Whoops, I appear to have misunderstood the situation. My comments stand for actual historical documents! And, as I said, I would use it in a college course, or at most in highschool.
Which is quite a relief for me… my Portuguese sucks big time. 
The Civil War was about slavery not state’s rights. Pretneding otherwise is ignoring what people were saying in 1860. Here’s an excerpt from the South Carolina 1860 Declaration of Succession that outlines the secessionists views on State’s Rights:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The South Carolinian complaint was that the federal government was allowing states too many rights; specifically northern states were saying they had a right to prohibit slavery in their own state boundaries. The South Carolinians were having none of that; they said it was the role of the national government to protect slavery and state’s rights be damned.
South Carolina was not alone of course. As other states joined them in secession they issued their own proclamations. And all of them stated they were doing so because of slavery.
During the war a delegation of Northern opponents to the war went to Richmond and discussed the possibility of some northern states seceeding from the Union. One of the issues the Confederate government debated following this was what they would do if these states sought admission to the CSA. The decision reached was that regardless of their views on secession, state’s rights, or the war, no non-slavery states would be allowed to join the Confederacy.
Clothahump, the Confederate Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph, states, not that they secede for states’ rights, but they secede on the notion that ‘man was NOT created equal’.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I was expanding on the discussion of slavery in Latin America.
He was responding to an incorrect comment that all Latin American countries still had slavery when it ended in the US. He pointed out that that was not true of Uruguay. I then said that the last place to have legal slavery was the Latin American country of Brazil and the (in my opinion) interesting nugget that the last person born into legal slavery only died in the last ten years. Do try to keep up.
Haj
Your comment about Brazil was irrelevant to the point that Ale’s country got rid of slavery before the US did.
But I thought libertarians were against any kind of regulations on business. For instance, aren’t most of you opposed to a minimum wage?
It was relevant to the larger discussion about when certain areas of the New World abolished slavery. Ale talked about Uruguay, I mentioned Brazil. I wasn’t trying to correct Ale.
Haj
You don’t have to be a literalist to believe in the approximate historical truth of the Exodus. But it appears that you acknowledge that God permits slavery, while prohibiting homosexual activity. Such a god, if he existed, would be a moral monster, no two ways about it. Such are the problems that believing in significant chunks of the Bible, if not all, get you into.
Again you read too much into what I have posted. I have offered no opinion as to what God wants. I have pointed out that the text of the bible addresses the issue of (some aspects of) homosexuality with prohibitions and addresses the issue of slavery only to command slaveholders and slaveowners to behave ethically in the environment (i.e., a society that recognizes slavery as a legitimate form of commerce) in which they find themselves. This was in response to the notion offered earlier that slavery was in some way commanded by the bible. It is certainly true that the bible condones slavery, in the sense that it offers no abolitionist statements, but it does not insist that anyone must involve themselves with slavery.
s/b “. . . slaveholders and slaves . . .”
Oooh - I know this one from endless threads over the years. The bits that support whatever lunacy a funda Christian (a sub-set of the whole) wants to impose on us were written by God. The bits that don’t marry to their prejudices - well they were obviously written by men. 
But surely as rational men (and women) we must all acknowledge that the Bible is a pile of brain-damaged drivel spewed out by ignorant Stone Age desert nomads in a period of widespread savagery – desert nomads who were very much of their time. I think we can all acknowledge that as such it represents a great achievement – for savege desert nomads. By modern standards, of course, it is the tedious collection of cheese-brained babble you might expect it to be. Anything it might have to say on the topic of slavery is something we can all safely ignore – along with the rest of it.
E C, you’re so cute when you rant.
[sze=1]You’ve got a bit of foam on your lower lip, there.[/size]
I’d prefer the Bible to your crack-brained bullshit any day.
sigh
Why do the fuckbrained idiots on our side have to make us all look like raving lunatics?
Is it SO TERRIBLY HARD for you to let people live their lives as they see fit, *Evil Captor? If that involves believing in a supreme being that you don’t believe in, then so be it. LEAVE THEM ALONE! As long as they leave us alone, leave them alone.
You can’t demand tolerance for your atheism (or my agnosticism) and then turn around and start calling the Holy Book of two world religions “brain-damaged drivel” and “cheese-brained babble”. Is it really that hard to look at what you’re about to write and think of how you’d like it if it were reversed and put at the tips of someone like His4Ever’s fingers?
Dear Og…is empathy completely dead?
Forgive the coding. It was a conspiracy by the Knights of Columbus and the Templars to make a rational response to babble from the atheist side look like bleah…
This is sad. The passages quoted clearly show that the Bible condones slavery. Now, can you POSSIBLY IMAGINE any major Christian church other than the Southern Baptist Conference coming out and writing a document on its own recognizance that condones slavery, in this day and age? Of course not! The Bible condones slavery because it was written by people who just didn’t fucking know any better. This is just one of many proofs that the bible is an outdated pile of crap.
As an atheist, I see no reason to respect the bible. I feel I can and should call it like I see it, and I have. I recognize that there are passages in the bible that are uplifting, and if they inspire people to want to do good things then good on 'em. But there’s a lot of other stuff that’s just drivel, like those passages in the Old Testament where God tells the Israelis to go out and kill all the menfolk in other tribes and enslave thier women and children. Or in the New Testament, the apostle Paul’s kinky, weird-ass approach to celibacy.
You don’t like it? Tough. I know how much respect atheists are generally accorded by most religious types, so I don’t feel I’m being particularly unfair here. As an American, I respect your right to worship your particular brand of hoodoo, but I don’t have to respect the hoodoo itself.
In any event, I find the discussion of whether or not the bible condones slavery to be tangential at best. Whether or not the bible condones slavery, it’s pretty easy to dispel the notion promulgated in that pamphlet that American slaves lived a life of plenty and simple pleasures.
C’mon, jayjay, you can manage looking like a raving lunatic all by your lonesome, you don’t really need help from me.
A lot of people that buy into this bible crap have voted an idiot back into office. They oppose a woman’s right to free choice, they try to get some glurge called “Creation Science” to replace evolutionary theory in our classrooms, they try to get the FCC to censor stuff, and they just in general do one fucking thing after another that leads our society in the wrong fucking direction, and I am not about to leave them the fuck alone so long as they keep that shit up.
I recognize that not all Christians go for this shit, but I want to drive a wedge between the ones that do and the ones that don’t by pounding relentlessly on Christianity. It’s tiresome to do this kind of education stuff for the dull, but I feel that I must become engaged.
It’s especially tiresome when people like you pull that Neville Chamberlain shit.
Sure I can. Tolerance isn’t about liking or respecting the beliefs of others. It’s about putting up with them, even when they put your teeth on edge. I grant Christians the right to exist and practice their religion. I do not grant them the right to have their beliefs accepted at face value, or respected by me when logic clearly says their beliefs are not respectable.
You must have missed the last couple of election cycles. It’s death throes were quite distressing.
So tell me something, EC…has the Right’s flogging of atheists because of Communism convinced you to denounce Stalin, or does the fact that you had no sympathy for the Man of Steel in the first place simply make you angry and frustrated with the people who go on about Communism and atheists?
And why do you think that works in the other direction when it doesn’t work in yours?