[Sonart]

.

Quote by: zynner It was started over economic issues (taxation), not slavery.

No taxation without representation, eh? Well, I suppose if you're going to rewrite history, it helps to use the right role model.

Quote by: zynner The CSA even outlawed the importation of slaves. By 1860, slavery was being eliminated all over the world. Within that context, it doesn't even make sense to think the war was "about slavery."

The IMPORTATION of slaves. Not the sale or ownership. The CSA desperately wanted Great Britain to recognize their government, and Britain was virilently anti-slavery. Just wouldn't do to have the British Navy breaking the Federal Naval Blockade in the service of slave ships. Which was a moot point anyway, since Lincoln trumped the South with the Emancipation Proclamation, thus keeping the British from recognizing the South.

And while slavery was being eliminated all over the world, it was not being eliminated in the South because the Southern economy depended on it, regardless of whether abolitionist sentiment was sloooooooooooooooooooooowwwly gaining some support.

Quote by: zynner The Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris (1783), Articles of Confederation and US Constitution all recognized the states as sovereign entities. The 10th Amendment clarifies that any power not delegated to the feds are reserved to the states and people.

Yeah, I daresay the Declaration of Independence justifies rebellion since it was a declaration OF rebellion. Much has been made regarding the 2nd Amendment, that the Founders saw it as a guarantee of the rights of citizens to rebel against their own government. I'm sure the Founders would feel comfortable paying such lip service, since they'd already claimed the moral authority to rebel against their previous (British) government. I also daresay, however, that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al would not have continanced armed rebellion against THEIR governments. Odd how things change when the shoe of authority is on the other foot.

The 10th Amendment??? That's a bit of a stretch, zynner.

Quote by: zynner Lincoln had no authority to decide the issue, so his speech is irrelevant.

Sure he did....

Article II; Section 2 -- "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Article I; Section 8 -- "The Congress shall have power... to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

Quote by: zynner Not one.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves from Confederate states, and since many slaves who escaped from those states were employed as free men in the service of the Union Army, you could make an arguement that made just as much sense as saying the 10th Amendment authorised secession.

.