(12-15-2022, 05:19 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Look man, no one is saying that slavery wasn't the catalyst that led to succession. Anyone objecting to that doesn't know what they are talking about. That's not why the WAR was fought, though.

Prior to the Civil war, people thought of the states like their country, and, for all intents and purposes, there was no reason to assume otherwise. Those individual states joined a Federation out of mutual self-interest to create stability and increase their presence on the world stage. Most people in the US had this world view prior to the Civil War. For example, Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, but he felt he had to fight for his countrymen... VIRGINIANS.

When the North became powerful enough to overturn the way of life for the South, the South felt the Federation now threatened to overturn said way of life and wanted out. IF the North just let them leave, there would be no war. However, they declared the South couldn't leave, and that is what started the fighting. The Civil War was fought for states' sovereignty, not slavery. The South lost, and it fundamentally changed the way we looked at the Federation. It was no longer an agreement that bound different nations... it was officially clear that the US was one nation.

Slavery is the issue that led to succession. State sovereignty is what caused the war. Period. You should know this. You're a history major.

Secession, not succession.  

State sovereignty was the legal justification for secession.  But the reason for secession was to defend slavery.  Why do you think they wanted to secede?  It wasn't to defend state sovereignty.  So to say state sovereignty caused the civil war is just as wrong as it can be.  

Read the various Articles of Secession.  The say "the reason we are seceding is to defend slavery." How much more clear can it be?

---