How was slavery endangered by remaining in the Union? If you are going to make such a claim, I expect you to support it.
I've seen this claim numerous times, but when people are asked to point out how slavery was going to be in danger, they say, "Uh, if it didn't expand it would cease to exist!" as if this claim were some how self evidently true, which it isn't.
I've shown up thread that expanding it was impossible, even if everyone agreed to it. The land into which it would have to expand, wouldn't support it.
So how was the South fighting a war to preserve something that wasn't really in any danger? Riddle me that.
You go out of your way to justify the unjustifiable. But don’t use excuse that I claimed the slavery was endangered by the North in 1860.
And yes, the South fought the war for no good reason. It was in defense of the Union that the North fought until the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the South.
During the entire 1850s the Slavers were agitating to be allowed to take their slaves anywhere they wished many of the agitators candidly confessed that they believed the area was incompatible with slavery and it would not grow there.
That did not stop the movement engendered by Calhoun from carrying on about the right to take slavery into the new territories.
The South had no chance and suffered the consequences.
Modern economies have no place for slavery and someone should have told the South that. Not that the Fire-eaters would pay any attention but any perceptive Slaver should have figured that out.