If slavery had NEVER existed - North or South - would the secession have been legal? In your opinion of course? You already know my position.
Sure. Bombarding Sumter into surrender and initiating a war. How about that?
But WHY? You're going to tell me that financially Sumter had little value, and we already know that the yankees didn't wants blacks in the union, so why fight a war to keep the South in the union?
That is so ridiculous if you bothered to think about it.
Not hardly. I have a minor in Economics, and it makes perfect sense.
Yes. But never unilaterally as the southern states tried.
But WHY? You're going to tell me that financially Sumter had little value, and we already know that the yankees didn't wants blacks in the union, so why fight a war to keep the South in the union?
Because the southern unilateral acts of secession were illegal.
Not hardly. I have a minor in Economics, and it makes perfect sense.
Big deal, I have an MBA from Northwestern and all the economic theory from the classes I took there doesn't explain the rebellion and the gaps in the arguement of those who claim that it was all about tariffs. And I also feel that I have read up on the Civil War more than the average person, including the causes of the rebellion, and I cannot understand just what it was that you believe the south imported in such massive amounts as to have generated the majority of tariff revenue? Nor have I found what it was that the south was supposed to have gotten cheaper from Europe. Perhaps you can help out here?