I'm late to the party and probably way under gunned to wade into this, but what the Hell.
It would seem to me that all the efforts made to show slavery as a primary cause for the secession of the CSA should be moot due to the fact that at the time of secession, slavery was still legal and was in fact, still in practice in various parts of the world.
I'm not as knowledgeable as many here on this thread about the full reasoning behind the secession of the CSA. Being born in the North, I'm not steeped in the history like many of of my Southern brothers likely are/were. I simply learned what was fed to me during my education, which was thankfully started long enough ago to have escaped the last 3 decades of revisionism and still contain some truths. With an open mind and a pair of willing ears, I've added a bit more knowledge over time.
Again, slavery was legal at the time. Was it immoral? Yes, but since it was legal, I have no problem with it being included in the list of freedoms that the South was trying to preserve.
As to the issue of States' Rights, what we're seeing happen in our Federal courts is a result of the loss of States' Rights and being ruled by a more local government.
edit to add-
After re-reading my post, I realize that as usual, I failed to make my point, which is-
When slavery is pointed to as one of the reasons behind the South's secession, it's meant to be looked at as a smear. Something ugly to make the South appear to be on the wrong side of things. My take is that since it was legal at the time and in fact, common throughout the world, it's moot point and simply an attempt at smearing the South by looking at it with modern emotions that are often confused with reason.
Last edited by bruinruin; 06/30/15.
