(2) The precipitating cause of the Civil War was the South's firing on Fort Sumter, which was ordered by Jefferson Davis directly to P. T. Beauregard in order to press forward with enough state secessions to make the Confederacy viable.
(3) Sectional animosities over slavery were so advanced by 1861 that the South did not find Northern promises to preserve slavery credible. Indeed, many in the South recognized, correctly, that slavery was not sustainable in the long run due to the fugitive slave problem and the need for constant territorial expansion to maintain slave prices.
This is both false, and directly contrary to the conclusions of economic historians. The Southern states focused on producing cash crops because that was the most profitable enterprise to invest in for a long time. That was starting to change and the Upper South was starting to industrialize by 1860.
(2) The precipitating cause of the Civil War was the South's firing on Fort Sumter, which was ordered by Jefferson Davis directly to P. T. Beauregard in order to press forward with enough state secessions to make the Confederacy viable.
Also false. The precipitating cause was the heavily armed flotilla of warships Lincoln sent to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. The Confederacy would have been perfectly viable with just the original 7 seceding states.
(3) Sectional animosities over slavery were so advanced by 1861 that the South did not find Northern promises to preserve slavery credible. Indeed, many in the South recognized, correctly, that slavery was not sustainable in the long run due to the fugitive slave problem and the need for constant territorial expansion to maintain slave prices.
Also false. There simply was no real threat of slavery ending due to outside pressure in the states that still had it. The entire struggle over the western states was a power struggle over votes in the Senate as was pointed out numerous times by Southerners.
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
in 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, that there were a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there. If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it. Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great! In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the category of slave holding or Free soil states”.
That is why the Southern states were perfectly happy to secede and not make any claim to the western territories of the US. They didn't need to spread slavery to a region which did not have the climate to produce anything that would have made it profitable anyway. Their only interest before was in votes in the Senate to protect themselves against ever more rapacious economic policies being passed by the North. Once they were out of the US, they no longer needed votes in the Senate and no longer cared about the western territories.
Back to letting other people do your thinking for you, eh?
Moreover, slavery depressed the wages and opportunities for low skilled factory labor needed for the development of manufacturing. Blaming the tariff for that is simply foolish, then and now.
Accepting those assertions as "true" is what is foolish. This is what you get when you let other people steer you toward what they wish for you to believe.
(2) The precipitating cause of the Civil War was the South's firing on Fort Sumter, which was ordered by Jefferson Davis directly to P. T. Beauregard in order to press forward with enough state secessions to make the Confederacy viable.
This is factually wrong. It was ordered by Secretary of War Walker, and it was a consequence of the arrival of the warships Lincoln sent to attack them. I have read the actual telegrams. Davis' name isn't on any of them. The exchange of messages was between Walker and Beauregard.
Did you know about the warships triggering the attack on Sumter?
Indeed, many in the South recognized, correctly, that slavery was not sustainable in the long run due to the fugitive slave problem
That's the funniest thing i've read all day. :)
Just how many fugitive slaves would render slavery unsustainable from the losses with a population of several million slaves? How often did they have slaves escape and why was this a mortal blow to the institution?
And now is a good time to inform you that the US constitution required the return of escaped slaves. It is in Article IV, section 2.
...and the need for constant territorial expansion to maintain slave prices.
Which I have demonstrated to you is a lie. There could never bee an "expansion." The territories couldn't grow cotton, and that was that.
The people warning of "expansion" were liars, and they were lying, and they were lying precisely to keep power in Congress.
The primary organization responsible for putting forth this allegation was the "Free Soil Party", located in New York New York. *THEY* are the ones telling everyone that "slavery was going to expand."
They were astroturf meant to make voters fear this so that they would vote in support of the Northeastern power block which already had control of congress.
They were like the "Black Lives Matter" political organization that went around spreading lies about the police and about Republicans just to help their political allies win more seats in congress.
It's the same playbook, it's just a century and a half later. The liberals are still lying and still using astroturf organizations to promote their political lies.