Yeah. But LIBERTY to do what? We both know the answer to that, son. You're just too cowardly to admit it.
Sure there were plenty of small issues between North and South. And one Big Issue, which was slavery. The big sectional crises that had plagued the Union for decades, and which raised the spectre of war as early as 1850, were about the South wanting to expand slavery into new territories, and the North wanting otherwise. There's no denying that.
And the secessions themselves ... were about slavery. It's no accident that the Southern states began seceding when Lincoln -- perceived as a harbinger if abolition -- was elected. And furthermore, several states said explicitly, in their Declarations of Secession, that it was about slavery. As Mississippi put it:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. [Emphasis mine.]
Pretty stark stuff. Your argument there, IIRC, is that those declarations are meaningless. A convenient but silly claim on your part.
And, in fact, a lot of the minor causes to which you refer, ultimately had their roots slavery as well ... including the increasingly large gap between the economy of the North (driven by expanding industry, railroads, and the banking system required to finance it); and the economy of the South (driven by slave-produced agricultural goods, primarily cotton).
You can dodge and squeal and use ALL CAPITOL LETTERS all you want, but the real facts are that the war was ultimately caused by the existence of slavery in the South.
absent the WBTS, slavery WOULD have REMAINED legal. your "clay-footed, secular saint, lincoln, the UNjust" said that he would ASSURE permanent protection for the "peculiar institution", by Constitutional amendment. (and of course, you believe every word out of lincoln's mouth, don't you???)
PITY that you fail to see the obvious TRUTH.
nonetheless, you are WELCOME to hold ANY opinion. it's called LIBERTY, if you can keep it.
free dixie,sw
put your trust in God & the TRUTH & put away your blindness, so that you don't seem SILLY & clueLESS.
free dixie,sw
furthermore, FEW people (except the AUTHORS) read the 'declarations' and/or CARED what the slave-owners thought was important. as i've said numerous times, the 5-6% of northerners/southerners, who owned slaves/were IN "the flesh trade" were a LOUD but tiny minority.
frankly, the "declarations" tell students of the WBTS period NOTHING important to an understanding of the WBTS, except what a FEW rich individuals thought was important.
it is posting SILLY, inconsequential, bilge like "the declarations" which tells me that you know LITTLE about the 19th century, the causes of war or almost anything else.
that's why i think you are a "knows nothing" & a joke.
free dixie,sw