I don’t know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. This has been explained to you numerous times on this forum. The southern slaveocracy didn’t like the results of an election and started a rebellion to form their own country. Whether the soldier’s care about slavery or not their government sure did. So much so that when the “black” republican was elected they rebelled.
Now I do agree with you that there is a natural right to rebellion/revolution. However, when you appeal to force of arms as the confederacy did you better make damn sure you can win.
We also have the right to determine if a rebellion/revolution is for a good reason(s) or not. The southern rebellion was started for horrible reasons and should be judged as bad as the Bolshevik and Iranian revolutions. Luckily it didn’t succeed.
The same talking points have been parroted to me over and over, yes.
The southern slaveocracy didn’t like the results of an election and started a rebellion to form their own country.
But this point makes it sound like they weren't still going to have a slaveocracy if they had remained in the Union. In other words, it is a complete distortion of the relevant point.
The Union was okay with a slaveocracy that they controlled. They were not okay with a slaveocracy they didn't control. The point here is that it wasn't about the slaves, it was about who was going to control the money they created.
It is dishonest to claim credit for eradicating a condition that you would have continued had control remained in your hands.
Whether the soldier’s care about slavery or not their government sure did.
The Union government cared about the money the South would produce that wouldn't go through their hands. The Southern produced commerce from Europe was paying for 70-80% of all the Federal taxes in the Union in 1860. It was also pushing 238 million dollars through the New York economy. Virtually the entire shipping industry of the United States was tied up in shipping Southern products to Europe.
Now I do agree with you that there is a natural right to rebellion/revolution. However, when you appeal to force of arms as the confederacy did you better make damn sure you can win.
When you have been told that a fleet of Ships has been sent to attack you, would you wait for them to show up and fire at you? You could either run away with your tail between your legs, or you could neutralize the threat to your back before the threat to your front arrives to fire at you.
We also have the right to determine if a rebellion/revolution is for a good reason(s) or not.
The British did not think we had good reasons to throw off the allegiance of the King. I would say "good reasons" are in the eye of the beholder.
The southern rebellion was started for horrible reasons and should be judged as bad as the Bolshevik and Iranian revolutions. Luckily it didn’t succeed.
And yet the Southern continued participation in the Union complete with it's slaveocracy was the default condition. Horrible if the South has independence, but completely tolerable if the North retains control of Southern commerce.
Now why is it horrible for the South to be independent, but completely acceptable if they remained in the Union?
How do you deal with such cognitive dissonance on such a fundamental question?