No, why would it be? The US Constitution could have been amended at any point to restrict or outlaw slavery - as happened historically in April 1864.
The more abolitionism gained ground in the North as a political force, the more likely this would become over time. In fact, as long as abolitionism had any chance at all to gain political traction among Northerners, it would remain a threat to slavery regardless of slavery's constitutional status.
The fact that the first slaveholding states seceded in January 1860, right after Lincoln's election, is significant in this regard. Lincoln was a known opponent of Dred Scott v. Sanford, and he was known to have ties to the abolitionist movement.
In spite of Dred Scott, in spite of the constitutional protections to slavery that effectively had turned all of the Union members into slave states, some of the Southern states considered the very fact of a Northern President with known abolitionist sympathies enough of an immediate threat to slavery that they declared Secession.
No, I do not agree. But I was talking about the states whose declarations I cited in my opening post, and specifically Georgia and South Carolina.
Have John Brown's actions been shown to be in disregard of the Constitution, or is that simply your personal opinion?
Here are three descriptions I found, the first from
Wikipedia:
A different article:
(
Source, my bolded parts)
A third article:
(
Source, my bolded parts)
Now please explain to me why that is important to the question whether the South seceded and fought a war in order to preserve slavery.
The 13th constitutional amendment. It overturned Dred Scott v. Sanford and effectively outlawed slavery.
This was a result of abolitionist political activity in the North, and exactly what the South feared would come to pass eventually, if they did not secede from the Union.
I explained why that should have been the end to any reason for secession. The South had all the protections it could hope for. Game over, if slavery was the reason for secession.
No, under the new 13th amendment that Lincoln was willing to sign, there would be no 'amending' allowed.
Your disagreement of the upper Southern states not seceding because of Lincolns call to arms is based only on your lose thinking. Their secession occurred after Sumter and Lincolns call. Not before. They seceded because Lincoln advocated war against the 7 lower Southern states.
Concerning John Brown, read post #(124).
Concerning the North's reaction to the Dred Scott decision, you presented in your third example, "Northern reaction accelerated the rise of the Republican Party". And it's that reaction that I am asking about. Which you failed to present.
From (America in 1857, Kenneth M. Stampp, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 104) "Republicans responded with angry defiance....called the decision 'sheer blasphemy'...an infamous libel on our government...a lasting disgrace to the court from which it issued, and deeply humilating to every American citizen. It was, according to the New Yok Tribune, entitled to just so much moral weidght as would be the judgment ...of those congregated in any Washington barroom. A Boston Republican asserted that the opinion of this proslavery Court deserved no more respect than ...any other sectional caucus of partisans. The Chicago Tribune branded Taney's opinion 'shocking to the sensibilities...."
"In Ohio the legislature not only denounced the decision but adopted measures against slaveholding or the kidnapping of free blacks, and the supreme court (state) ruled that any slave brought into Ohio would automatically be emancipated. " (p. 105, parenthesis mine)
"Republicans...attacked the Court for infringing upon the legislative authority of Congress" (p. 107)
"Senator Trumbull of Illinois appealed to a power higher than the Court, 'The People', who would in due time reform this sectional court....." (p. 107)
"One way or another, the Chicago Tribune promised, the people would recover their lawmaking prerogatives---and if the ousting of a Bench full of Pro-Slavery judges is necessary to a resumption of this right, let it be done with as little delay as possible." (p. 107)
It was this response of the North that Jefferson addressed when he said,"Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive....it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility." (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, A DA CAPO Press,1990, p. 71)
So, you see. The North refused the decision by the Supreme Court. The South could expect no protections under the Constitution.
The South wasn't fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting because the North would not let them secede. The South seceded exactly for the reason given above.
Lincoln did not overturn the Dred Scott decision. The later 13th amendment which did was done after the war and by the Reconstruction Courts.
The abolitionist's were disregarding the Constitution and were a threat to the South as proved with John Brown.
Good-Ole-Rebel