End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Derscon]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

No, urnotright. Try reading the OP.

I did. Twice, actually. In fact, after you posting this, I read it a third time.

Anyone who claims there are no nuances in history is just flat wrong. Period.

[Maurepas]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

[The Cat-Tribe]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

[Maurepas]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Interestingly enough Alexander Stephens publicly broke with the CS Government because of that...

[Buffett and Colbert]

How I've missed these.

[The Cat-Tribe]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

Setting aside the focus of the Declarations of Secession and other evidence I presented, why does the CSA Constitution expressly deny states the "right" to decide whether or not to allow slavery?

[The Cat-Tribe]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Interestingly enough Alexander Stephens publicly broke with the CS Government because of that...

Um, care to back that up with some evidence?

[Panzerjaeger]

Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!

Zeppy you pinko.

Well, my right beats your left!
The Confederacy..is interesting to me to say the least.

The whole Civil War is interesting to me I had family on both sides of the conflict my room easily highlights this. Confederate Battle Flag one side and a Northern Calvary Sabre awarded to a distant uncle.

Proof you be a soulless rebel.
Repent your Confederate sins, son, and you too may be saved by the Union wage slavery.

Sherman is a personal hero shouldn't that be redemption enough?

[Muravyets]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The Confederacy was the formal aggressor because the waters and military properties they claimed had been the legal property of the whole United States of America until a subset of that nation decided to take for their exclusive use what had been available for the use of all Americans. Essentially, they were attempting unilaterally to convert "ours" into "theirs."

If they had managed to secede successfully by political means and to gain control of those waters and facilities by grant or treaty of the nation they had left, and then the Union invaded, you would have an argument. But they didn't do that. They just tried to take the territory, like thieves, and they failed.

To be clear though, would you consider the Continental Congress thieves? If you do, then I have no argument with your assessment...

Legally, yes, I suppose they were. The fact that the territories in question were an ocean away from the nation that owned them is what makes me less certain of that, but as a general proposition, I'd say, yes, they were doing the same thing -- taking away control of the colonies from the prior lawful owner, i.e. the British government.

To me, the issue over whether a rebellion is right or wrong is not in its actions -- which unavoidably break the law -- but in its goals. The Revolutionaries sought to end oppression against themselves and open up civil liberties to more people. They broke the law in order to do that.

However, the Confederate Rebels sought to continue imposing oppression upon other people and deny liberty and rights to a set of people. And they broke the law in order to do that.

In both cases, each war was about oppression, and in my opinion, the right side won in both cases.

[Maurepas]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Interestingly enough Alexander Stephens publicly broke with the CS Government because of that...

Um, care to back that up with some evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_ ... onfederacy

In 1862, Stephens first publicly expressed his opposition to the Davis administration.[1] Throughout the war he denounced many of the president's policies, including conscription, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, impressment, various financial and taxation policies, and Davis' military strategy.

In mid-1863, Davis dispatched Stephens on a fruitless mission to Washington to discuss prisoner exchanges, but in the immediate aftermath of the Federal victory of Gettysburg, the Lincoln administration refused to receive him. As the war continued, and the fortunes of the Confederacy sank lower, Stephens became more outspoken in his opposition to the administration. On March 16, 1864, Stephens delivered a speech to the Georgia legislature that was widely reported both North and South. In it, he excoriated the Davis administration for its support of conscription and suspension of habeas corpus, and further, he supported a block of resolutions aimed at securing peace. From then until the end of the war, as he continued to press for actions aimed at bringing about peace, his relations with Davis, never warm to begin with, turned completely sour.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

[Raul Caribe]

now im not supporting slavery here just the way were told the stories growing up in the south.

When the US Constitution was adopted and the Union formed slavery existed in practically all the States. To the south laws the took away their slaves what they conside4red their property were illegal. so although slaves may very well have been the root cause of the states rights issues, to them it was the rights of the states and since slaves were the hot topic of the time the slavery laws were in the forefront of all debates.

the way i see it is the OP is correct it was over slaves but the idea of slavery was not illegal at the time so the root cause was the right of the states.
but it is funny that the south had volunteer black units a full 2 years before the north had them. But that aside the south also had the alliance with 7 different Indian nations (colored race) against the North. As well as the non-white Hispanics (colored race)of the gulf coast areas of the south and Texas.

Basically the only thing that really validates the op is over a hundred years passing by allowing moral standards of the people to interrupt the laws of that time differently.

so YES it was about slaves, But the slave issue was a states rights issue. so a person can say it either way and still be right. saying it was over slaves is just a way to make the south look like racists. and saying it was over states rights is trying to glorify the Southern cause.

i prefer saying it was over the States rights to have slaves which up until i think 2 1/2 years after the war started was still legal.

[Maurepas]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The Confederacy was the formal aggressor because the waters and military properties they claimed had been the legal property of the whole United States of America until a subset of that nation decided to take for their exclusive use what had been available for the use of all Americans. Essentially, they were attempting unilaterally to convert "ours" into "theirs."

If they had managed to secede successfully by political means and to gain control of those waters and facilities by grant or treaty of the nation they had left, and then the Union invaded, you would have an argument. But they didn't do that. They just tried to take the territory, like thieves, and they failed.

To be clear though, would you consider the Continental Congress thieves? If you do, then I have no argument with your assessment...

Legally, yes, I suppose they were. The fact that the territories in question were an ocean away from the nation that owned them is what makes me less certain of that, but as a general proposition, I'd say, yes, they were doing the same thing -- taking away control of the colonies from the prior lawful owner, i.e. the British government.

To me, the issue over whether a rebellion is right or wrong is not in its actions -- which unavoidably break the law -- but in its goals. The Revolutionaries sought to end oppression against themselves and open up civil liberties to more people. They broke the law in order to do that.

However, the Confederate Rebels sought to continue imposing oppression upon other people and deny liberty and rights to a set of people. And they broke the law in order to do that.

In both cases, each war was about oppression, and in my opinion, the right side won in both cases.

Like I said, I can't objectively disagree then...

[South Lorenya]

OP: You forgot the parts about the grass being green, the sky being blue, the pope being catholic...

[Muravyets]

Mur, what the fuck happened to that last post of yours? o.O

EDIT: Nevermind.

Yeah, damn spoiler thingies. I can't get them right if the hidden post is really big. There's always some little monkey wrench I can't find.

[Maurepas]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

[Muravyets]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

Well, there you go then. They made their choice. There's another old saying: "If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas."

[The Cat-Tribe]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Interestingly enough Alexander Stephens publicly broke with the CS Government because of that...

Um, care to back that up with some evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_ ... onfederacy

In 1862, Stephens first publicly expressed his opposition to the Davis administration.[1] Throughout the war he denounced many of the president's policies, including conscription, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, impressment, various financial and taxation policies, and Davis' military strategy.

In mid-1863, Davis dispatched Stephens on a fruitless mission to Washington to discuss prisoner exchanges, but in the immediate aftermath of the Federal victory of Gettysburg, the Lincoln administration refused to receive him. As the war continued, and the fortunes of the Confederacy sank lower, Stephens became more outspoken in his opposition to the administration. On March 16, 1864, Stephens delivered a speech to the Georgia legislature that was widely reported both North and South. In it, he excoriated the Davis administration for its support of conscription and suspension of habeas corpus, and further, he supported a block of resolutions aimed at securing peace. From then until the end of the war, as he continued to press for actions aimed at bringing about peace, his relations with Davis, never warm to begin with, turned completely sour.

1. Doesn't say anything about tariffs.

2. Compared to other sources this Wiki summary is suspect, but note the point that VP Stephens was a MODERATE, whose relations with Davis allegedly soured because Stephens was too supportive of pursuing peace with the North. How this in any way reflects on our discusssion is baffling.

[Muravyets]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

No, urnotright. Try reading the OP.

I did. Twice, actually. In fact, after you posting this, I read it a third time.

Anyone who claims there are no nuances in history is just flat wrong. Period.

I'll be sure to mention that if I see anyone doing that.

[The Cat-Tribe]

now im not supporting slavery here just the way were told the stories growing up in the south.

When the US Constitution was adopted and the Union formed slavery existed in practically all the States. To the south laws the took away their slaves what they conside4red their property were illegal. so although slaves may very well have been the root cause of the states rights issues, to them it was the rights of the states and since slaves were the hot topic of the time the slavery laws were in the forefront of all debates.

the way i see it is the OP is correct it was over slaves but the idea of slavery was not illegal at the time so the root cause was the right of the states.
but it is funny that the south had volunteer black units a full 2 years before the north had them. But that aside the south also had the alliance with 7 different Indian nations (colored race) against the North. As well as the non-white Hispanics (colored race)of the gulf coast areas of the south and Texas.

Basically the only thing that really validates the op is over a hundred years passing by allowing moral standards of the people to interrupt the laws of that time differently.

so YES it was about slaves, But the slave issue was a states rights issue. so a person can say it either way and still be right. saying it was over slaves is just a way to make the south look like racists. and saying it was over states rights is trying to glorify the Southern cause.

i prefer saying it was over the States rights to have slaves which up until i think 2 1/2 years after the war started was still legal.

One of the many problems with your line of thought is that the CSA Constitution didn't recognize any "state's right" regarding slavery (or on any other matter of importance).

[Maurepas]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Interestingly enough Alexander Stephens publicly broke with the CS Government because of that...

Um, care to back that up with some evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_ ... onfederacy

In 1862, Stephens first publicly expressed his opposition to the Davis administration.[1] Throughout the war he denounced many of the president's policies, including conscription, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, impressment, various financial and taxation policies, and Davis' military strategy.

In mid-1863, Davis dispatched Stephens on a fruitless mission to Washington to discuss prisoner exchanges, but in the immediate aftermath of the Federal victory of Gettysburg, the Lincoln administration refused to receive him. As the war continued, and the fortunes of the Confederacy sank lower, Stephens became more outspoken in his opposition to the administration. On March 16, 1864, Stephens delivered a speech to the Georgia legislature that was widely reported both North and South. In it, he excoriated the Davis administration for its support of conscription and suspension of habeas corpus, and further, he supported a block of resolutions aimed at securing peace. From then until the end of the war, as he continued to press for actions aimed at bringing about peace, his relations with Davis, never warm to begin with, turned completely sour.

1. Doesn't say anything about tariffs.

2. Compared to other sources this Wiki summary is suspect, but note the point that VP Stephens was a MODERATE, whose relations with Davis allegedly soured because Stephens was too supportive of pursuing peace with the North. How this in any way reflects on our discusssion is baffling.

"Various financial and taxation policies", what else but tariffs could be being referred to?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

[Maurepas]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

Well, there you go then. They made their choice. There's another old saying: "If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas."

Fair enough, that just goes fundamentally against my way of thinking, upbringing probably plays a role in that...

[The Cat-Tribe]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. Most, if not all, of her arguments were about secession being about slavery, not the war itself. Her one source was just a ground troop, whose opinion is basically irrelevant, and a speech by Davis basically saying "Yes, I'm a racist." Hardly significant claims as to "THE WAR WAS ALL ABOUT WHIPPING DEM NEGROS." Which it wasn't, by the way.

> People shrugging the war off with a "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

I stopped reading this paragraph after you just dismissed revisionism. That shows you don't know anything about history.

If you're not dismissing historical 'revisionism' as a legitimate practice, I apologize and will continue this track of discussion.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Agreed. This is silly.

> People even trotting out that whole "the winners write the history" claptrap, as if the slavery issue is somehow a myth, as if the documents the OP quotes were not written by leaders of the Confederacy.

Well... winners do tend to write the prevailing doctrine of history. You scoffing that doesn't make it not true, nor does the prevailing theme simply being the prevailing theme make it true.

I gather your are attempting to make a distinction between the cause for secession and formation of the Confederacy and the cause of the Civil War. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a valid distinction, what then was the war about?

[Muravyets]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

Well, there you go then. They made their choice. There's another old saying: "If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas."

Fair enough, that just goes fundamentally against my way of thinking, upbringing probably plays a role in that...

I refer you back to my example about the Hypothetical Abortion Opponent who, in one case, is totally unconnected to people who murder doctors because it is wrong, but who, in the other case, joins forces with doctor-murderers in order to advance his anti-abortion agenda. By choosing to align himself with a group that does wrong, he acquires the guilt of their actions. Merely not participating personally himself is not enough to keep him innocent. But if he keeps himself entirely separate from and opposed to that group, then he can be as anti-choice as he wants and never earn the label of "supporter of murder."

My argument is that there is no blame in wanting to secede, no blame in opposing the government, etc. But there is blame in aligning oneself with slave-owners, and merely claiming that one personally opposes slavery will not erase the actions one takes in defense of slavery.

EDIT: We all do what we think we have to do. But then we have to man or woman up and pay the price for our decisions. Those who said they opposed slavery but still aligned themselves with a pro-slavery government because they disliked the federal government more, frankly, have no one to blame but themselves if slavery is now their legacy.