[DiogenesLamp]

So then Southerners DID secede to preserve slavery, since that was the source of their money.

You really really want to keep repeating that mantra in the hopes that it will eventually persuade someone.

The hole in your theory is the fact that they would still have slavery if they *didn't* secede. It's funny how you keep zooming right past that without acknowledging that the Union was going to keep legal slavery for at least 40 more years.

Their 4 billion in assets would not be lost from staying in the Union. Kinda blows your whole motive thing.

That’s the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from your own words.

Inescapable? Wasn't even confining. It was tissue paper.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Their 4 billion in assets would not be lost from staying in the Union.”

Wait, that’s the EXACT opposite of what you posted before. Kinda blows your whole motive thing.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Let’s see if you will answer two more simple questions. Maybe I can go two for three at least.

First, you claim that Northern interests were skimming profits off Southern agricultural production, mostly cotton, correct?

Second, what was the percentage of that skimming?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Here’s a link for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The hole in your theory is the fact that they would still have slavery if they *didn't* secede.
It's funny how you keep zooming right past that without acknowledging that the Union was going to keep legal slavery for at least 40 more years."

And yet protecting slavery was the number one reason, when not the only reason, given by secessionists themselves in their "Reasons for Secession" documents.