[Who is John Galt?]

What I have said is that it is was by far the single, most important reason why the south launched their rebellion.

And, as usual, having never been able to prove secession unconstitutional, you revert to your foundational assumption: that the withdrawal of the Southern States from the union was "rebellion."

To which I will respond as I have in the past:

* If secession was in fact unconstitutional (something you have been perennially unable to prove ;>), then it didn't matter a whit whether the Southern States seceded over slavery, or because they wanted to donate their entire economic output to the support of charities: the action was illegal.

* And if secession was constitutional (as suggested by the ratification documents, the Tenth Amendment, etc., etc., etc.), it also would not matter whether the seceding States were motivated by the slavery issue, or even a desire to re-institute the Aztec religion and mandate human sacrifice: their departure from the union would have been completely legal.

In other words, motivation is entirely irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality – and the actions of the federal government must be based upon the Constitution, or they are entirely illegal. If you can quote the constitutional clause that specifically 'delegates or prohibits' the right of secession, you're 'home free.' If not - well, your arguments and assurances won't amount to a hill of beans.

In fact, the advocates of 'union-at-any-cost' tend to focus on slavery for one reason: they can find no justification in the Constitution for the federal invasion of the seceded States, so they must necessarily look elsewhere. And morality provides wonderful window dressing: just ask the D*mocrats about their unceasing efforts "for the children"...

;>)

[Non-Sequitur]

I can no more prove conclusively that it is unconstitutional than you can prove conclusively that it is constitutional. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, though, unilateral secession is not a right protected by the Constitution and their opinion is the only one which carries any real weight.

[Non-Sequitur]

And if the motive is irrelevant to the constitutionality then why is it so hard for southterners to admit that by far the single, most important reason for their rebellion was defense of the institution of slavery.

[ned]

In fact, the advocates of 'union-at-any-cost' tend to focus on slavery for one reason: they can find no justification in the Constitution for the federal invasion of the seceded States,

The only problem with that view is that the government of the United States was already governing in the "seceded states." The purpose of the southern states' declarations of "secession" was to kick the government of the United States out of the southern states and to prevent the government of the United States from continuing to perform its constitutional functions there. The declarations of "secession" were not made in jest; they really meant what they said.

Slavery comes up so often in these discussions because the southern politicians who were guiding the rebellion claimed that they were doing it to protect the institution of slavery. I think that they deserve to have their words taken seriously.

Slavery is now gone forever. It has very little continuing support in any state. Same with "secession."