George: you said:

"but then again I know you will have a complete different interpretation than what is actually written"

given your track record now of repeated misundertsnading of your own 4 papragraph quote about the legislation passed by the CSA congress, which did NOT arrange for emancipation for donated slaves to serve as armed soldiers, you have little credence with me.

You can play all the games you wish with a paraphrase asking what document this quote comes from" (actually though it is the essence of the Texas seccasstion document boiled down to it's key phrases) but you know full well I was not quoting a direct quote but mocking the tone of documents that continuouskt use such phrases over and over. The was the context of my post and you know it full well. For you to try to twist what is a clearly a paraphrase into a direct quote out of context proves you either have no comprehension of much that is written.

The documents of secession clearly show that the main concern, worry, and issue of the authors was slavery, slavery and more slavery. Like I said George, find me the word tarriff, find taxes mentioned in those documents. You'll find tariff never and taxes once. The authors of these documents refer to themselves and their"sister" states as the "slave -holding" states, and their opponents as the "non-slave=holding" states, they do so with clock-work regularity.

Show me ONE instance of where they call themselves the "anti-federalist" states. or the "states-rights" states.

Here is a direct quote George.

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? "

The distinction being clearly made between the states in opposition is whether or not they hold slaves or no slaves. The declarations of these and other states, not on this website, continously make that distinction.

If two groups of people are voicing strong opposition to each other and in their writings refer to themselves as the "anti-war" party and their opposition as the "war" party it doesn't take a Daniel Webster to come to the understanding that the issue that divides them is war. Two groups at a rally outside a clinic holding up signs, one side saying "Abortion is murder" the other side with signs saying "It is my Right to Choose", I guess you would be unable to decide what the main issue was?

"States Rights" is the eqivalent of "Right to Choose" . You have to ask "a state right to do what?" and a "woman's right to chosse what?". To the people of their century, the states rights issue was about slavery, just as the woman's right to choose issue is about abortion in ours. Everybody in our culture knows what is meant by "right to choose", what the underlying issue is, even if the argument is framed as a the right of a person to make a choice.