Economy was the primary factor. That's the facts.

I actually agree with Mike here

and economy was the primary factor, which is why the south would not have banned slavery in 4 years. Mike, you are digging your own grave, IMO

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Economy was the primary factor. That's the facts.

Yeah, the fact that their economy would collapse without slaves.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Economy was the primary factor. That's the facts.

Yeah, the fact that their economy would collapse without slaves.

So you agree it was the economic factors that led to secession? Good deal. We can move on.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Economy was the primary factor. That's the facts.

Yeah, the fact that their economy would collapse without slaves.

So you agree it was the economic factors that led to secession? Good deal. We can move on.

LISTEN TO ME SEMPAI

The fact that slavery may have been the reason that the southern states seceded still does not make the Civil War about abolishing slavery.

The Civil War still would have occurred no matter what reason the seceding states used for leaving the Union. They could have seceded because they wanted the favorite national color to be green.

Do you think if they seceded because they wanted a different favorite national color from the north that Lincoln would have said "Well, OK then, that's cool. Good luck with your new country, fellas!!!"???

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Economy was the primary factor. That's the facts.

Yeah, the fact that their economy would collapse without slaves.

So you agree it was the economic factors that led to secession? Good deal. We can move on.

As long as you agree that slavery was the primary economic factor.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The fact that slavery may have been the reason that the southern states seceded still does not make the Civil War about abolishing slavery.

The Civil War still would have occurred no matter what reason the seceding states used for leaving the Union. They could have seceded because they wanted the favorite national color to be green.

Do you think if they seceded because they wanted a different favorite national color from the north that Lincoln would have said "Well, OK then, that's cool. Good luck with your new country, fellas!!!"???

May have been???????????????????

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The fact that slavery may have been the reason that the southern states seceded still does not make the Civil War about abolishing slavery.

The Civil War still would have occurred no matter what reason the seceding states used for leaving the Union. They could have seceded because they wanted the favorite national color to be green.

Do you think if they seceded because they wanted a different favorite national color from the north that Lincoln would have said "Well, OK then, that's cool. Good luck with your new country, fellas!!!"???

May have been???????????????????

Can you think of any reason, any reason at all, that 11 states in the 1860's could have used to declare themselves seceded from the Union for which Lincoln would have said "OK, cool, good luck with your new country"?

For the South, their economic future (or their myopic perception of it) was the reason for secession. The Civil War was their fight to protect their "right" to secede.

For the North, the future of the nation was the reason for fighting. Nothing to do with slavery or protecting slaves...

For Lincoln, he didn't want to be the president that oversaw the splitting of the country. So he (paradoxically) fought a war against half the country to bring them to heel

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
The fact that slavery may have been the reason that the southern states seceded still does not make the Civil War about abolishing slavery.

The Civil War still would have occurred no matter what reason the seceding states used for leaving the Union. They could have seceded because they wanted the favorite national color to be green.

Do you think if they seceded because they wanted a different favorite national color from the north that Lincoln would have said "Well, OK then, that's cool. Good luck with your new country, fellas!!!"???

May have been???????????????????

Can you think of any reason, any reason at all, that 11 states in the 1860's could have used to declare themselves seceded from the Union for which Lincoln would have said "OK, cool, good luck with your new country"?

Of course not. You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not arguing that Lincoln set out to free the slaves. I'm arguing that the south seceded (which is what caused the war) in order to preserve slavery.

I'm shocked that Earwig agrees with Miketitty!

I think what we can agree on is that the south seceded mostly because of slavery, but the Union fought the south for reasons other than slavery.

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 4:16:00 PM (view original):
I think what we can agree on is that the south seceded mostly because of slavery, but the Union fought the south for reasons other than slavery.

DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!

We have a winner.