@Emperor_Taiki:
If you believe that slavery caused the war, then how do you explain every other country doing away with slavery without fighting a war over it?
I believe that the premise of your reasoning is false. All other nations did away with slavery without a war, therefore the US civil war could not have been fought over slavery. There is no further examination of the issue at hand.
Why did the French Revolution end up in bloody massacre and inquisition and the American Revolution end up with a stable new government? They were both fought for similar reasons and ideals. There isn’t a single answer for that, but what does account for it is that they are two very different countries, with many different social, political and historical dynamics.
- First, virtually every other country in history that supported slavery was autocratic or authoritarian in some fashion. There were not the rights of freedom and liberty (of expression, speech, petition, assembly, etc… perhaps most importantly the right to bear arms) afforded to their citizens as they were (are) to US citizens. US government was truly representative and much power is given to the representatives of the people. Slaveholders in the United Kingdom and Russia, for example, did not have 70+ years of inalienable rights to property and their chosen way of life. When the government issues an order it is followed unthinkingly, because governmental control is part of their historical conscious memory. That same memory is not true of the United States. My point is that you are comparing apples to oranges.
2)Geographically, the United States was like no other country; rapidly progressing to industrial and agricultural superpower. However, as you know, these strengths were mostly divided along a east to west axis, thereby highlighting the differences between south an north. Great Britain was not like that, Imperial Russia was not like that, France was not like that… yet all had slaves at one time or another. No other country (that I know of) had such a stark geo-political divide in their nation as the united States did. Combined with the tradition of freedom and resistance to control, this provided for a war to break out.
@Emperor_Taiki:
I agree that one of the reasons the south wanted to secede was slavery. However, secession does not necessitate war nor does in constitute an attack on the Union. Fort Sumter was an act of resisting oppression, those were Federal troops occupying Southern territory. It was the North that threatened and invaded the South.
To your initial claim that attacking Fort Sumter is somehow resisting oppression… not sure how you can justify that one. No, secession itself is not a declaration of war. Today we have a bunch of people signing petitions to secede. A stupid thing to do for a number of reasons, but not aggressive.
Federal troops were occupying federal territory, which was owned legally by the Federal government. It was not part of a state, and therefore the South’s, to begin with.
This whole ensuing argument is going to be misunderstood by the both of us unless we define terms. I believe and hold that secession was an illegal act. For all historical intents and purposes, there never was a Confederate States of America because it was a construct of the South, never given legitimacy by the United States of America. During the entire war, the South was in a state of rebellion, not international autonomy. They still had seats in the US Congress (and therefore representation), the South voluntarily walked out and declined the right to a voice in government. They set up an illegitimate government which had no legal authority.
Given my above position, your assertions about resisting oppression and occupying Southern land mean nothing, because they are both false to begin with.
