Re: War....
Geoschmo,
Well, here we have the same disagreement more than a century after the war is over. Amendment X is in plain English, I don't see how you can misinterpret it. I suppose this issue will come up again, as the Federal government grows more and more tyrranical some states are likely to secede again one day, though not in the immediate future with this crisis. I expect some of the Western states to try before this century is over, though.
Here's an interesting test: If the issue had NOT been slavery, if there were no slaves in the South, do you think the North would have fought the Civil War to keep those states in the Union? I don't think so.
Cyrien,
I was not aware that slavery was "protected" anywhere in the Constitution. The only mention that I was aware of was the "three-fifths compromise" that made slaves count as three people for every five slaves in the calculation of population for representation. I would hardly call that "protection". Where else is slavery mentioned?
Ok, I didn't have an actual copy of Lincoln's platform so I didn't know the legal niceties of it. But anyway, he was definitely out to end slavery if by a more gradual means than directly outlawing it. Some have held otherwise because of his legal maneuvers around Emancipation.
Finally, though, I'd hardly call the Mexican War the 'spark'. More than a decade passed before the war broke out. The new territories increased the pressure, but it was the Dred Scott decision that shattered the political landscape. John Brown's raid didn't help, either, of course.
[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 15 September 2001).]
|