perhaps, but would there have been a revolution of independence without that language
Well, there certainly WAS a revolution without that language. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the American Revolution ended in 1783.
i seem to remember a bit of history where the south was dead against abolition of slavery and would not join a government coalition (originally our nation was a confederation not a federal republic) that abolished slavery
As we see from your last question, you obviously failed history. The South AND the North were dead against Abolition. In fact, Lincoln would not even discuss the possibility while campaigning for president. When he was pressed to explain his feelings on the subject, he made it very clear that he "never thought the negro should hold public office or live among white people." The nation was indeed a "coalition" of nations, or a "confederacy" as opposed to a "federation", and this was precisely why the Southern states seceded from the Union. They felt "federalization" was an affront to what the Founding Fathers intended, and indeed, it was.
what the founding fathers did was defer the issue of slavery when the nation/constitution and federal republic were formed/drafted
The "federal" republic did not come about until the Civil War. The Founding Fathers were opposed to "federalized" government, and made that very clear when they wrote the 10th Amendment. They did not address the issue of slavery, which is why they are solely to blame for slavery in America. The US Supreme Court, prior to the Civil War, had ruled that slaves were "personal property" (and consequently, subject to Constitutional rights of protection of personal property from illegal seizure by the government.) This was many years before the CSA was ever dreamed of.
the result as a divided nation and a civil war
The nation was never divided over the issue of slavery. We were not a federalized nation, we were individual states, some of these states had slaves, and some didn't. A minority of people in the nation, were "abolitionists" and had lobbied for the outlawing of slavery, but the vast majority of Americans were either opposed to this, or indifferent.
currently, we have is a divided nation over the issue of abortion (and to a lessor extent homosexuality)
Here you make the mistake of drawing some historical parallel between these current issues and the issue of slavery, and that is an invalid perspective. In terms of percentage of support, it could be likened to the issue of polygamy today, about the same percentage of Americans favor polygamy, as were "abolitionists" in that time. Abolition was far from a "popular" idea, and those who did advocate it, preconditioned their view with the caveat that freed slaves would be shipped far away from this country.
now the tenth amendment has been tromped upon many times since the forming of our republic - something to which i am opposed
We agree!
would you care to wager that a bill extending the right of marriage to homosexuals is introduced in congress
In the next 4 to 8 years? Sure, I'll be glad to take your money, how much would you like to wager? First, let's clarify, the bill has to specifically grant this to "homosexuals" and not a generic "civil unions" bill. You see, the problem is, you can't really make a bill to grant a 'right' to people based on sexual behavior. Once that is done, you have to grant "equal protection under the law" to any and all sexual behaviors which desire the same "right." I don't think we really want to open that can of worms.
