Kevin, none of the contemporaries of the Civil War agree with you in their writings. Not one said it was not slavery. They all recognized that slavery and race drove the argument of secession, states' rights, the economies, immigration, the tariff, the territories, etc.
You have conceded in fact because you have posted no evidence demonstrating the contemporaries agreed with you.
Another reason you are incorrect about slavery being the cause of the war of northeren aggression is the simple fact that slavery was never in danger because Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever.
True facts, but faulty logic.
Your logic might have had legs if the Republic had fired the first shot, of course, but the southern traitors fired on the Republic, remember?
The real causes of the war of northern aggression was the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes by the Government of the United States, and the change of the government from a confederated republic to a national sectional despotism.
Nonsense. Tariffs were actually going DOWN right before the war started.
The South did not need the North because it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods.
Yeah there's some truth in that, to be sure. But what the Republic really needed was revenues from those tariffs that consumers (both in the North and the South) paid for imported goods.
In order to perpetuate his war of Northern aggression
(AKA
the putting down of the traitorous slavers),
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,
(illegally, I note. Congress didn't grant him that right for over a year after he did it)
ordered the arrested Chief Justice Taney after the Justice' opinion holding the suspension of habeas corpus to be unconditional,
I didn't know that. Well Taney was right it WAS unconstiutional.
the civilian courts with military ones,
in those states which were in rebellion you mean? Perfectly consitutional that. When the civilian government is in rebellion from Republic it no longer is a legally convened court.
Martial law was in place at that point.
imprisoned about 14,000 dissidents for varied opposition to the warand closed about 300 newspapers.
, Interesting. I knew that some southern Pols were imprisoned (Mayor of Baltimore was, I think, for example).
Can you link us to someplace where we can learn more about those 14,000, please?
No, I'm serious, I'd like to learn more about those charges.
The war between the North and South was a tariff war.
No it wasn't, lad.
Those tarrifs you think were the primary cause of the southern treason had been in place for fourscore and a few years already.
The war was further, not for principle, did not touch the question of slavery, but in fact was fueled by the Northern lust for sovereignty.
the principle upon which that war was fought was the principle of the 'INDIVISIBLE UNION OF STATES" which one can read about over and over again in the FEDERALIST PAPERS.
I know you truly want to find some more noble justification for the Souther slavers treason, but sadly, the very people you seek to defend made it perfectly clear that their treason was in defence of their right to own slaves and additionally their right to expand slavery into the territories.
Now one can certainly understand why those people whose capital was almost completely invested in slavery would defend what they thought of as their property rights.
I mean I can completely understand why the feared losing the right to own human beings, too.
OTOH, had I been CnC at the time, I'd have ordered hung every ******* slave owning officer in the CSA that the Union armies captured during the war.
Incidently, that would have been constiutional.
So thank you ******* lucky stars (and bars), that Lincoln, and not editec was POTUS during that period.
