@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Sorry, but you done missed the point. The Southerners themselves in 1860 said the South's attempted secession was about racism and slavery.
And, for that matter, you can't even comprehend the point of your own post.
Quote:Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
This is about a breach of contract and the willful denial of their constitutional rights, not slavery, per se.
When one side breaches a contract, the other is relieved from any obligation to perform their end of the bargain. South Carolina is making the case for it's secession here, not for slavery. As with sanctuary cities today, the northern states were deliberately subverting the constitution and federal laws passed by the national congress. What good it is to participate in a national law-making effort, or a governing constitution, if it will all just be ignored?
Slavery was unjustified, but that aint even the point here.
By the way, Lincoln himself said he would gladly preserve slavery if it would prevent the dissolution of the union.
And, for that matter, the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT "free the slaves." On the contrary, it expressly guaranteed that slavery would be allowed in every state that quit resisting.
Old Glory is therefore ONLY a symbol of slavery, eh?