You sound like one of those people who keeps saying our Middle Eastern wars were all about oil. Oil is one reason why the US is interested in the Middle East, but it wasn't the main reason for the Gulf War or the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War. It wasn't like all those wars were just fought to get oil.
Some people claim WWI was all about material factors. Some countries entered the war to get territory or colonies, but the others felt threatened. They thought that if they didn't act militarily, they'd cease to be empires or great powers or even independent nations. And when you look at how many empires and countries collapsed after the war, you can see that they were right about how fragile their societies were, though war was the last thing they should have done.
Concerns about power, prestige, or sovereignty or legality or freedom from aggression or impending anarchy or national honor aren't purely materialistic concerns.
Consider the contradiction in your argument. Why did South Carolina or the Confederacy want Fort Sumter so badly? Was it about money? Or was it about prestige, or honor or some idea of rights or some preoccupation with revolutionary momentum or collapse? Was it purely material or was it about other non-material factors.
Some people say Lincoln wanted to use the fort to collect the tariff. I really hope you are smarter than that. There wouldn't have been any realistic possibility of doing that. And if there was, the fort would have been destroyed at that time. But why was it so essential to the rebels that the United States surrender all of its property immediately?
And if the Confederates wanted Sumter for idealistic or moralistic or emotional or tactical reasons why assume that Northerners wanted to keep the fort for purely monetary and materialistic reasons, and not out of national honor or prestige or the legal rights of ownership or as a bulwark against national collapse?
What did these people ever do to them to deserve being attacked?
Who attacked whom? Who started the war? What did Southern unionists do to deserve being attacked and killed? And what did ... but you don't want to hear about slavery again ...
They did not originally intend to do this, so they should get no credit for doing it for just and moral reasons.
We didn't go to war with Germany to free the inmates in Dachau and Buchenwald, but we did. Why do you want to deny American troops the credit for what they did?
Yet New York still controls the News, the Finances, and has undue influence on the Nation and the World. Virtually everyone in charge at various government organizations such as the State Department is a graduate of an "Ivy League" (meaning under the ideological influence of people in the North East) University.
The Same region and the same sort of Plutocrats are running things today. That their specific families and their specific Fads of the day have changed does not detract from the fact that these are essential the modern equivalents of the Vanderbilts and the Astors.
Why aren't they the modern equivalents of the Jeffersons, Jacksons and Polks? Our modern elites are as different from the Vanderbilts and Astors as they are from the Jeffersons and Jacksons.
And really, "the same type of people"? You can find the "type of people" you are talking about in every state in the country. And people like that -- rich people in Wyoming or South Carolina or New Mexico -- send their rich kids to prestige schools, many of which are still on the East Coast. You'd have to be daft indeed, though, to think that spells "New York" domination of America.
New York state has been losing seats in Congress since 1950. They are still a large state in population, and for that reason they have more clout than Delaware or Rhode Island, but all in all, New York counts for less in US politics than California, Texas, or Florida. It's not 1950 anymore. You must have fallen into a glacier back in the "Mad Men" era and been frozen for fifty years or something. Or somebody who hates the modern capitalist world and calls the whole thing by the name "New York."
Both. On the Material side, Northern Newspapers had already suggested that the guns of Ft. Sumter be turned on the port of Charleston. The guns of that fort could have threatened any ship that sought to do business there, and it would likely have frightened off such business, so the presence of those guns in hostile hands would have a not so abstract effect on the real bottom line.
Nobody wants to live with a sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
But why was it so essential to the rebels that the United States surrender all of its property immediately?
They offered Anderson all the time he could reasonably want. What cut his time short was the arrival of that war fleet which the Confederates knew were coming. They had been informed that those warships had orders to attack them if they did not cooperate in allowing the fort to be resupplied.
They had sent a delegation to Washington to see Lincoln about the disposition of the fort. They attempted to negotiate for the Fort in good faith, but were constantly rebuffed and continuously deceived about Lincoln's intentions regarding the Fort until they no longer trusted anything that was told to them.
And if the Confederates wanted Sumter for idealistic or moralistic or emotional or tactical reasons why assume that Northerners wanted to keep the fort for purely monetary and materialistic reasons, and not out of national honor or prestige or the legal rights of ownership or as a bulwark against national collapse?
They had abandoned Ft. Pickens. Do you know when they suddenly decided it needed to be manned again? January of 1861. Pray tell why someone would suddenly find a need to re-man a fort that had been apparently so pointless that they had stopped keeping a garrison there?
And what were the Confederates led to believe about Sumter? This is from an eyewitness account by a Union officer at the time.
Soon after his arrival which took place on the 21st of November, Anderson wanted the sand removed from the walls of Moultrie, and urged that it be done. Suddenly the Secretary of War seemed to adopt this view. He pretended there was danger of war with England, with reference to Mexico, which was absurd; and under this sudden zeal to put the harbor of Charleston in condition,-to be turned over to the Confederate forces.
And from the same source, here is another example of why they didn't want people from the North manning those forts.
The officers, upon talking the matter over, thought they might control and demonstration at Charleston by throwing shells into the city from Castle Pinckney. But, with only sixty-four soldiers and a brass band, we could not detach any force in that direction.
Who attacked whom?
The Union attacked the Confederacy.
Who started the war?
Lincoln started the War. Even Anderson admitted as much.
What did Southern unionists do to deserve being attacked and killed?
They threatened the European money stream flowing into New York from Southern produced goods.
And what did ... but you don't want to hear about slavery again ...
Not unless you can convince me that there wasn't going to be any of it if the South had remained in the Union. Else, it doesn't have any relevance to the conflict. Slavery with the Union, Slavery with out the Union. Same Difference so far as the Slave is concerned, and same difference so far as any moral outrage is concerned.
We didn't go to war with Germany to free the inmates in Dachau and Buchenwald, but we did.
Lucky for them that we were attacking Germany for our own reasons, but then we don't pretend that we only fought WWII for their sake. Far too many people pretend we started that war with the Confederacy to give freedom to the slaves. It sounds a lot better than saying we started a war that killed 750,000 people to protect the financial interests of New York Plutocrats who would have lost enormous sums of money if the South traded directly with Europe.
If people said we fought World War II just to save the people in Dachau and Buchenwald, they would immediately be called "liars."
Why aren't they the modern equivalents of the Jeffersons, Jacksons and Polks?
There are none. They lost, and now the New York cartel runs everything.
And really, "the same type of people"? You can find the "type of people" you are talking about in every state in the country.
Wannabees. The real thing you find orbiting real power.
New York state has been losing seats in Congress since 1950.
That's not how this works, and you should be astute enough to grasp what I am saying. How many people vote for representatives in their own states based on what they hear on the News Media from New York? Having ABC, CBS, NBC constantly broadcasting Democrat propaganda is the only thing keeping the congress even slightly competitive against common sense fiscally conservative Republicans.
Without the media advantage, the nation would be very lopsidedly conservative in representation in Congress, and the Democrats would have to move way to the right to ever win the Presidency again.
The "representation" of the New York power block which owns the media and uses it to manipulate elections is nearly half the congress. These people don't constrain their influence to just the borders of New York. The whole point is to exert influence everywhere, so long as it maintains your grip on power.
The Media is a tool of these people. It is how they got bastards like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama elected. Without the Media pushing these guys incessantly, they would have been nobodies. They were pushed incessantly because they could be counted upon to push the agenda that the powerful people of the North East wanted.
Or somebody who hates the modern capitalist world and calls the whole thing by the name "New York."
Love Capitalism. Want more of it. Just don't like Monopolies and Cartels using the government to funnel money to themselves and their interests. Ever wonder why the News Media so viciously attacks Republicans who want to balance the budget?