And therefore neither was the South. Both sides agreed slavery would continue unchanged. (When the war began)
Where I disagree, somewhat vehemently, was the contention that slavery had nothing to do with it.
Slavery was the source of the money. The fight was over the money the slaves produced. The fight was *NOT* over whether black people should remain slaves. Both sides agreed to that.
The only reason the North decided to break slavery was because they were mad the South put up such a fight, and by the time the war ended, people had become so bitter that they just wanted to hurt the people they were fighting in any way the could.
Also, they wanted to break them financially so that they could not get revenge for what had been done to them by invading armies from Northern states.
You’re statement says that since the North was not fighting about slavery, “..and therefore, neither the South.” How do you get there? That’s a leap of logic greater than Evel Kneivel’s over the Snake River Canyon (and just as successful, BTW). This may seem difficult for you to understand, but two sides can enter a fight over different reasons. The North entered the fight over a desire to preserve the Union. The South had other reasons. At least 4 of the States claimed it was over the future of slavery. This whole, it’s about the money is true, but everything is about money at it’s root. That could be said of every war. At it’s root, they’re all about the money, but again, that’s like saying all deaths are caused by the failure of the heart to continue beating.
I notice you still have not answered my question regarding why it was acceptable to blame slavery, while it was somehow verboten to mention high tariffs in the articles of secession. Why would slavery be a winning issue, and not high tariffs? Why did the southern states think that Great Britain would help them in a fight over slavery, but not in a fight over high tariffs?
You have also not answered the question of why the Southern elites, who saw themselves as the proper descendants of the knights of old would deliberately and in public lie about their reasons for seceding? Were they that devoid of honor? Do you really think so poorly of them?
I would add: they wanted to keep European powers like Britain and France out. With both having already abolished slavery it would be politically very difficult for either to intervene on behalf of a country, the CSA, which still had slavery.
Also, Lincoln and his corporate fatcat supporters started this war over money. Even a cursory reading of the major Northern Newspapers as well as Lincoln's insistence on collecting duties in Southern ports in his inaugural address makes that quite clear. They thought it would be easy....a mere matter of marching. Remember that they only called for 75,000 volunteers and only for a period of 3 months. Then their little war over money turned extremely expensive and turned into a bloodbath.
Now there are a lot of parents of Northern sons grieving for the loss of their son and even more who came back mangled and crippled for life. What do you tell those people? They are voters! Do you tell them that their loved one was killed or had his arm blown off over......money? Sure its true but those voters are going to be absolutely furious when they hear that. So now Lincoln and indeed the whole Republican Party establishment now need to wrap this bloodbath in the cloak of some noble cause to make it more palatable. They know the voters back home won't look too closely. They desperately want to believe the frightful price they paid was for some noble cause. "dying to make men free" fits the bill nicely. Who cares if anybody who bothers to look at what they were saying in 1860 and 61 can immediately see that its pure BS?