The south had fought to keep slavery since the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation and then the constitution. Since the 1820s they worried that more free states would be admitted than slave and after the Louisiana purchase that became very likely.
Why? Because the "free states" were also "free" in a different manner. The South was paying for their share of the Government because the South was paying about 80% of all the taxes for the entire nation.
The South recognized it was getting outvoted in Congress, and laws and taxes were being imposed on it against it's will, and the only means of stopping it was to get more representation in congress.
A characteristic of the time was that "free" states would vote as a coalition, and "slave" states would vote as a coalition with the South. Therefore, the only way the South could protect itself against unfair laws and taxes was to get more representation in Congress.
How to do that? Get more slave states to join it's coalition. The only way to do that is to create new states as "slave" states, even though slavery was completely impractical in any place other than the Southern states where it already existed.
"Bloody Kansas" was more about control of congress than it was about any concern over slavery. The north had gotten itself into a fine situation in taxing the South and regulating it's commerce so that they could intercept it's income stream for their own benefit.
The South wanted laws that would steer more of that income stream back to them, and they couldn't get them so long as the Northern coalition was numerically superior.
For you to say the south didn’t want to keep slavery and that wasn’t a part of their motivation ignores their actions to protect slavery for over 75 years.
I didn't say the south didn't want to keep slavery. Of course the South wanted to keep slavery. It was the economic engine producing all the money coming from Europe.
When the president and congress went to war,
The President went to war, and he waited till congress was safely out of session so that he could launch the war. Had congress been in session, they would have likely attempted to stop him from sending that fleet of Warships to attack the Confederates at Charleston.
Congress just meekly accepted Lincoln's fait accompli after the fact.
By fighting the slave sates they were in fact fighting against slavery.
This would be true if there was an effort to free the slaves at the very beginning. The truth is they had no intention of doing this until it became clear to them that they wouldn't be able to control that stream of money produced by the slaves, so they no longer had any interest in tolerating slavery. There was nothing in it for them, and the South would use that economic power to get vengeance on them for attacking them.
Better to break the South economically so it could no more threaten the money people in the North East, and *THAT* is why they decided to abolish slavery a year and a half into the war.
But initially there was no intentions to get rid of slavery at all. In fact, in an effort to keep the Southern states in the Union, Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin amendment, which would have further protected slavery.
I think you don’t give enough credence to slavery as an economic issue
I never ignore the economic. But to say that slavery was not an issue ignores the other 500 pound gorilla.
I’m tapped out on the issue. And have honeydos to do.
Good day.