To their own misfortune, since their secession would have meant the end of slave repatriation. Why would they have supported such legislation if they thought failure to do so wouldn't undermine their peculiar institution?But they would have been allowed their own border police, their own institutional bodies free from Yankeeism. If you want another cause for the civil war apart from slavery, I've just given you one (though that too, obviously, links back to slavery).
That's why Brazil still has all those slaves, right?[/Quote]
Not even close to a good comparison. The slave interest was not the dominant interest in Brazilian politics or economy during the Brazilian Empire, Brazil did not launch blatantly
imperialist land grabs to benefit the slave interest. Sugar in Brazil was nowhere near as important as cotton was to the economy of not just one region of the country but to the country as a whole. And I should note here that one A. Lincoln was seen as a major inspiration behind all the later abolitionist movements in the Americas. Before the ACW, it was dubious to say that abolition was an inevitability in the Americas, in fact it was widely believed to be a failure especially in the British Caribbean (which was constant argument of pro-slavery partizans in the US South). Next...
And the slaveholders in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia decided they didn't want to protect slavery, at least until the Union invaded? Additionally, you don't think that being invaded might have contributed to Southerners (the vast majority of whom were poor and not slaveholders) defending their country and its institutions?[/Quote]
Once the war started, it was clear that any sort of disruption would damage the cotton-based economy. This was why, for example, an insurgent/guerrilla strategy was ruled out from the start by the confederate leadership as it would make the countryside too difficult to control (and thus free a lot of slaves from their masters' supervision). As for your further comment, what about those whites of Northern Alabama and Eastern Tennessee who fought (not many, I admit, but they existed) guerrilla types actions against confederate forces. Were they not protecting their country and their institutions? Why not "county states" instead of "states rights"?
You do realize these institutions existed before the Confederacy, and fugitive slaves were still a problem?[/Quote]
I see you missed my point. The confederacy was created to defend a particular way of life and economic system which was threatened by, as well as directly Lincoln and the Republican Party, industralization in the north and demographic changes in the United States (especially in the north). This way of life and economy was entirely dependent on slavery. Without slavery it could not, and did not in the end, exist. Removing themselves from the North was their way of consolidating themselves against these threats and creating a state which was more to their liking (and therefore much more in favour of slavery than hitherto).
I don't understand what the issue is. I merely pointed out the unintended consequences and futility of using state power as a means for social change.
[/quote]
Yes. The 13th Amendment to the US constitution is a perfect example of such futility. Tell me again how slavery was going to 'just disappear' (clearly the confederate did not think likewise).