Of course! However, that economic system was already deeply established; If it was to be abolished, it could only be done incrementally for obvious reasons, otherwise much of the South's economy would crash (and the North's textile factory profiteers also affected.) BUT THE MOVEMENT WAS IMMINENT.
Under no circumstances would they "go gentle into that good night" , period.
Why *should* the South have rolled over for an occupying military army who disrespected and dismissed their sovereignty?
It may be true in certain cases that a small number of Slave-Owners were adamant about maintaining and defending the slavery status quo tooth and nail, but NOT the vast majority. Again as a reminder, the end of Slavery as an institution WAS imminent; Even Southerners knew that and accepted it.
Another reminder: -- poor whites were *also* indentured "slaves," working to repay their own debts. Despite continued historical mythology, the South DID NOT nor would NOT fight the CW simply over MAINTAINING slavery; FACT: As has been proven, just a minuscule number of southerners actually owned slaves.
Anyway, my feelings about those old-time slave-holders is akin to that towards those Gilded Age "robber barons" you condemn so quickly. Both categories lived under the laws of their time and really should not be so condemned for not obeying laws which had not yet been written.
Here I agree with your assessment of "living under the laws of the time"; EXCEPT that the "Yankee" elites, aka Robber Barons OWNED the Banks AND created and owned The Game. Slave-Holder cotton producers were merely participating and profiteers themselves who shipped their product TO Robber Baron factories, within THEIR system.
Funny how "Slavery" didn't become an issue for a suddenly social justice warrior Lincoln and morally outraged North. UNTIL t was clear the Confederacy was willing to aggressively defend their soil.
My analogy is Pearl Harbor, about which you might argue the "proximate cause of war" was economics, since FDR had embargoed shipments of oil and other raw materials to Japan.Japan was busy expanding its sphere and empire to China and throughout surrounding Pacific Asia. The US Embargo was in reaction TO Japan's obvious plans. It was facilitated by design to slow down Japan's obvious wartime expansion and need for the natural resources like rubber and oil.
While you're busy insisting on creating the Pearl = Fort Sumter strawman meme, can you please point to the Confederacy's own Jap-like sphere of influence, and their expansionism of their empire by the sword? (no, THAT coercive sword would be wielded by LINCOLN and the NORTH.)
[Since] Pearl Harbor is the proximate cause of US entry into WWII. The same logic applies to Fort Sumter.
You can repeat that il-logical un-true meme a thousand more times --NOT on this planet, not in this Universe did it/does it apply in reality.
Neither slavery nor economics, nor any other reason sometimes mentioned, was the "proximate cause" of war. Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter was...economics was never the cause of war, proximate or otherwise.
Lol -- who are you trying to convince of that, "Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter" as essentially THE declaration of war?? You haven't read or understood a SINGLE solitary word, sentence or paragraph by DiogenesLamp in addressing the dynamics and "cause" of Lincoln's War against the South (as well as the Fort Sumter subterfuge) IN CLEAR AND CONCISE DETAIL, have you?
Your cognitive dissonance and wall of ignorance (will all due respect) is absolutely stunning.
Wait -- I see you just tripled down on your delusion:
Regardless, my key point here still stands: Confederates could have stopped the war on any day of their own choosing...Who is to blame for that?
REALLY?? Again here's THE MEMO: The tyrannically insane Lincoln and his Robber Baron overlords who plotted the incident at Fort Sumter via subterfuge; An Abe Lincoln (who by his writings appeared to regret his decision in the FIRST PLACE) and his Robber Baron/Banker elite overlords insisted the South be subjugated, coerced, cratered, plundered, and razed for daring to defend THE RIGHT to their own liberty, economic preservation, and personal and State sovereignty.
Who is to blame for the fact it took A-bombs to convince Japan to surrender, "unconditionally"? President Roosevelt, or Truman?
*SMH* so now you're justifying Sherman's and the North's brutality, plunder, and scorched earth policy AND making it as necessary or peace as dropping an A-Bomb on say Richmond and Charleston? Wow.
Post WWII Japan was treated with faaar more respect and dignity than the Post-CW Confederacy. Can you explain WHY that was. Joey?
These memes of yours -- that Japan = The Confederacy; Lincoln's North = WWII America; Fort Sumter = Pearl Harbor and its fictional analogy; the fictional similarities between a Confederacy DEFENDING itself vs. a Fascist-Expansionist Japan...and finally the terms of "surrender."
You aren't even dealing with Apples vs. Oranges; You are offering analogies, events and "facts" that are so utterly bizarre, that they can't be remotely be considered from any intellectual degree of honesty and reality.
You see two round spheres and base you analogies on THAT, Ex: An Orange vs. the Planet Mars.
Agreed, up until your final words.
Yes, it is possible to imagine Border States like Delaware, Maryland and even Missouri entertaining serious abolition movements by, say 1870.
That's because slavery was already showing signs of dying out in those states by 1860.
So, in due time they could have joined their Northern cousins in peaceful gradual abolition.
But the Deep Cotton South was a very different situation.
There slavery and cotton had resulted in the most prosperous white people, on average, on earth.
And there was no possible way, so long as that remained the case, they were going to give up slavery peacefully.
So for the Deep South the moment was far from imminent in 1860.
HangUpNow: "Why *should* the South have rolled over for an occupying military army who disrespected and dismissed their sovereignty? "
Of course, in 1860 there was no military, period.
HangUpNow: "It may be true in certain cases that a small number of Slave-Owners were adamant about maintaining and defending the slavery status quo tooth and nail, but NOT the vast majority.
Again as a reminder, the end of Slavery as an institution WAS imminent; Even Southerners knew that and accepted it."
Your claim here is pure fantasy, absolutely in the Deep South.
Even in Border States, where abolition movements could be imagined, as of 1860 there were none, zero, zip, nada.
HangUpNow: "Another reminder: -- poor whites were *also* indentured "slaves," working to repay their own debts."
Sure, just as the Bible says we are "slaves to sin," but those are metaphorical senses of the word "slave", and in no way apply to the legal status of four million African Americans as of 1860.
HangUpNow: "Despite continued historical mythology, the South DID NOT nor would NOT fight the CW simply over MAINTAINING slavery;
FACT: As has been proven, just a minuscule number of southerners actually owned slaves."
Those numbers you cite are very misleading, since they only refer to the adult white males of large families which owned slaves.
So, if you consider not just the men, but also their families, then it turns out that in the Deep Cotton South, almost half of families owned slaves.
In the Upper South of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, where large regions (i.e., mountains) had no slave-holders, there on average about 25% of families owned slaves.
In Border States it was only about 15% of families which owned slaves, and that explains why in 1861 those states refused to vote for secession, even after Fort Sumter.
HangUpNow: "Slave-Holder cotton producers were merely participating and profiteers themselves who shipped their product TO Robber Baron factories, within THEIR system."
I'll cite for you again numbers from New Orleans in the late 1850s showing that half the US cotton crop shipped from New Orleans and 85% of that went directly to Europe, not to Northern US "robber barons".
So Southern planters were nowhere near as subject to the Northern "system" as you might suppose.
Also, remember than within their own states, large planter/slave-holders totally controlled the legislatures and laws they needed for successful enterprises.
Yes, their Southern enterprises were somewhat different than Northern, but their influence over Legislatures no less.
HangUpNow: "Funny how 'Slavery' didn't become an issue for a suddenly social justice warrior Lincoln and morally outraged North. UNTIL t was clear the Confederacy was willing to aggressively defend their soil."
Nothing "funny" about it.
When the Confederacy started and declared war against the United States, President Lincoln's first priority was to defeat the military forces which threatened Washington and the Union.
Slavery only became an issue because slaves themselves made it an issue, by escaping their masters and running to Union army lines.
What was the Union army to do, return them?
No, it was quickly decided runaway slaves would be protected and put to work for the Union.
As the war went on, these runaway slaves became a larger and larger factor, and some were willing to enlist in the Union Army, at which point President Lincoln began to consider the Emancipation Proclamation.
Since Republicans were ideologically opposed to slavery, Civil War provided them an opportunity to accomplish quickly what otherwise would have taken decades & generations -- abolition, voting rights and civil rights.
It's an amazing accomplishment, and gave the Civil War a higher purpose than simply brother killing brother.
HangUpNow quoting BJK: "My analogy is Pearl Harbor, about which you might argue the "proximate cause of war" was economics..."
I notice a typo there which makes some of your words appear as if they are mine.
Fortunately, I don't disagree with you on this question, so will not make a big issue of it.
HangUpNow: "While you're busy insisting on creating the Pearl = Fort Sumter strawman meme, can you please point to the Confederacy's own Jap-like sphere of influence, and their expansionism of their empire by the sword? (no, THAT coercive sword would be wielded by LINCOLN and the NORTH.)"
Sure, the Confederacy's false claims to and demands for Union surrender of Fort Sumter, and it's military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, all correspond to the Japanese expansionist empire into lands that were not theirs.
Plus, among a long list of similarities between Pearl & Sumter is both the Japanese commander and the Confederate Secretary of State warned their leaders that starting war could lead to ultimate defeat:
Yamamoto before Pearl Harbor:
Yamamoto's alleged "awaken a sleeping giant" quote is apparently a product of Hollywood's "Tora Tora Tora".
HangUpNow: "Lol -- who are you trying to convince of that, "Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter" as essentially THE declaration of war??
You haven't read or understood a SINGLE solitary word, sentence or paragraph by DiogenesLamp in addressing the dynamics and "cause" of Lincoln's War against the South (as well as the Fort Sumter subterfuge) IN CLEAR AND CONCISE DETAIL, have you?"
Always remember, as a conservative Freeper, I am never impressed with your Marxist-Alinskyite interpretations of historical events.
HangUpNow: "The tyrannically insane Lincoln and his Robber Baron overlords who plotted the incident at Fort Sumter via subterfuge;
An Abe Lincoln (who by his writings appeared to regret his decision in the FIRST PLACE) and his Robber Baron/Banker elite overlords insisted the South be subjugated, coerced, cratered, plundered, and razed for daring to defend THE RIGHT to their own liberty, economic preservation, and personal and State sovereignty."
Total complete rubbish.
In fact, in the last months of the war, barely 10 weeks before Unconditional Surrender at Appomattox Court House, there were peace negotiations at Hampton Roads between Lincoln & Confederate leaders, during which Confederates were offered much better terms than they actually received 10 weeks later.
But they turned them down, preferring to fight on to unconditional surrender.
If that's not a definition of pure insanity, I don't what would be.
HangUpNow: "*SMH* so now you're justifying Sherman's and the North's brutality, plunder, and scorched earth policy AND making it as necessary or peace as dropping an A-Bomb on say Richmond and Charleston? Wow."
Remember, just as Germans & Japanese in WWII could have ended their wars months or years earlier, at times when they would have suffered vastly less death & destruction, so also Confederates.
But total insanity took hold of them, and so they insisted on Unconditional Surrender.
Don't ask me why, I can't explain insanity.
HangUpNow: "Post WWII Japan was treated with faaar more respect and dignity than the Post-CW Confederacy.
Can you explain WHY that was. Joey?"
Only in your wet dreams is that true, Hungy-boy.
In fact, after WWII, over 10,000 Japanese were tried for war-crimes and 2,000 of those executed, while thousands more got life sentences.
In all the years since, the Japanese have continued to issue official apologies and pay reparations to victims of Japanese atrocities.
Sure, my Dad was there, and he did treat Japanese with great respect, which they returned (thank God!), but there was certainly no effort to give Japanese representation in Congress (!), or the electoral college (!!) as happened in the South after the Civil War.
So there is no comparison, none, nada, and it's only your own warped senses and utter ignorance of historical facts that could let you think so, Hungy-boy.
HangUpNow: "You aren't even dealing with Apples vs. Oranges; You are offering analogies, events and "facts" that are so utterly bizarre, that they can't be remotely be considered from any intellectual degree of honesty and reality."
Sorry Hungy-boy, but it's you who are in total denial & ignorance of real history.
My condolences.