‘Had the South done that what would they have had to secede over in the first place?’
States Rights, primarily.
The fact was the writing was on the wall about slavery before the first shot was fired at Ft Sumnter. But by that point, the politicians rhetoric had reached a fevered pitched we’ve only seen once since, and that was the day after Pearl Harbor.
Its revealing to note the number of fist fights and ‘canings’ that took place in the five years before the outbreak of war in the House and Senate. Not to mention the number of duels, responded to or not, offered up.
Everybody thought it would be one big battle, and over.
Manifested in what way? In other words state's right to do what?
The fact was the writing was on the wall about slavery before the first shot was fired at Ft Sumnter. But by that point, the politicians rhetoric had reached a fevered pitched we’ve only seen once since, and that was the day after Pearl Harbor
It's easy to look back after 140 years and see that slavery was a doomed institution. But I'm not aware of any Southern leader of the time who thought slavery was destined for an early end. They all believed that they would be handing it down to their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Its revealing to note the number of fist fights and ‘canings’ that took place in the five years before the outbreak of war in the House and Senate. Not to mention the number of duels, responded to or not, offered up.
Well I'm aware of one. I'm not familiar with any others.
Everybody thought it would be one big battle, and over.
Still a lot of that going around, isn't there?
States Rights, primarily.
States' "rights" to do what? Secede to prove they had the "right" to secede? The "right" not to abide by the results of an election they participated in? What "right" was burning so fervently besides the "right" to maintain slavery in the face of a Republican administration seeking to limit its expansion Westward?