That is totally false. Those secession documents include numerous other issues like tariffs and the distribution of tax revenues. And legally speaking, the south was 100% in the right. The fugitive slave laws were federal law and the northern states were obliged to enforce them under the interpretation of the constitution that prevailed at the time. The south simply said to the north: If you're not going to abide by the terms of the compact, then we will simply withdraw from it. The issue of slavery was merely incidental. There was ZERO threat to the institution of slavery IN THE SOUTH at the time the south seceded. In fact, the northern political class was working on an amendment that would have expressly legalized slavery before and during the war. Abraham Lincoln endorsed the amendment. Your grade school version of history is a LIE perpetrated by the victors. Nothing more.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Kalkin (10-10-2017)
“Conscientiously believing that the proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjection to the white man, and entertaining the belief that the day is not distant when the old Union will be restored with slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of African descent, and in view of the future harmony and progress of all the States of America, I have been induced to issue this address, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future”
- Jefferson Davis
What you're failing to understand, anachronistically, is the state's rights the Confederacy fought for is not the same state's rights young southern Republicans stood for when they ran racist Democrats out of office thoughout the south. State's rights leading up to the Civil War had to do with the states standing between the federal government and the people. The federal goverment was growing ever more unconsititutional and people like Calhoun, Davis, Stephens, and others aimed to protect the rights of the people from it. The article I posted explains this. So does post 9 http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...=1#post2175800.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
resister (10-10-2017)
“Conscientiously believing that the proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjection to the white man, and entertaining the belief that the day is not distant when the old Union will be restored with slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of African descent, and in view of the future harmony and progress of all the States of America, I have been induced to issue this address, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future”
- Jefferson Davis
Aren't "progressive" Democrats always telling us that federal law is sacrosanct? That it must be obeyed? If so, then why are they objecting to southern secession, which was predicated on the north's blatant violation and repudiation of federal laws? Doesn't it stand to reason that a contract violated is a contract nullified? I mean, what's the point of remaining in a contract that isn't being adhered to by your counter parties?
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Safety (10-11-2017)