God! I keep seeing this lie repeated over and over again. About three or four states made secession statements claiming slavery as an issue, but the other 8 did not.
It suits the revisionism people have been taught to claim these 3 or 4 spoke for all 11 states of the Confederacy.
How about you show me where in the Virginia secession statement it claims secession was over slavery? Hmmmm????
Only then was the invasion moral.
You can't make an immoral action "moral" after the fact, especially when it was clear they never had any intentions of doing this when they first invaded, and did in fact do so only for political and military benefit to themselves.
They didn't free the slaves because they loved black people, they freed the slaves because they hated the people who owned them. What's more, they didn't free any slaves in the Union, so it was just a lot of hypocritical posturing.
Redmen4ever: ***”This was not a moral invasion.
At a later time (that is, with the Emancipation Proclamation), the war became a war to end slavery.
Only then was the invasion moral.”***
I disagree that Lincoln’s response to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was anything other than moral.
What US President would fail to respond to an attack on US troops in a US fort any other way?
What made total invasion and destruction of the Confederacy moral was not slavery, important as that was, but rather the Confederates’ formal declaration of War against the United States.
They attacked us, then declared war against us, so “morality” was not at issue.
Redmen4ever: ***”As it is, we, the U.S., are almost alone as the defender of peace and human rights in the world, and there is a limit to what we can do.
Pretending to be the world’s policeman in this effed up arrangement is a formula for bankruptcy.”***
True enough, but plenty of others are doing more than you might expect, if by nothing else, at least by behaving themselves.
When large countries follow normal laws, then the defense burden on the U.S. is less.
Not saying they shouldn’t do more, that would be nice, but it matters even more when they don’t oppose us militarily.
Redmen4ever: ***”The good news is that Donald Trump isn’t the only advocate of nationalism in conjunction with peace through strength.
We are being joined by others throughout the democratic world.”
Very interesting to watch, let’s hope it leads to a more rational world!