Perhaps you need to reread my post. I did not say the South wanted to take over the North. (I really appreciate the insult to my intelligence.) I said that if we go down the road of "What Ifs" and the South had seceded, that given the history, proximity and economic realities, one outcome may have been that the countries would have unified again with the South in control, meaning slavery would have been written into the Constitution as it was in the Confederate constitution.
I agree that the "War between the States" would be a more accurate term. I used the term "Civil War" because that is the most common term, not as a political statement. I don't devote my life to refighting the battles of 150 years ago.
As I said, for many decades those who opposed slavery thought it would die of its own accord. In additon, there is clear historical evidence that the abolitionist movement worked to awaken the public conscience in a new way in the decades leading to the "War between the States." A number of factors brought the issue to the point of no return, sparking the war.
Perhaps you need to reread my post. I did not say the South wanted to take over the North. (I really appreciate the insult to my intelligence.
Maybe I should but maybe you should have worded it better. Oh well.