First of all, apologies to all whose entries I have been unable to read and respond to.
Secondly, apologies to all who were provoked by my post, from which Yahoo mail removed the link, clicking on which would have brought you to the full story here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis58.htmlSome of you might find it amusing to click on the above to find out what it was all about.
Meanwhile, some comments on your responses.
Undoubtedly the first secession of 1860 was largely about slavery. I think the vice-presidential address of Alexander Stephens makes that pretty clear. The action was not one that one would support, but clearly legal under the universal understanding of the constitution at the time. Lincoln's action of raising an army without any consultation with Congress to put the "rebellion" down and his imposition of military dictatorship in the North, were clearly wrong, dead wrong, and the second secession, that of 1861, was to that extent justified.
I strongly support the Pope in his castigation of the Confederacy for slavery. But we must remember that the Union did nothing to abolish this great evil in its own territory, or even in those parts of the Confederacy under its military occupation, nor is there any reason to believe that Lincoln would have freed any slaves, except to deport them to Africa. The Church would have been quite right to recognize the Confederacy with a view to ending the slaughter, and only eventually ending the great evil, but in comparison with the war, the distinctly lesser evil, of slavery.
