[ConservativeMind]

“He is quite emphatic that the South didn't fight for “the preservation or extension of slavery”, but for states rights. When he begins by reminiscing about the “early 50’s”, he was, of course, referring to the 1850’s.”

Except, those very same Southern states required a slave state be made and admitted as any free state would be admitted. This was even if that state did not want slaves.

No, it was for the choice of slaves that the South fought. Period. They claim it was “state's rights,” but the only one that mattered to them was slavery.

[jeffersondem]

“No, it was for the choice of slaves that the South fought.”

If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?

[DiogenesLamp]

Except, those very same Southern states required a slave state be made and admitted as any free state would be admitted. This was even if that state did not want slaves.

Why?

Interesting story about Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska had long reached the point where it could be admitted as a state, but the Democrats did not want Alaska admitted as a state because they knew it was heavily Republican.

A compromise was worked out to allow Hawaii to become a State in exchange for Alaska becoming a state. That way, the balance of power would be maintained, and both sides could live with it.

Did it have anything to do with a love of polar bears or coconut trees?

No. It was about power. It is *ALWAYS* about power. The South wanted a state that would vote with it as a block rather than voting with the North as a block.

In actual fact, there was no economic feasibility to have slavery in any of the states that would be created from the territories, so no actual slavery was going to move into the new states.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it was for the choice of slaves that the South fought. Period.

Let me inform you as to the existence of the Corwin Amendment. This Amendment (which would guarantee permanent slavery) was pushed by Lincoln and the Republicans.

It passed the house and Senate by the required 2/3rds margin, and was ratified by 5 Northern states.

So to make it clear, the North was handing *SLAVERY* to the South on a silver platter. The only string attached was that the South would have to remain in the Union.

So with the North GIVING AWAY slavery, and with the South REFUSING TO ACCEPT IT it kinda proves the war was *NOT* about slavery to either the North or the South.

I'm sorry if this undercuts your view of the goodness of human nature, but it is factually true.

Yes, the North was going to sell out the slaves to keep the Southern states.