Hello, Chad. I think we are going to remain in disagreement here.

You write: "The officially stated position of the secessionists was "states
rights", but the core issue was slavery.  Support for states rights as the
secessionists understood them was support for slavery, de facto (regardless
of whether one personally supported slavery or not).  It's historical
revisionism to suggest otherwise, IMHO."

Well, our "humble opinions" will differ. :)  I think you are missing the
fact that, in 1861 (the year you reference), there was no federal/state
dispute over slavery that was a "states rights" dispute. None of the major
parties suggested, proposed, or supported the Abolitionist movement. Even
Lincoln's Republicans agreed that the federal government had no right to
interfere with slavery *in the states."

The "slavery" dispute in 1861 was over (1) expansion of slavery into the
territories and (2) the return of fugitive slaves who made their way north.
Neither of these is a states rights issue. The territories were not "states"
at all, but were federally controlled areas, such that the decision about
slavery in those territories was not a "states rights" issue at all. The
question of return of fugitive slaves was a "states rights" issue only
(ironically) in the assertion by northern states of their "state's right" to
treat fugitive slaves in their states under their own laws, thus making them
free. In other words, the "states rights" argument was on the opposite side
of slavery in regard to that issue, in at least one major sense.

The Constitution enshrined slavery, the Supreme Court had upheld slavery,
Congress had made no moves to outlaw or interfere with slavery in the
states, and even Lincoln had expressed his agreement that the federal
government would not interfere in slavery in the states. To describe the
1861 dispute as about "states rights" is an incorrect description of a very
complex matter. To say that slavery was a major part of the dispute is
certainly correct, but it was not in a "states rights" context nor was it
the only issue. Tariffs were also a major issue, as was sectional pride and
a growing cultural and industrial gap between north and south. None of these
were "states rights" issues as that term is used in modern political
discussion.

Of course, that is just my HO as well.

I fully agree that the record of Protestants in the South in that period
(and the Jim Crow period that followed) is not a source of pride at all, but
a prime example of how good men with good theology may yet be blind to the
sin around and amongst them.

James W. Allen
jallen@...