[rockrr]

And yet in all these discussions regarding the Civil war, for some reason the argument generally breaks down to the issue of Slavery instead of the issue of Independence. It's just like the Abortion debate where people argue "Choice" instead of "Dead Baby." It is a deliberate skewing of the issue away from the salient point into something which proponents regard as defensible. Nobody wants to defend the violent repression of other people's freedom and independence, so they make the past actions more palatable by proffering a less objectionable reason for fighting. "To end Slavery."

Again you distort what people here are posting.

The south went to war because they perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the death knell of slavery in America and they would do ANYTHING to keep it. They didn't care that he said that he wouldn't steer any effort at ending slavery - only keep it from spreading. The south's primary motivation wasn't independence - it was control.

There was no violent repression of anyone except for that which the south perpetrated against its neighbor. When they went to war against America all bets were off.

[DiogenesLamp]

The south went to war because they perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the death knell of slavery in America and they would do ANYTHING to keep it.

They went to "Independence" for that reason. They went to war because they were arrogant. As long as we are being picky, let's get it right.

They didn't care that he said that he wouldn't steer any effort at ending slavery - only keep it from spreading. The south's primary motivation wasn't independence - it was control.

Control of what? Their own States? Yeah, I think that's pretty much the point. They even were willing to give up slavery (toward's the end) to keep Independence.

There was no violent repression of anyone except for that which the south perpetrated against its neighbor.

And what violent repression of their neighbor did they commit? Who did they bloody or kill?