> Well they did in fact do that. Harper's ferry was just a short time earlier.
That's not a negation or much or a response to what I said, which was that the secessionists thought an international border would prevent such activism.
I'm not interested in what later day people claim was the intent of the amendment. I am interested in pointing out that any government which could pass such an amendment didn't really care about slavery, and therefore slavery was not the primary issue driving the conflict.
You think you are being logical, but you're not. Slaveowners feared that slavery was threatened. That made slavery and the fears surrounding it the prime motive for secession.
When the issue is money and income, I know of no person that does not regard it with the utmost seriousness if it affects themselves. Human nature has been pretty consistent about looking out for themselves and their own financial compensation.
Southern capital was heavily invested in slaves. That made slavery something to be regarded as being of the utmost seriousness. Your childish dreams of Southern economic empire were by comparison airy fantasies.
The North offered slavery, therefore the North was not motivated by a concern for the slaves. The South rejected the North's offer of slavery, so the South was not motivated by a fixation on slavery.
Life is more complicated than it is in your simplistic world. Northerners wanted to preserve the union. That was their primary motivation. They also wanted slavery not to spread. That was why they rejected the Crittenden Compromise. Nobody believes that their primary motivation was loving concern for the slaves.
The slaveowners felt the survival of slavery was at risk and they wanted a government that was completely committed to preserving and protecting slavery. The Deep South States were already gone, but the Corwin Amendment did help to keep the other slave states in the union, at least for a time.
I get so sick of having to repeat all this over and over and over again.
You wanted more commentary regarding something that seems rather self evident? Yes, I think an international border would likely prevent a lot of efforts to incite slave revolts.
You think you are being logical, but you're not. Slaveowners feared that slavery was threatened.
So we keep being told by their enemies who want this claim to be true because in their mind it justifies what was done to them. That is however, very different from being actually true, and at this point I no longer simply accept what their enemies say about them to be actually true.
That made slavery and the fears surrounding it the prime motive for secession.
Again, according to Northern claims, but still ignoring the massive shift in money that would occur from secession, as a cause. Between you and me, I trust money motivation more so than I do any other concern. We have all of American history and indeed recent history to see examples of money driving everything else.
Southern capital was heavily invested in slaves.
Well yes it was. It was the primary money making system in the South. But it was legal, always had been legal, and would remain legal if they did nothing.
That made slavery something to be regarded as being of the utmost seriousness.
If there were any real threats to it, which there weren't. People who were serious about money could not help but notice that 60% of the total output kept going into Northern pockets. Robert Rhett and John Calhoun certainly noticed it, and I think they told others.
Life is more complicated than it is in your simplistic world. Northerners wanted to preserve the union.
You offer a simplistic explanation for why the North felt they had to invade and kill people to "preserve a Union" that hated each other. I point out that it was more complicated than that, because there was a huge pile of money at stake depending on how everything went.
You want to ignore the money and offer me that simplistic explanation that they felt they had to fight and die to "preserve the Union."
Why? Why would anyone want to preserve a Union if they hated slavery and it was the slave states that were leaving?
They also wanted slavery not to spread.
Two things. Where did they get the idea that it would?
Why did they not want it to spread?
Well they got the idea that it would spread from the same Northern propaganda type outlets that are still feeding us lying sh*t today. They didn't want it to spread because they hated black people. *and* because they didn't want competition for their own wages. The first reason is immoral on the face of it, and the second reason is strictly self interest. Couple that with the lies they were told about it "spreading" (which it could not do to any meaningful extent), and the whole thing was wrong headed every way you look at it.
Nobody believes that their primary motivation was loving concern for the slaves.
Well this is absolutely correct. Their primary thinking of slaves was "hatred," not the fairy tale we've all been taught.
The slaveowners felt the survival of slavery was at risk and they wanted a government that was completely committed to preserving and protecting slavery.
Again, so the people trying to justify what was done to them keep telling us. Is it correct? I don't know, but I have come to doubt the truthfulness of any "everyone knows that" stories about history I have been taught.
It is likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle.