Civil War and some Myths.

[Toro]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.

I'm not particularly well versed in the Civil War. However, I heard one commentator the other day say that even though the argument some make that the war was over states' rights, the only real right the South wanted was to keep slavery.

 

[JBeukema]

I've always wondrered what would have happened had the South left successfully. Would there be two separate countries today? What would the continent look like? Would America be as powerful of a global power? It's pretty fascinating.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EViGaTSnqRw]YouTube - The Confederate States of America (1 of 9)[/ame]

There was a thread about this a while back

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ratified in 1791

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people".

That does not say one can LEAVE the Union. To create the Union and to join the Union required a vote of 75 percent of the Colonies or States. In order to leave Congress must pass a law stating what the qualifiers are. As per the Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs US.

Again, you keep citing a law that was enacted "after" the Civil War.

Before the war the states had every right to leave the Union.

Because according to the 10th Amendment of 1791

States were free to enact any law or pursue any course of action that was not forbidden by the Constitution.

The main body of the United States Constituion was ratified on June 21st, 1788 with New York and Virginia ratifiying it shortly thereafter and it went into effect in 1789.

Article I Section 8 provides:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​

Insurrection
in·sur·rec·tion
noun \ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən\
Definition of INSURRECTION
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Revolt
intransitive verb
1
: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) : rebel


The Southern States quite clearly were revolting against the allegiance and voluntary subjection to the Federal government by attempting to seceded from the Union which as clearly the established government. As such they placed themselves in a state of insurrection and therefore the Constitution clearly granted to the Federal government the authority to call forth the military to suppress such insurrection.


****************************

The 10th Amendment grants powers to the States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly grants the Federal government the power to suppress insurrection. Because the Constitution granted the Federal government the power to suppress insurrection, creating an insurrection would not be a 10th Amendment power of the States since it is addressed elsewhere in the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[hortysir]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.

In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?

 

[paperview]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.

In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?

It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.

The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well.

You can't get more top dog than those two.

 

[hortysir]

Anyone that claims that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a fucking moron.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hillbillies in West Virginia were smart enough to know it and seceded from the Confederacy. They had nothing to gain from slavery.

My family all fought for the South. I am glad they lost. It was a disastrous cause.

In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?

It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.

The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well.

You can't get more top dog than those two.

Without sounding like I'm defending slavery; I wasn't aware that JD was anti-slavery, given he was a slave owner, himself (even if he *did* treat his "better" than most)

 

[paperview]

In all fairness, this is one speech given by one man. It's just his opinion....just like any other poster on this board.
If you were to poll soldiers and citizens from the North and South, in say 1866, and ask them the reason for the war, you'd probably get a dozen more different answers than what are already in this thread.
What, exactly, makes his opinion more 'right' than any of ours or any of the opinions of those that actually lived through it all?

It's not "more right" but it does matter he was Vice President of the Confederacy.

The President of the Confederacy called it slavery the Cornerstone as well.

You can't get more top dog than those two.

Without sounding like I'm defending slavery; I wasn't aware that JD was anti-slavery, given he was a slave owner, himself (even if he *did* treat his "better" than most)

Well, that didn't make sense at all.

 

[hortysir]

I retract, PV....
I see that your case is that their Cornerstone stance was why they fought the war (to keep their slaves)
I completely misread/misinterpreted just the opposite - or some weird tangent



I still hold my position that there had to be a great many fighting men, (on both sides) that were merely defending their lands from an invader, that didn't hold an opinion on slavery.

 

[Publius1787]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.

The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.

 

[Publius1787]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.

 

[Publius1787]

It required a 75 percent vote to create the Union and it is reasonable to assume that it requires a 75 percent vote to leave it.

You "assume" too much.

The southern states were following the Constitution.

Lincoln and the Union trashed it.

Where is the constitution is the word seccession?

Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?

 

[Old Rocks]

You "assume" too much.

The southern states were following the Constitution.

Lincoln and the Union trashed it.

Where is the constitution is the word seccession?

Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?

The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History.

The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.

 

[The Gadfly]

Where is the constitution is the word seccession?

Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?

The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History.

The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.

That is your opinion; it was not the opinion of a great number of the soldiers who fought on BOTH sides. In fact, Gen. U.S. Grant (himself a slaveholder) observed in 1862 "This war is to preserve the Union, not to end slavery; If I believed this war was to end slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." Grant did not free his own slaves until well after the end of hostilities; asked why, he remarked, "Good help is so hard to find". The myth that the North sought to conquer and subjugate the South for the purpose of abolition is a myth, started AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation (itself a war measure, NOT a grand gesture of altruism), to justify a war of imperial conquest and naked aggression, fought primarily for the benefit of the moneyed interests of New England.

We'll never forget, but what we'll never forget is NOT your "great Moral Crusade" (a lie) or your great victory (our ancestors could have chosen to fight a guerrilla war against you Yankees, and had they done so, the outcome could have been very different). We are NOT cowed by you (there are more of us now with military experience than there are of you with same). What we will remember is your aggression, and your side's numerous atrocities (copiously documented in your own side's records, BTW). We will NEVER think like you, act like you, talk like you, or vote like you, because, Thank God Almighty, we are NOT you, and we know it! Just remember, "Yankee" is a curse word in the South, and y'all are about as welcome here, as boll weevils and fire ants.

When I get to hell, I will make it my mission to hunt down the foul souls of Lincoln, Stanton, Seward, Sherman, and Sheridan, and kick their sorry war criminal arses from one end of hell to the other.

 

[martybegan]

Many states to include virginia adopted the constitution under the conditions that they could seceed. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson mentioned it in his first address as president in reference to New Englands charge that they would seceed. Finally, if a state descides through the democratic process that it wants to seceed then who the hell are you the proclaim soverignty over their state?

The great grandson of a Union soldier that fought at Fort Donaldson and Shilow and a hundred other lessor known engagements. There are license plate covers in the South that depict a sourthern soldiers cap, with the declaration, Never Forget. A friend of mine made one of his own with a union soldiers cap, stating, You Better Never Forget!. That just about covers the way the majority of Americans feel about the revisionists of American History.

The ultimate cause of the Civil War was slavery. The South fought for the right of one man to own another. That is about the most immoral stand that can be taken.

That is your opinion; it was not the opinion of a great number of the soldiers who fought on BOTH sides. In fact, Gen. U.S. Grant (himself a slaveholder) observed in 1862 "This war is to preserve the Union, not to end slavery; If I believed this war was to end slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." Grant did not free his own slaves until well after the end of hostilities; asked why, he remarked, "Good help is so hard to find". The myth that the North sought to conquer and subjugate the South for the purpose of abolition is a myth, started AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation (itself a war measure, NOT a grand gesture of altruism), to justify a war of imperial conquest and naked aggression, fought primarily for the benefit of the moneyed interests of New England.

We'll never forget, but what we'll never forget is NOT your "great Moral Crusade" (a lie) or your great victory (our ancestors could have chosen to fight a guerrilla war against you Yankees, and had they done so, the outcome could have been very different). We are NOT cowed by you (there are more of us now with military experience than there are of you with same). What we will remember is your aggression, and your side's numerous atrocities (copiously documented in your own side's records, BTW). We will NEVER think like you, act like you, talk like you, or vote like you, because, Thank God Almighty, we are NOT you, and we know it! Just remember, "Yankee" is a curse word in the South, and y'all are about as welcome here, as boll weevils and fire ants.

When I get to hell, I will make it my mission to hunt down the foul souls of Lincoln, Stanton, Seward, Sherman, and Sheridan, and kick their sorry war criminal arses from one end of hell to the other.

You go all about the North's reasons for fighting in the Civil War, but ignore the base question of why the South was fighting, which was to keep thier slaves.

Also keep in mind more "Yankees" are moving down south, your "pure" numbers are being diluted by the year.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.

The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.

Pure Fantasy. Slavery was the overriding "State" right they left the Union over. The President, the Vice President and numerous elected officials of the Confederacy admitted this in speeches. Further read the damn succession declarations form the States leaving the Union,Almost everyone STATES the reason they left was SLAVERY.

85 percent of the Souths Economy DEPENDED on Slavery. You are right about one thing though, Slavery was in no danger of being removed in 1860 UNTIL the South left the Union. The Supreme Court sided with te South and they had the votes in the House and the Senate to prevent any such attempt.

It is Ironic that THEY caused exactly what they were defending against.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.

A submarine was used in the Revolutionary war. So much for your grasp of History.

 

[Publius1787]

Test yer knowledge of the Civil War...

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later
On April 12, 1861, long-simmering tensions between North and South ignited and began the four-year War Between the States. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans said that the Civil War is still relevant to US politics. Test your knowledge of the Civil War by taking this short quiz.

1. Where did the Civil War begin?

I got 12 of 13. I chose submarines instead of iron clads. I guedd the Chritian Science Monitor isnt aware of the CSS Hunley.

A submarine was used in the Revolutionary war. So much for your grasp of History.

Gunny? Your better than that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Hunley_(submarine) . Why would you respond with such certaintity to a guy who holds a BA in history without checking your facts first? If the marines have tought me anything, it is to gather and certify your facts before you commit to a course of action. Why would you mock my knowlege of history without checking the facts and place yourself in a position of showing your own ignoarnce of history? This undermines any credebility one may have. Your better than that Gunny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpaiXxdVZao]YouTube - ‪The CSS Hunley, American Submarine‬‏[/ame]

 

[Publius1787]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

First up State's rights.

The south did seceed over states rights. Thats why the confederate constitution gutted the federal governments power. A quick reading of the confederate states constitution will reveil a number of changes to include refusing the federal government to implement internal improvements or interfear with free trade (Which would have destroyed northern trade by the way). If you want to know why the states seceeded you must look to how they set their government up in accordance with the former government. Only then the answer will become exceptionally clear. States rights was an issue. Slavery certainly couldnt be the issue for 4 reasons. Most southerners didnt own slaves, southerners would not fight to maintain slaves, northerners would not fight to abolish slaves, and finally (perhaps the most damning) the north passed an amendment to the constitution that guarenteed the right for the south to own slaves to prevent them from seceeding (The Corwin Amendment). They did so anyway.

Pure Fantasy. Slavery was the overriding "State" right they left the Union over. The President, the Vice President and numerous elected officials of the Confederacy admitted this in speeches. Further read the damn succession declarations form the States leaving the Union,Almost everyone STATES the reason they left was SLAVERY.

Then why did they continue to secede after the corwin amendment was passed and both the northern congressmen and President Lincoln confirmed that slavery was constitutionally protected and they had no legal right to tamper with it?

Corwin Amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State"

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 133–65.[2] On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted it, 24–12.[3] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven slave states had already decided to secede from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment.

Outgoing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, supported the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."[4][5] Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment.[6] However, Presidents play no formal role in the amendment process.

[85 percent of the Souths Economy DEPENDED on Slavery. You are right about one thing though, Slavery was in no danger of being removed in 1860 UNTIL the South left the Union. The Supreme Court sided with te South and they had the votes in the House and the Senate to prevent any such attempt.

It is Ironic that THEY caused exactly what they were defending against.

If slavery was off the table then why would the south secede over slavery? The political speaches and documents you speak of were, like all political documents, making things seem to be worse than they were to raise a red herring and drum up support.

If you want to know why the south truly seceded you must look at the differences between the U.S. and C.S. constitutions.

Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The C.S. Constitution: The Confederate States Constitution

Article 1 section 8 of the C.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, for revenue necessary to pay the Debts [and], provide for the common Defence [and general Welfare of the United States; but], and carry on the government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties, or taxes, or importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the [United] Confederate States

You see the difference between congressional powers? They eliminated state and corperate welfare and implemented free trade. This is in response to the more numerous representation in the north due to a higher population voting to implement internal improvements for their states at the expense of the south. Furthermore, it was in response to the north raising taraffs to artificially inflate the price of imports so that the south would be forced to buy higher priced northern goods and the southern exports were negativly effected by a equal rise in tarrafs of foreign countries. All of this is in regard to STATES RIGHTS and preventing the federal government from extorting money from the states or implementing trade policies that would ONLY benefit the areas with higher representation in congress.

Now the preamble

WE, the People of the [United States] Confederated States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character (States Rights Anyone?)

Now lets look at part of the C.S. bill of rights

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another [:nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter. clear, or pay Duties in another]. (This prevents interstate mercantilism as the north had done to the south)

Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been officially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish. (This prevents runaway spending by congress)

All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered. (Preventing congress from implementing projects that turn in to money pits)

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. (preventing earmarks that benefit one state over anohter)

Then Article I Section X:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, except on sea-going vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus of revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury; nor shall any State keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of Delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States, they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof. (Allowes states to take charge of and enforce laws on their own waterways)

Slavery:

Of course, slavery is reconised in the Confederate constitution. But with the north having taken slavery off of the table this subject is irrelevent and a given. Both the congress and the president of the U.S. confirmed the "right" of the south to own slaves.

Now with this overwhelming distinction between the two constitutions, (and I only scratched the surface), and taken in to account that the north guarenteed that south the right to slavery, WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON THE SOUTH SECEDED? Any further denial of the facts or accusations without citations shows only bias. If you look at history objectivly the truth always presents itself. If you look at it with your mind made up then you will never learn anything! Now who's living in fantasy land?

 

[martybegan]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

 

[Publius1787]

The Corwin amendment was postulated as a method of getting the seceeded states back in AFTER the first wave of secession. It was also of dubious legal standing, as it could be replealed as an amendment, and THEN an amendment could be written banning slavery.

Also, the simple fact that this amendment was even postulated SHOWS that slavery was the number one issue regarding secession at the time.

Lets do a mental excercise. Remove the concept of slavery from the US at the time. With the other issues still there, tarriffs, taxes, and the gradual shift of # of states from south to north would there have EVER been seccession?

I say no. Slavery was the poison pill. Without it all the other issues could have been resolved. And it was not the North's insistance in ending it that was the prime issue, The Republicans only wanted to eliminate it from expanding into territories. It was the southern elite's fear that it would eventually be abolished in thier states that was the crux of secession.

Slavery was nothing other than a talking point to get people rialed up. But you cant speculate what would have happened if this or that had happened. You look at the facts as they stand. And the North was economically hoseing the south through extortion, mercantilism, and protectionism. Secession wasent even a question for most of the states until Lincoln violated the constitution and started to raise an army without consent of congress. It was the final actions of the north before the war that got most of the states to secede not slavery.