You’re statement says that since the North was not fighting about slavery, “..and therefore, neither the South.” How do you get there? How do you not? You claim the South wanted *SLAVERY*. Lincoln's actions indicate that he was going to give them all the *SLAVERY* they could possibly want, so clearly *SLAVERY* wasn't a sufficient reason for them to want to remain in the Union. Their discontent could not be satiated by offering stronger protection for *SLAVERY*.
Therefore the Union did not launch their invasion to stop slavery, and the South did not shoot down the invaders because they thought they were coming to stop slavery.
They fought them because they invaded. It's really that simple.
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.
Verboten is a mischaracterization of it. It wasn't forbidden, it just wasn't useful. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? I haven't heard him in years, but he used to use a phrase "Green eyeshade Lingo", referring to Republican's tendency to talk about complex economic issues that were so boring they caused most of the public's eyes to glaze over.
He pointed out time and time again that the public doesn't get the "green eyeshade lingo", and Republicans are wasting their time trying to get the public interested in it. Democrats on the other hand push emotional extremes, like "They gonna put ya'll back in chains!" Or "Women's rights are being violated!" "Do it for the Children!" Or as Bill Nye (the science idiot) said: "The *WORLD* is on *FIRE*!!!!!!"
Emotional arguments work well with the public, but boring factual discussions of numbers and percentages etc do not. People's eyes glaze over.
Telling everyone around you that *Those people *HATE* you because you are a deplorable person for living in and tolerating a slave state!* Is a much more effective method of getting the public to want to separate from the people who hate them and call them "evil."
Trying to make a numbers argument just doesn't move the populace as well.
I am not the one that claimed the South wanted slavery. The South (at least the 4 states who claimed anything in their Articles of Secession) are the ones who claimed they wanted it. You claim they were lying because talking about tariffs and taxes was too boring. Funny, I notice the President doesn’t think talking about taxes being too high is boring. And he has also mentioned tariffs specifically once or twice. Also, Lincoln’s actions DO NOT indicate he was going to give them all the slavery they could possibly want. The Corwin Amendment prevented the national government from interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed. It did nothing regarding expanding slavery to the territories, and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. I know you have claimed that the southern states didn’t care about expansion of slavery into the territories. The legislature of South Carolina and the victims of “Bleeding Kansas” disagree with you.
Your comments stating the south fought simply because the north invaded is simplistic in the extreme. We’re back to asking 20 questions: 1) Why is the South fighting? - because the North invaded. 2) Why did the North invade? - because the South seceded. 3) Why did the South secede - because they were afraid the North would interfere with the “peculiar domestic institution” 4) What “peculiar domestic institution” are you referring to? - Slavery
So, you continue to claim that the legislatures of the southern states deliberately and cynically lied in their Articles of Secession. Apparently you believe the ruling elite of the Southern States had no honor.
And you still haven’t explained why they thought slavery was such a winning argument with the British Empire, whose help they desperately needed. Remember, they weren’t trying to convince the “rubes” in the British Empire, they were trying to convince the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth. One would presume that they would like an argument that lowered tariffs on their goods, so why did the South not utilize this argument, if that was their real reason?