If you aren’t able to refute a post, say so. It would be more honest.
As I pointed out in my post, the South seceded to protect slavery. I’ve posted many times before that I thought slavery was the main cause of the war for the South. On the other hand, I think the prospect of the loss of revenue was why Lincoln provoked the war. If you can’t respond to that without calling what I posted junk, you have lost the argument without even trying.
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of the same stuff that has been discussed to death posted over and over again.
And honestly, who does "refute" anything here? Even if that happens, the person refuted doesn't admit it, so it's like it never happened.
If you can’t respond to that without calling what I posted junk, you have lost the argument without even trying.
Like I said, I have trouble telling you guys apart. What I wrote was a result of being hit by a lot of different posts with a lot of different quotes that I thought were from the same person who was only going to make a "minor" correction.
I stand by my point, though. You are cherry-picking quotes that relate to the tariff rather than casting your nets wider. Your quotes from Northern business-oriented newspapers about how the South would react to the tariff are a poor substitute for the actual reactions of secessionists.
And who did start the war, anyway? Who "provoked" whom to what and how? If you don't recognize the great emotional appeal of nation and flag and honor in the 19th century or the persuasiveness of the constitutional arguments against secession of course you're going to look for something like the tariff to explain Lincoln's course of action, but not everyone is going to dismiss that much history.