If said state rights (other than the right to own slaves, that is) were *so* important, why weren't they more properly protected in their governing document. One would think that'd top the list of "changes to make" if that's why they were seceding.
see you're thinking like a federalist, states righters believed that the national government had no power not explicitely stated
. they didnt defend states rights because, in their view, they didnt need to.
Absolutely right. THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES, nothing more. The Confederate Constitution hardly addresses states rights beyond slavery. It speaks volumes.
you're trying to spend two sides of the same coin, just because slavery was a part of their issue does not mean it was the WHOLE issue.
the first of which (they're below us, let them work) seems to have no connections to your above "points".
that you cannot see the connection is shocking.
Your initial assertion was that "the civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery".
yes, and I've done a fancy nice job protecting it, although you seem to be blissfully ignorant of the subtle distinctions in this argument that I keep highlighting, and you keep glossing over.
I don't see how you can read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and come away with that impression.
because you're reading into a small section of the document focused on slavery, while you're completely ignorant of the wholistic meaning.
If all I get is "you're not making a logical argument" when I'm pointing you to the period documents I'm basing my argument on
thats a pattern you've just begin to do, for that I congradulate you. hooray, you listened.
But, in any case, I seem to have lapsed in judgment bothering to argue with you at all
its your argument that contains the lack in judgement.
again, the whole issue with anyone who claims the civil war was about slavery is the matter of their line of focus. yes, slavery was a major contributer to the war, yes the south and the north where schized over slavery, no the civil war could not have been avoided by the total acquiescence of one side to the other on this subject alone
. If you bothered to read past the first few lines of any of the documents you cited you would notice that slavery was merely the mask for a far deeper conflict than simply property rights. Until you do more than read the first couple of cliffnotes about a document you will be completely unable to argue with me, so yes, this was a bad idea of yours.