Since the Confederacy was never really an independent, sovereign nation then your statement is basically correct.
Kinda blows a big hole in "the War was fought over slavery" narrative.
Depends on which side you're referring to. For the North, it was not over slavery. For the South, it was.
As i've said before, it was fought so Washington D.C. could maintain economic control over the South's money and trade.
So you keep saying. I'm mildly surprised that you haven't hauled out that tariff collection picture of yours.
Had the Colonies been subjugated, the British would have declared that they were "never really an independent sovereign nation."
Fortunately for the US, King George III was not willing to kill 750,000 people to impose his will on the Colonies. I suppose if you murder enough people, you can force the history to say whatever it is that you wish for the History to say.
Depends on which side you're referring to. For the North, it was not over slavery. For the South, it was.
Since the North was insisting on invading, it is only their reasons that matter. It is safe to say that whatever the South's reasons for seceding, it is the North's reasons alone that resulted in a war.
So you keep saying. I'm mildly surprised that you haven't hauled out that tariff collection picture of yours.
Will evidence suddenly matter to you if I do? Why bother. You don't want to look at the money flow, and the money flow is the only thing that really mattered. There was far more slavery going on in the Caribbean, but rather than use those gunboats to stop it, the Union wanted to make sure there was no economic activity between the South and Europe.
Again, follow the money, and you will find the truth. *ONLY* the money will tell you the truth.