ReillyT
Senior Member
I think Reilly brings up a good distinction that I can use to more accurately convey my position. Arguing over "legality" of the invasion is in many ways missing the point. I argue that the Civil War WAS NOT merely putting down a rebellion. The Civil War was an invasion, conquering and annexation of a foreign, sovereign land. And the North's invasion was not borne out of a noble cause to free slaves, it was all about money and preserving the union.
I agree that the legalities are secondary. It was a political act. However, how do you distinguish between putting down a rebellion and conquering a foreign, sovereign land? That also is a political distinction. What is a rebellion to one party isn't perceived as just a rebellion to the other. Where is the line between the ETA in Spain and the Kosovars in Serbia? The only line that I can see is one of power differentials.
I agree that slaverly was not the main impetus of the Civl war.