[Jack Black]

You say: On the contrary, for those pushing succession it was always about slavery at the bottom of everything else. They knew Lincoln's position was to allow no more slave states, and they believed if they didn't suceed free states would have such a numerical advantage in Congress that it would ultimately lead to abolition. Whether that was actually Lincoln's design is debatable. Whether the leaders of the secessionist movement believed it was is not. Just read the speeches of the secessionist leaders.

So, would not the Southern States, whose economy depended on slavery be justified in leaving a Union they had joined voluntarily with slavery a basic foundation of it, when a certain segment decided to fundamentally change the basic axioms of the agreement?

Answer carefully. Because the Obamunists are equally outraged over "white privilege" "anti-gay" feelings, and a cornucopia of imagined outrages. If you resist are you a rebel traitor?

[Hugin]

So, would not the Southern States, whose economy depended on slavery be justified in leaving a Union they had joined voluntarily with slavery a basic foundation of it, when a certain segment decided to fundamentally change the basic axioms of the agreement?

Not in my opinion. When they joined the Union the individual states surrendered certain powers to the Federal government. One of the features of the constitution they agreed to is that it can be changed by the means described. That includes being able to abolish slavery. As for secession, the constitution does make any allowance for that, and common sense says you couldn't run a country where every state has the option to leave anytime they don't like what the current policy is.

[knarf]

woof !

I am meditating on that reply ... thanx for the gymnastics