You kid yourself. Most people have so little understanding of History that they don't recognize the connection.
But heaven help us if you guys get your own way. You'd have kids thinking the tariff was worse than slavery and Lincoln the worst and only racist president.
That is a complete misstatement of our position. No one is arguing that slavery is/was good. What we are arguing is that it was legal during that time period, and much of the money being produced was the consequence of it.
*I* am arguing that the Southern States seceded to get away from what they thought was economically unfair laws and tariffs created by the voting block of the Northern States and against their interests.
I am further arguing that the Northern Power blocks, having realized how much money they would lose from an Independent South trading directly with Europe, therefore launched a war against Southern Independence to prevent that massive loss of money.
The moral disagreement between the North and South over Slavery did indeed exist, but it was not the primary reason for which the Northern States launched an invasion of the Southern states. It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented by an Independent South, which was their primary motivation to wage war. It is why one of the first things they did is attempt to stop that same European trade, which had no obvious military value that I can see.
The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced. It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved.
After enough blood had been spilled, the economic reasons for commencing it were forgotten, and it became a hate war between invader and defender with the Invaders having the vastly upper hand.
To justify what they had done, the victors spun the narrative that they were fighting against slavery and they have been loudly repeating that ever since.
They focus on Slavery because if you focus on the real issues, the North does not look so very good regarding what they did.
So most people don't know what we're saying, but it determines what they think anyway. Oh to have such power!
Of course, you're just being stupid here. For today's young radicals, Lincoln, his party, and his union aren't heroes. They do know that much.
It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented by an Independent South, which was their primary motivation to wage war. It is why one of the first things they did is attempt to stop that same European trade, which had no obvious military value that I can see.
Nonsense. When there's a war, you cut off the resources that enable the other side to fight and win the war. In that sense, cotton did have "obvious military value." The Confederate leadership certainly thought it did and could win the war.
The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced. It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved.
Idiocy. That's your Marxist whiny baby slight of hand: "They told me it was all about slavery. Waaah. Actually it was all about money." Actually it was neither.
The fire eaters very much did see their slave money threatened by the election of a Republican. That was what drove the secession movement. Northerners resented what they saw as an unconstitutional secession and an assault on American forces and on the flag. Once the fighting started people rallied to one side or the other.
Lincoln -- or any president -- couldn't simply collapse before secessionist subversion and Confederate demands. Any president who didn't want to betray his oath and become a complete disgrace had to try to hold the line a little against secession -- had to prevent the capital, for example, from being cut off from the rest of the country.
If Davis had thought it was all about money for Lincoln and the North, he had only to resist the impulse to attack and let the Northerners' "real motives" become clear. If Lincoln attacked Davis, it would reveal that Lincoln had intended war all along. If he didn't there was potential for a negotiated settlement. But Davis couldn't help starting a war. Maybe it was all about the money for him.
They focus on Slavery because if you focus on the real issues, the North does not look so very good regarding what they did.
Meaning slavery wasn't a "real issue." Your words.
Confederates were trying to ban abolitionist books. People who owned and read such books were hanged. How could slavery possibly not be a "real issue"?
If you argued that was *a* motive, perhaps subconscious but not expressed at the time, anyone could say, "sure, *a* motive."
But I ask you again to read their official Reason's for Secession documents (here is one, there were three others).
Tariffs are not mentioned specifically, even once!
Neither are taxes or duties.
So protecting slavery is, by far and away the major concern, mentioned along with "property" over 100 times in those four documents.
So, seriously DiogenesLamp, would a reasonable person reading those "Reasons for secession" conclude that their real reason was the subject they mentioned 100 times (slavery), or the one they never mentioned: tariffs?
Remember, I'm talking about a reasonable person here, not necessarily Diogenes Lamp.
DiogenesLamp: "I am further arguing that the Northern Power blocks, having realized how much money they would lose from an Independent South trading directly with Europe, therefore launched a war against Southern Independence to prevent that massive loss of money. "
But your "launched a war" is a flat out lie, just as it would be if you said, "FDR launched war" against Japan or Germany.
In fact, just like Lincoln, regardless of how much FDR wanted go help the Brits' & French, he couldn't -- because 88% of Americans opposed it -- until Japanese first launched war against the USA, and Hitler declared war on us.
In Lincoln's case, the Confederacy first launched and then declared war on the United States.
Then, and only then were Roosevelt or Lincoln able to call up forces to defeat the military force already at war against the US.
DiogenesLamp: "The moral disagreement between the North and South over Slavery did indeed exist, but it was not the primary reason for which the Northern States launched an invasion of the Southern states.
It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented..."
Just as Franklin Roosevelt launched no invasion against Japan, regardless of economic reasons, until after Japan started war at Pearl Harbor, the same is true of Lincoln.
Indeed, Civil War could have ended on any day Confederates asked for peace.
But they completely refused until utterly defeated.
So Confederates both began the war and determined the date of its conclusion.
DiogenesLamp: "The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced.
It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved."
But never forget that Republicans, from their beginning, were the anti-slavery party.
Yes, Republicans fully intended to abolish slavery gradually, peacefully and lawfully, but abolition was their long-term goal, indeed it was their raison d'etre.
And that's the reason, not tariffs, Deep South Fire Eaters began to declare their secession immediately after Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860.
Bottom line: slavery first launched secession and Confederacy which then launched & declared war against the USA.
DiogenesLamp: "After enough blood had been spilled, the economic reasons for commencing it were forgotten, and it became a hate war between invader and defender with the Invaders having the vastly upper hand."
But it's impossible to forget reasons which were never there.
Restoring the Union was their first goal, abolishing slavery eventually became the second.
Both were adequate, by themselves to prevent Confederates from surrender short of complete unconditional defeat.
DiogenesLamp: "To justify what they had done, the victors spun the narrative that they were fighting against slavery and they have been loudly repeating that ever since. "
No, the Union narrative, from the beginning, has always been: first restore the Union, second free the slaves.
Tariffs were not mentioned by either Union or Confederates until much later.