I'm also in agreement with you that a state is within its rights to secede, especially if its believes the rights of its citizenry and the state are being trampled by an immoral central government. Signing off on the Declaration of Independence and ratifying the Constitution were not a perpetual suicide pact once the country as a whole went off the rails. That is the definition of totalitarianism rather than a free association.
The “deal” between the central government and the states themselves should be a mutually beneficial one. Once it fails to be so, there should be a redress. Secession must be an option if it is an irreconcilable difference.
I will add (as well) that going by natural human rights, that slaves (slaves by heredity, not due to agreement they themselves signed, a la indentured servitude, which was a legal and moral agreement) also were worthy of the right to self-determination as well. They themselves were morally justified to utilize any manner and method to escape involuntary servitude. This was the double-edged sword that faced the South, yes the central government had their boot on their throats, but the South in turn had their boot on the throat of a substantial minority or (in the case of Mississippi and South Carolina) an outright majority of their own non-White population. They had the right to their own freedom and independence.
I will add (as well) that going by natural human rights, that slaves (slaves by heredity, not due to agreement they themselves signed, a la indentured servitude, which was a legal and moral agreement) also were worthy of the right to self-determination as well.
I agree, which is why I have always had a problem with the message sent* by the Civil War; "You use force to control people, so we will use force to control you."
It establishes the premise that oppression/control is legitimate if you have sufficient power to accomplish it.
If we believe that people don't have the right to force obedience on other people, we should not be trying to force obedience on other people.
They themselves were morally justified to utilize any manner and method to escape involuntary servitude.
No one has an obligation to remain someone else's servant against their will.
the South in turn had their boot on the throat of a substantial minority or (in the case of Mississippi and South Carolina) an outright majority of their own non-White population. They had the right to their own freedom and independence. They had the right to their own freedom and independence.
Yes they did, and I think eventually an appeal to reason would have worked. (especially after the profitability had been greatly reduced.)
I have studied the evolution of abolition in America, and I have read of how the idea mostly began (with Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration) and started a preference cascade initially in the North East, but one which faltered more and more as it traveled further south, hitting resistance from the profit motive. Never the less, it was making steady progress, based mostly on societal disapproval, and even in the South where it was most profitable, Charles Dickens reported of numerous families who owned slaves lamenting the fact, and trying to figure out ways to disinvest themselves from the institution without getting too badly hurt.
I think given time, the social pressure against it would continue to gain states incrementally, until it finally broke through in the deeper South where the practice was more profitable. I also think the mechanized alternatives would have eventually undercut it's profitability to the point where the Social pressures would have made it "not worth it." And then it would have collapsed.
I have numerous times opined that Slavery would likely have lasted between 20 and 80 years longer, but would have eventually expired naturally as an institution within that time frame.
But the question for those who believe the war was primarily about slavery is this: Was it worth the bloodshed and destruction to not have to wait that long? Why, after "four score and seven years" of legal slavery in the United States, did it suddenly become more intolerable than it was in the previous 87 years? (Longer if your count the time it existed while we were Colonies of Britain.)
Was it worth the creation of the Federal leviathan that has been dominating us ever since, and which is the source of so much of our current troubles?
.
.
. *The message that most people claim was sent by it. I now believe the message that was actually sent was "Mess with the flow of money into the Empire of New York/Washington DC, and we will send armies to destroy you."