Replies

You know, I'll even give you that some, I said some, of the deep Southern states might have gone to war to defend slavery, but that's mighty thin considering that good ol' abe said himself he didn't have the right to do anything about it. But that still doesn't cover the border and upper Southern states does it? Two wrongs don't make a right, Non. If the South seceded for plain vs peanut M&Ms, they still had the right to secede. And abe didn't have the right to do anything about it

On to the second issue, I see, and one where we have debated before. Because, as you know, I disagree that the south had a right to unilaterally seceede and that the Constitution is clear on that.

Come on, billbears. Look at this article. The man who wrote it couldn't lie straight in bed. There are a great many things about the actions of the North and the south that is open to interpretation, and you and I have debated most of them. But facts are facts and the truth is the truth and this bozo wouldn't know the truth if it bit him.

You know, I'll even give you that some, I said some, of the deep Southern states might have gone to war to defend slavery, but that's mighty thin considering that good ol' abe said himself he didn't have the right to do anything about it.

Forget that stuff for a moment and answer this: What was THE major issue that vexed the nation when the time came to add states to the Union?

It was slavery, of course, and the aggressive efforts on the part of the South to ensure that at least half of all new states would permit slavery.

Why were those alleged advocates of states rights so very concerned about propagating the "peculiar institution" to new states? Why would slavery be such a potent issue for a secession movement that began before 1850?

Consider John C. Calhoun, the eminent pro-slavery senator from South Carolina. In his famous speech against the Clay Compromise of 1850, Calhoun said: Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede in order to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show. [emphasis mine]

Abolition or secession -- Calhoun presents a pretty stark choice.