“Only in your deluded mind.”
That is an interesting comment. And raises a question (stop me if you have heard this one) that has never been satisfactorily answered.
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
“If the South was fighting for slavery...”
Interesting thing is that the south was not fighting for slavery, slavery was collateral damage. Slave labor was the cheapest labor they could use and they wanted to expand.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished. The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone. Both being what would now be called racist.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system that previously had protected their financial system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision, that led directly to war. So it was really about finance more than slavery. Slavery was just a tool that got in the way of agreed expansion financially with the new republican party pushing back against the old southern democrats that had had their way for a lot of years in their financial operations.
rwood