https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Not sure how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery after reading what the seceding states actually said.

Obviously the South saw slavery as the basis of its economic system.

Lincoln and the Republican Party did as well….and had no objection to its continued existence.

They even offered the Corwin Amendment to make explicit the United States Constitution's protection of slavery.

But slavery was not the cause of the war…secession was the cause of the war.

Lincoln simply would not let the Southern States leave and create a new nation.

He did not care if they held slaves

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

["Almost from the beginning of his administration, abolitionists and small faction of radical Republicans pressured Abraham Lincoln to move against slavery. Although Lincoln personally disliked the institution, he felt completely confined by his constitutional duties as president, and convinced that he had no legal authority to outlaw slavery. He also worried about the reactions of those in the loyal border states where slavery was legal. Lincoln is said to have summed up the importance of keeping the border states in the Union by saying "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky."]

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? It might be technically correct, when someone says, "why did that person go to jail" to say "they did something illegal," but we all know they are asking about the root issue. When people are talking about the Civil War, they are correct to say it was primarily over slavery. Economics, yes, States' rights, yes. Economics, losing slavery would financially destroy the South. States' rights, the right to own slaves.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

No, secession was not illegal.

In 1861 when the Southern States voted to leave there had never been a single law passed by Congress that forbid secession, never a single Constitutional amendment, or single Supreme Court case that forbid secession.


How can something be illegal is there is not law against it?

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

[Immediately after Lincoln's election as president, the following statements appeared in the New York Tribune, "we say, in all earnestness and good faith, whenever a whole section of this Republic, whether a half, a third, or only a fourth, shall truly desire and demand a separation from the residue, we shall earnestly favor such separation...If the Union be really oppressive or unjust to the South nay, if the South really believes it so we insist that a decent self-respect should impel the North to say, we think you (are) utterly mistaken, but you have right to judge for yourselves; so go if you will."

~ The Life of Charles A. Dana by James Harrison Wilson, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1907, p. 163]

Why is so much butthurt exhausted on this?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Why is so much butthurt exhausted on this?

---

One-eyed wheeler always just drops in to start a thread about slavery being the cause of the civil war then runs off and does not participate in the discussion.

Its very strange

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. Abe Lincoln to H Greenley

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

No, secession was not illegal.

In 1861 when the Southern States voted to leave there had never been a single law passed by Congress that forbid secession, never a single Constitutional amendment, or single Supreme Court case that forbid secession.


How can something be illegal is there is not law against it?

---

They attacked the Union claiming to be a separate entity. The question of constitutionality has never been answered, but from the little I know, because there is no Constitutional way for a state to leave the Union, it seems there would need to be mutual agreement, else risk one side calling it treason. And they gad a good case for treason, and did bring charges. Later dropped because they were afraid of an acquittal, which would have put the justification of the war in jeopardy.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become slave-masters.] -Abraham Lincoln

"When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." -Abraham Lincoln

---

Skirting the issue, and you really didn't address the OP at all.

---

Not at all.

He said "how one can argue the cause of the civil wasn't over slavery"

Because the war was not over slavery.

It was over secession.

A very very important distinction.

Had Lincoln let the Southern States become independent there would have been no war.

Lincoln and the Federal government did not use military force to stop the Southern States from owing slaves (they had no issue with that)…they used force to keep them in the Federal Union.

P.S

He did NOT ask the question "how one can argue the cause of secession wasn't over slavery"

---

He said the cause of the Civil War. Seceding was illegal, right? .

---

No, secession was not illegal.

In 1861 when the Southern States voted to leave there had never been a single law passed by Congress that forbid secession, never a single Constitutional amendment, or single Supreme Court case that forbid secession.


How can something be illegal is there is not law against it?

---

The question of constitutionality has never been answered

---

It has if you believe in the reasoning of Texas v White

But that was not until much later in 1869.


In Jan of 1861 when the Southern States began to vote to leave the Union there was no law against secession, no Supreme Court case against it, and no constitutional amendment against it.

And you don't need a "process" to exercise your rights.


The States freely entered into the Federal Union. It makes perfect sense they felt they could freely leave it

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and which side was ' wrong '.





E. The South lost. Game over.

4th and Inches said:

---

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. Abe Lincoln to H Greenley

---

"I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all." -Abraham Lincoln (July 10, 1858: Speech at Chicago, Illinois)

" I have never sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State shall emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing." -Abraham Lincoln, (October 15, 1858: Seventh and Last Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Alton, Illinois)

KaiBear said:

---

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and and which side was ' wrong '.





E. The South lost. Game over.

---

A decent summary.

But I think most Southerners were actually surprised the North would fight a war to keep them in the Union.

Even in the North, during the first few months of the crisis, there was no general consensus that they should be held in the Union by force of arms.

That was Lincoln's genius (or folly) that he was able to rally the Northern States to war to "preserve the Union"

Mary Chesnut said people in the South were generally shocked the North was going to war to prevent their independence.

"I think incompatibility of temper began when it was made plain to us that we get all the opprobrium of slavery while they, with their tariff, get the money there is in it."
Mary Boykin Chesnut

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and and which side was ' wrong '.





E. The South lost. Game over.

---

A decent summary.

But I think most Southerns were actually surprised the North would fight a war to keep them in the Union.

Even in the North during the first few months of the crisis there was no general consensus that they should be held in the Union by force of arms.

That was Lincoln's genius (or folly) that he was able to rally the Northern States to war to "preserve the Union"

---

Educated Southerners and the regions wealthy elite often did business in the North and or sent their children to universities in the North.

They were not surprised at all that Northerns would fight and fight hard.

Ex. Sam Houston, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee

Lincoln was no genius of any kind. The North won because of its enormous advantages in population, industrial might and railroad mileage.

The North could have simply avoided the war via compensation to southern slave owners like the British did throughout their Empire. But slavery was merely the hammer with which to subordinate the South economically for an entire century.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Every few months the Civil War gets rehashed around here.



Bottom line




A. Economically the South had little choice but to risk going to war with northern abolitionists as a disproportionate amount of southern capital was tied up in slaves

B. Educated southerners realized that without aid from England and France the South stood little chance of winning a protracted war with the North

C. The North effectively destroyed the South and it took almost a century for the region to recover.

D. Winners write the overwhelming number of history books of any war and so dominate later interpretations of which side was ' right ' and and which side was ' wrong '.





E. The South lost. Game over.

---

A decent summary.

But I think most Southerns were actually surprised the North would fight a war to keep them in the Union.

Even in the North during the first few months of the crisis there was no general consensus that they should be held in the Union by force of arms.

That was Lincoln's genius (or folly) that he was able to rally the Northern States to war to "preserve the Union"

---

Educated Southerners and the regions wealthy elite often did business in the North and or sent their children to universities in the North.

They were not surprised at all that Northerns would fight and fight hard.

Ex. Sam Houston,

---

Yea, Sam Houston was not surprised

He tried to warn Texans that Northerners were cold, methodical, determined, and could be vicious

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Why is so much butthurt exhausted on this?

---

One-eyed wheeler always just drops in to start a thread about slavery being the cause of the civil war then runs off and does not participate in the discussion.

Its very strange

---

He has been around for about a year. He is another name changer. I believe this is his first Civil War thread to start under his current name.

It is kind of an interesting question as to why the United States would attack the Confederacy to preserve the union. Did it really get much out of the 1/2 million young men's lives? Was it worth the cost to the United States?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Why is so much butthurt exhausted on this?

---

One-eyed wheeler always just drops in to start a thread about slavery being the cause of the civil war then runs off and does not participate in the discussion.

Its very strange

---

He has been around for about a year. He is another name changer. I believe this is his first Civil War thread to start under his current name.

---

You are probably right.

I thought he has done another but I of course could be wrong

Redbrickbear said:

---

Obviously the South saw slavery as the basis of its economic system.

Lincoln and the Republican Party did as well….and had no objection to its continued existence.

They even offered the Corwin Amendment to make explicit the United States Constitution's protection of slavery.

But slavery was not the cause of the war…secession was the cause of the war.

Lincoln simply would not let the Southern States leave and create a new nation.

He did not care if they held slaves

---

Completely untrue. I continually roll my eyes at those of you that keep insisting slavery wasn't the issue.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is kind of an interesting question as to why the United States would attack the Confederacy to preserve the union. Did it really get much out of the 1/2 million young men's lives? Was it worth the cost to the United States?

---

Was certainly worth the cost to the North.

Secured economic, political and cultural dominance for decades.

One-Eyed Wheeler said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Obviously the South saw slavery as the basis of its economic system.

Lincoln and the Republican Party did as well….and had no objection to its continued existence.

They even offered the Corwin Amendment to make explicit the United States Constitution's protection of slavery.

But slavery was not the cause of the war…secession was the cause of the war.

Lincoln simply would not let the Southern States leave and create a new nation.

He did not care if they held slaves

---

Completely untrue. I continually roll my eyes at those of you that keep insisting slavery wasn't the issue.

---

LOL

Yours is the confidence born of an uncluttered mind.

Still more evidence how Joe Biden has 'earned your vote'.

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is kind of an interesting question as to why the United States would attack the Confederacy to preserve the union. Did it really get much out of the 1/2 million young men's lives? Was it worth the cost to the United States?

---

Oh now you think it is worth discussing?

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

The War Between the States from the North's perspective was from start to finish about forcing the rebellious Southern States that had seceded to re-join the Union. From the South's perspective, it was from start to finish about defending the new nation they had established through secession.

Abolishing slavery became an additional war objective for Lincoln and the North during the war and was made official by the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation - after almost 2 years of bloody fighting. And it's noteworthy that at the time this action was controversial in the North and not universally embraced, but it nonetheless added ending slavery as an additional objective.

Bottom line, abolishing slavery became a part of what the war was about, but the popular notion that the war was some start to finish grand crusade by the North to free the slaves is a myth.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process, what would it look like if 49 said no? Would the 1 state post this jpg at its borders and say cya!

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Within this nation, a nation built on rebellion, we argue the legality of …(checks note) rebellion.

---

Yep,

Can American colonies break off from Britain? Yes

Can Texas break off from Mexico? Yes

Can the Southern States break off from the USA? Nooooooooo!!!!

---

Freely enter the States? No, the existing states have to accept any new state. And all state representatives take oaths to protect the Union, so it makes sense that leaving willy nilly is a violation of that oath, and the only way to leave being as amicable of an exit as entry.

---

---

How is that relevant? Are you saying you share that sentiment? So if 1 state wanted to secede, you think all the others should be ok with it? Since there is no process…!

---

Just interesting that "kill them if they leave" was not necessarily the majority opinion of Northerners in 1861


Again you are very interested in the idea of a "process"…but you don't need a process to assert your rights. And the right to independence is the great right of all

Johnny Bear said:

---

The War Between the States from the North's perspective was from start to finish about forcing the rebellious Southern States that had seceded to re-join the Union. From the South's perspective, it was from start to finish about defending the new nation they had established through secession.

Abolishing slavery became an additional war objective for Lincoln and the North during the war and was made official by the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation - after almost 2 years of bloody fighting. And it's noteworthy that at the time this action was controversial in the North and not universally embraced, but it nonetheless added ending slavery as an additional objective.

Bottom line, abolishing slavery became a part of what the war was about, but the popular notion that the war was some start to finish grand crusade by the North to free the slaves is a myth.

---

Excellent summary


That short statement should be required reading by our modern politicians, academics, and school students