You already did:haha:

I find it about 50% true, but I never let truth get in the way of a good argument if it stirs a northern feather....:03:

Still, we will continue to disagree the war was about slavery or the south protecting slaves, leaving the union over slaves.
The industrial North for years leading up to the war wanted tariffs. The South believed in free trade, the North didn't. It wanted to
force the South to buy their goods. Lincoln said the Morrill tariff was the most important issue in the US in his campaign, that he would pass it.
Add the issue with new states being slave or free, it became an issue of political power and votes. Certainly the tariffs were a big part of SC succeeding.

"Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[23]"

You can argue had several states not succeeded, Morrill wouldn't have passed, but that misses the point. Lincoln running promoting it, new states to be non slave, thus insuring later votes for the North, states simply were tired of the industrial North protectionist policies and left the union to protect their economic status, which of course was crops and slaves. Lincoln calling up troops was the nail. It's hard for many to grasp, but with the attitude and feelings the South had towards the North, the thought of Northern armies crossing into their states, the war was a done deal.

We do know the North as a whole had no issue over slavery. If the South hadn't left and Morrill passed, it would've been a great benefit to the North.

Charles Dickens
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

I stopped reading there. Verses what your liberal progressive version? Not worth reading.

So we're going to start with this 'beat it, outlander' stuff again? It is an international forum. If your argument is strong, it can stand up to scrutiny from anyone, anywhere. The problem is that your argument is not strong.

Except that succession began before Lincoln even took office. And the Emancipation Proclaimation? Really? Your going to blame that for starting a war that was already in effect?

And I still feel Lee should have been hung for treason but history is past and we can't do anything about it. The healthy thing is to accept it and move on.

Speak for yourself; I certainly don't suck. I'm pretty great, in fact.

Yes, some individuals are ok, but taken as a collective whole "we" now suck! :know:

In before "liberal progressives are destroying America and the space-time continuum!!!!!11!!oneoneone".

Crap.

http://img3.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/...BA-577663.jpeg

If its rubbish being spouted its rubbish no matter where you come from.
And lets face it that link was full of rubbish simply because it was so tilted.
As for having a dog in the race, you are making huge assumptions about my family history aren't you:yep:

Under what law Wolferz?
If you can make a valid case using laws in place at that time in that location you may have a point.
So can you find anything in the Code which says Sherman couldn't start the fires in Atlanta?
Because if not you are just the same as the David Irvings of the world, attempting to re write history to fit their own agenda without letting facts get in the way.

Succession was a preventive measure, states tired of the industrial protectionism policies the North was pushing on the South for their own benefit.

As I said,if the South didn't leave, accepted the coming tariffs, the North would've gladly supported MORE slavery in order to fill their banks and support their industry.

The problem today is we try to make this a moral and social issue, it wasn't, it was about power,, politics and wealth.

Why do you think it was so easy for the North to enslave the indians after they freed the slaves? I think Sherman said it well. " indians are worse
than {insert N word}" They stood in the way of railroads and northern industry.

Okay, so it was a 'preventative measure'. Now we can finally put to rest the myth of the freedom-loving secessionist. I'm glad that you have come to your senses.

Citation needed.

Cornerstone speech.

They murdered them wholesale. That isn't slavery, it is genocide. And the south was involved in that too. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I think that this illustrates the difference between you and I. For me, the past is objective; for you it is subjective. I have no interest in whitewashing it.

Grant, Sherman, Sheridan....

Isn't it amazing how they sought a "final solution" to the indian tribes. Notice how we celebrate these men for the CW, but hardly mention their enslaving and exterminating the indians for the progression of industry.

Sherman burnt our family farm/plantation. When his bummers came, only an elderly uncle was there. I'm sure he put up a big fight.

History does not bear that fact. The troops in Ft. Sumpter did not sally forth or take any aggressive or offensive action. Thus, by definition, they can not be accused of their mere presence being an "invasion" since they were there before the war started.

While I do not accept the "slavery was evil and that's why the North had to conquer the South", I do prefer facts to the feel good but baseless claims.

You obviously don't know much about history here. They enslaved a great majority on reservations as well.

When Lincoln was elected, it was a done deal. His campaign wasn't one of anti slavery, but one of tariffs and policies to support northern industry over the South.

And the Republicans were also widely known as the "Party of Abolition". You conveniently don't mention that at all.

Really? So why did they seceed again? What did they say? I guess I really do have to do this again.

Texas:
https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abou.../2feb1861.html

South Carolina:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Mississippi:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Florida:
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm

So tell me again why they seceeded?

Possibly true, but what does that have to do with secession or the Confederate flag?

I'm not saying the US government has always been the good guy. Not in the least. You keep piling up arguments that it was all somebody else's fault, and keep trying to show evidence that has little or nothing to do with what they actually said at the time. All I wanted to do was stick with the 'Flag' topic.

They were told to leave the Fort....They were trespassing and thus got shot at.

Your assumption that Lincoln would've left the South alone had they not fired the first shot is silly. He could've emptied the fort and left the South alone, but that got in the way of his plans to break the economy of the South.

You are aware that I'd have to have some respect for your character and/or intellectual capacity in order for your insults to stick, right?

Nothing changes the fact that slavery was the core issue behind the American Civil War. You can wish it all you'd like, and I am sure you will. But, when you put your fingers in your ears it is time for me to claim my victory and ride off into the sunset again. And yes, before you ask, it isn't hard at all to be this good. In fact, it is very, very easy.