With all due respect for your attempt at civility, I am compelled to broaden your view of the War by a few facts to which you are apparently oblivious.
First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. To drink the Kool-Aid of the liberal media that these 94% would risk life and limb to defend the sins of the wealthy is to demonstrate extreme illogic and gullibility. This is excusable when you are in elementary school and have no experience with the deception of the media. To fail to acquire intellectual curiosity about such illogic is deplorable in an adult.
Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery if he could preserve the union (read: Empire). He announced that the abolition or preservation of slavery had no influence on his pursuit of the war. He announced at his first inauguration that he had no intent to interfere with it.
Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. It specifically exempted the northern states and the portions of the South that were under military control of Federal forces. Lincoln himself remarked that it had absolutely no legal validity.
Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri, declared all slaves in the district to be free only to have Lincoln castigate him for his pronouncement and force him to rescind his announcement. Lincoln repeated this action in the case of virtually every other Federal general who freed slaves, and he actually relieved at least one of command.
Fifth, the Federal government continued to employ slaves to build the Capitol and White House during the War. Does this seem a contradiction? Those slaves were not freed until years AFTER the War.
Sixth, General Grant allowed his wife to bring her slave into the Army camp during the War. Moreover, he is quoted as saying, "If I had any inkling that this war was being fought over slavery, I would throw down my sword and join the other side." He is also reported to have regretted the abolition of slavery and to have explained his opposition to this act with the words, "Good help is hard to find."
Seventh, (and I will stop here) when Lincoln was asked by his cabinet officers, "Why not simply let the South secede in peace?" Lincoln answered, "Where would I get the money to run the country?" You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.
The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.
Sir,You may have the wrong person. I'm not ordained by the British Crown (I'd have accepted, but the Constitution prohibits it...), and I am rarely civil.
With all due respect for your attempt at civility...
Just in case you really meant me, here's mine, per yours, no. 94:
First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. : For all the joy expressed in the neo-con fantasy about the souther common man's will for the South, despite, regardless, irrespective, etc. of slavery, your argument is turned inside out with a simple Gallup poll of northerners c. April, 1861. "Get 'em," quoth 94% of the northern population (Baltimore, Maryland, excepted...)
Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery... Fool me once, shame on me, fool you twice, shame on you. Lincoln said a lot of things. What he did is very clear. Shall we argue ghosts or shadows?
Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. The E.P. was a wholly constitutional act that freed the slaves in rebellion states. The 13th amendment freed the rest. Constitutional literalists find this fact inconvenient. I hate to btich at Walter Williams, but he's stupid wrong on this one.
Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri... and so on to your fifth and sixth on the same topic... See no. three.
Fremont had no such authority. He liberated California from the Mexicans, though. That's worth something, even a run at the White House...
Seventh, ... You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.
I just PUKED.
If the South paid 85% of the tariffs collected I'm moving to 'Bama, 1857. Must have been heaven, with so much money about. Aside from the lie, laws of economics make it an impossibility. The North, larger in population, industry, and consumption paid only 15% import duties? Danmed yankee smugglers.
If this were the case, secession was not the answer: cotton mills were. Go NC! (which generally didn't want to secede, including its Governor).
The argument is so specious not even anti-tariff southern Democrats in the post-war period brought it up.
As for control of the Government, please re-read the constitution. The South controlled the Senate. And the Democratic party (aka the South) ran the Government in the 1850s. They pushed through a free trade deal with Canada (did you know that?). They lowered duties generally. They ran the Supreme Court which ruled friendly to slave owners. They controlled the growth of the nation via congressional control over the territories and their brokered admittance to the Union.
Gee, what went wrong in 1861? Maybe a self-destruction of unparalled stupidity? I cry for my southern ancestors who fought so bravely, so magnificiently for the wrong reasons. I laud my northern ancestors who fought with equal honor the winning cause. I have medals earned for bravery on both sides.
The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.Actually, Prof. William admitted one thing on this subject: to the victors history.
Duh.
x, Huck, WhiskeyPapa, I really wanted to do this, but now I'm just bored.