We may have grounds for agreement here. For the north, at least at the beginning, it was never about slavery. It was about preserving the country as a whole, complete, the way our founding fathers had presented it to us. If you had asked the average Union soldier what he was fighting for, the overwhelming majority would have given that as their reason. Lincoln himself made no secret of his goal, to preserve the Union and not to either end or defend slavery. As the war progressed, ending slavery became a political goal and was incorporated into the Republican platform in 1864.
But for the south from the beginning the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery. They made no secret of that. Their Secession Declarations, their last minute attempts at compromise all dealt with slavery and it's protection. Not only where it existed but to ensure that it would be allowed to spread in the non-state territories.
I don't understand this confederate revisionism. Sure we can look at slavery today and agree on its evil. I do not for a moment think that you confederate supporters want to bring slavery back. But look at the world through 1860 eyes. Morality aside, slavery was a fact. It was legal. It was the reason for the rebellion. Why do you deny it>
Morality aside, slavery was a fact. It was legal. It was the reason for the rebellion. Why do you deny it?Again, I don't think it was the fact of keeping slaves, it was the RESULT of keeping slaves.
If they could have got the same result from keeping giant sloths in a cage the war would have been about keeping giant sloths in a cage.
The south had too much of a productivity advantage over the north due to slavery.
No matter what the cause, after the southern states declared that they were seceeding from the union, the northern states had the excuse they needed to negate what they percieved as an advantage the south had.
In response to your assertion the South seceeded to defend slavery I say .... BULL SH*T! The South seceeded over economics and federal intrusions into their lives. At the time of South Carolina's secession in 1860, the southern states were p[aying 4 times the tariffs that the Northern States were paying. They had to keep slavery due to the industrial North needing the Southern grown cotton for their textile mills. It was cheaper for the Northern States to obtain cotton from the South than to try and import it from overseas.
Had Stephen Douglas been elected instead of Lincoln, the Northern States would've been the ones to seceed from the South. Slavery, while it was a small part of the culture of the South, was more for the agrarian produce than as a "joyful" institution. The roots of Southern secession go way back to the early 1800's. The growing gap between the Northern and Southern views finally became unbearable to the Southern States by 1859 and in 1860 they decided to make their break. Legally/morally they had that right as the Federal Government had become overbearing on them.