Where Congress had the power to end slavery, in DC, they did so in 1862. The slave states that did not secede ended slavery on their own without making war on the United States.
US Constitution protected slavery by article IV, section 2, meaning "slavery" was a non issue for why the Northern states invaded the Southern states.
Then why did the states the had a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" overwhelmingly cite slavery as the reason for their secession?
The only question of relevance is why the Northern States invaded the South.
Because the south made war on the United States by opening fire on Ft. Sumter.
It's time we stopped letting people get away with the pretense that they were killing people for love of the black man. That's a lie, and everyone in this discussion knows it.
As I'm sure you've heard many times, the United States was fighting to preserve the Union against armed insurrection, as authorized by Article 1, Section 15 of the Constitution. The lie is that the south seceded for any other reason than to protect slavery, as literally hundreds of documents they issued at the time make clear, and you're pathologically disingenuous to deny that.
The war started in 1861. If slavery was the cause, they would have abolished slavery in DC before the war. They would have also started their attack by invading Maryland. Slavery as a cause of the war is a lie.
The slave states that did not secede ended slavery on their own without making war on the United States.
In 1865. Six months after slavery had already been abolished in the Confederacy. For six months longer, the Union still had legal slavery. Again, for a war to be about slavery, you have to abolish it on the side claiming to be fighting against slavery, first.
Then why did the states the had a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" overwhelmingly cite slavery as the reason for their secession?
I reject that claim. I've read the statements. People are being "creative" in their efforts to force them to mean what they claim. Just saying "slave owning states" is "interpreted" to mean they were seceding over slavery.
Because the south made war on the United States by opening fire on Ft. Sumter.
Lincoln started the war on April 8th by launching a fleet of warships to attack the Confederates around Ft. Sumter. Lincoln started the war with that attack. Called this attack a "supply mission" which is just a lie.
Was an attack. Southerners responded to this attack.
As I'm sure you've heard many times, the United States was fighting to preserve the Union against armed insurrection, as authorized by Article 1, Section 15 of the Constitution.
Another lie. Secession under the right to independence guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln lied about it. Called it "insurrection." Is not insurrection when states have a peaceable vote to leave Union. Is a *LIE* to call this "Insurrection" or "Rebellion."
Lincoln called it an "insurrection" because this unlocked power to use military force to stop it. Locked up anyone who disagreed with this claim, so people were cowed.
Justice Salmon P Chase made it clear that "Secession is not Rebellion." Exact Words.
The lie is that the south seceded for any other reason than to protect slavery...
No, the Lie is that the south's reasons for leaving had any thing to do with why the North launched a war against it. The north would have launched the war no matter what the South's reasons for leaving were. Therefore the South's reasons are irrelevant.
The only cause of the war is the North's reasons. The South's reasons don't matter. The people who launched the murder have to justify why they launched the murder. The people who were being murdered by the Northern armies do *NOT* have to justify why they wanted to leave.
Great points, great post!