Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous.
Here's the rub. Those "few people" were their elected leaders, who had held a lock grip on Southern policy and politics since before the original Revolution, and in terms of their Constitution defined who they collectively were to a degree far in excess of anything imposed by Presidential decree today.
Right, the elected leaders. Always representative of their electorate. Check.
By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it.
If Obama and his clique had written all these things into the very Constitution I was called upon to defend, you might have a point.
Birdwatcher
So what was exactly written in the US Constitution which allowed Lincoln to invade the south among other things?
The justification for the invasion of the south was spun with no less subterfuge than Øbama and his ilk spin the current state of affairs.
Sorry BW, but the slavery issue, like so many others, should have been dealt with in a societal arena not by force or legislature.
You agreeing with the actions of Lincoln certainly don't make both of you right. In fact, your willingness to superimpose yourself in that fight, given just the info you provide, is down right stupid.
