Suska wrote:I don't think the slave economy had a future regardless, I think that was understood.
This is an evasion on the point. The war and succession wasn't started over the future, it was fought over events that had been unfolding in the recent past and then contemporary events.
It's also a bit misleading. The limited future of the plantation economy had a lot to do with things like the inability to expand slavery to new territories and the inability of slave holders to import new slaves. Both of these things had been targetted by southerners and champions of succession. I mean if slavery had no future, what do you think Bleeding Kansas was being fought over? Do you think the 'border ruffians' sat down and decided that the best thing for their supposedly dying institution was to expand it into a new state?
Suska wrote:I think that you have to have a elementary school book report mentality to think that freeing the slaves was the significant action of the civil war.
1. For your strawman to be true, the Union would have had to have started the war, which they didn't. Fort Sumter. End discussion.
2. The war can be about slavery without it being a fight about the institution of slavery specifically. The knock on effects of the slave economy was a massive factor in the gulf that was emerging between north and south. Denying that is ridiculous.
3. Many in the South were fighting over the institution of slavery, as TIG keeps pointing out, leaders of the Confederate states were quite keen during succession to point out the pivotal role of maintaining slavery.
Suska wrote:The intensity of abolitionism was a problem for everyone.
Nonsense, it had proven far less divisive in the north. The extent and nature of slavery in certain regions certainly changed the problem.
Suska wrote:the south was an international trading nation
Misleading. They traded primarily in cotton, which is an agricultural product grown on plantations. And predominantly it was picked by slaves.
Suska wrote:You're like children who can't grasp not having money around an ice cream truck.
You are like a child who can't argue and instead covers his ears and shouts or results to insults.
Suska wrote:1)The Civil war was not entirely caused by slavery
Of course not, but saying it was not the most significant factor is rubbish. Nothing you have suggested has as an alternative hasn't tied back to the southern practice of slavery.
Suska wrote:2)The freeing of slaves was not its only effect
No shit sherlock.
Suska wrote:3)The reduction of the discussion to an insistence that it was or was not caused by slavery is a sterling demonstration of oversimplification used to express bias, to provoke and abuse
Maybe you should have thought about that when you posted here with a chip on your shoulder and an undeserved sense of arrogance. Now you get a taste of your own medicine and you don't like it any more.
Suska wrote:4)My position, as it has been from the start, is that there is a fair case to be made by the south, quite apart from the issue of slavery, involving Lincoln's violent opposition to secession
Succession was legitimate because it was subsequently opposed by strict means? It is pretty convoluted to justify an act based on what followed.