I am not jumping around at all. If the southern states had banned slavery as the northerm states did and joined in support of an amendment then it would have ended. That's all there is to it. With there obstruction the federal government lacked power to end slavery.
Yes, you are jumping from "nothing could be done" to "it's the south's fault nothing was done!" By your very own admission, there was nothing the federal government could have done to end slavery because it wasn't unconstitutional. They had no constitutional power. You want to blame that on the Southern states, but the Southern states didn't control the SCOTUS or write the Constitution. You then want to blame people for not willingly giving up their property to government against their constitutional right to own property, and pretending that such a notion in 1860 was reprehensible and deplorable, when it was the constitutional law of the land, established by the US Supreme Court, upheld by every Congress and president up to Lincoln. Yep, it was deplorable what this country did, but it wasn't the fault of the Southern states.
Since we're playing the "IF" game, we can also say that IF the North had declared a boycott on slave-grown cotton, it would have ended slavery. Why didn't THAT happen, Stringy? Seems like that would be how we would handle such a thing today, if some region of the country was doing something the rest of the country objected to. Why didn't you all just stop buying southern cotton?
You want to blame the north for the disgraceful history of the south and shift blame. It's nothing but crybaby bullshit. This is not about the north. It's about slavery and how the southern states, controlled by wealthy land owners, perpetuated it. Moreover, it's about your desire to return to the institutions of State's rights and goverment dominated by land owners. You want to undo the advance of civil rights and yet you pretend to support the advances made in civil society.
I didn't blame the North or shift anything, the blame is shared equally. This is about your ignorant northern bigotry, and unwillingness to accept that your ancestors were racists who didn't give two shits about black people. I've said NOTHING about land owners, NOTHING about undoing Civil Rights, and you continue to hurl baseless allegations at me as fast as you can. I'm bored with responding to this shit, and unless you can back something up with evidence, you need to shut your pie hole.
I have told you many times states do not have rights. They have powers. Read the 9th and 10th. This was the understanding of the founders and they were careful with the language used. Powers are granted. Rights are moral principles that exist as a part of our nature independent of government. Slavery should have never been allowed. It was a violation of the rights of man.
In 1860, according to the UNION's Supreme Court, it was not a violation of the rights of man. That's the part of this you want to ignore, and pretend that we had already established Civil Rights, and the South was simply violating that establishment. That is false history, because in 1860, black slaves were considered property owned by whoever purchased them. You're right, it should have never been allowed, but it WAS allowed... condoned, upheld, and supported, for 85 years by every Congress and president up to Lincoln.
You are full of shit, it was not about cotton. You sound like Alex Jones or even Michael Moore with that conspiratorial bullshit. It was about the need for union among the colonies. They feared that as seperate states they could not long resist the colonial powers of Europe. Read the Federalist Papers. There is no need for some ridiculous alternate explanation.
There was no alternate explanation given for anything, and I have no idea what you're talking about here, you are becoming quite delirious and not making a lot of sense. Cotton was very much the reason slaves were found in the South and not in the North. If cotton were grown in the North, there would have been slaves there to pick it, and slave owners there, to oversee it. When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they could have very easily banned and outlawed the practice of human slavery, but that did not happen.... THE REASON was cotton, among other agricultural crops, which slaves had been used to harvest since the first settlers arrived on the continent. For the 85 years before the Civil War, the Congress could have acted to amend the Constitution and outlaw slavery, Presidents could have supported abolition of slavery, but that did not happen, Stringy. For decade after decade, the SCOTUS repeatedly maintained that black slaves were not "people" with Constitutional rights, they were "property" owned by those who bought them rightfully. The CSA did not even exist at this time, it was not just the Southern states who obstructed this.
TRUE libertarians support the division of power between state and federal government that affects the greatest possible protection of the rights of the individual. You are concerned only with the collectivst right of regionalized majorities except when you need the federal majority (i.e., you have supported a federal marriage amendment, flag burning and several other stupid ideas). You are a fascist.
Disregard for the 10th Amendment, is a direct disregard of Libertarianism. You can keep hurling outright lies about me and what I've supposedly endorsed, I am not going to respond to anything without a quote and link, because you are a fucking liar. I am not a fascist, I support The People having first say-so on their rights, through the ballot box on a state level, then at a federal level. I do not support or condone Federal power, over the rights of the states and people.
My memory is quite clear. YOU argued Florida was not a part of the CSA. You lie about it now the same way you lie about the equal thirds argument and the rest of your hit parade of stupidity.
Your memory can be clear, it doesn't change that you are a fucking liar. I don't think I ever argued that Florida wasn't part of the CSA, I may have argued that Florida was inconsequential to the CSA, just as Texas was, because that is true. The overwhelming majority of soldiers from Florida, fighting for the CSA, were Native American Indians. Another interesting tid-bit... Of all the soldiers who actually fought and died in battle during the Civil War,
NONE of them owned slaves. The people who owned the slaves were wealthy, their sons weren't sent off to die in war, if they even dared to serve in the Confederate Army, they were made Colonels or Generals and never saw battle.
You can keep on trying to raise straw men to do battle against the PWNAGE your ass has suffered here, I don't really care.
The same with securing the blessings of liberty for oneself and their posterity. It's difficult to secure the blessings of liberty if one is ill and next to impossible to leave anything to their children.