Make no mistake - I do strongly object to slavery - but I am also still a moral relativist and my respect for foreign customs is far stronger than my urge to maim or slaughter anyone who gets between me and a world where my morals have been made the law of the land. Slaves and Southern abolitionists in revolt, in contrast, would lend legitimacy to an argument of the CSA's government being illegitimate by virtue of being unrepresentative of - and also unresponsive to shifts in - the values of the People.
1. As many others have previously stated, "foreign customs" does not justify
SLAVERY2. Is legitimacy not already lent to the argument that the CSA did not represent the people by the mere fact that it was legal to own people? I'd say widespread
SLAVERY is a pretty good case for saying that the people are not being represented.
Poll
