Civil War Debate

Not to mention fugitive slave laws and the agreement-violating insistence that slavery be allowed to expand westward and all that :-/

South Carolina banned the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1787.
It took the North another 20 years for Congress to finally abolish it themselves.
Apparently they weren't finished profiting from it.
Yet all they did was shift their focus to the Domestic Slave Trade, and continued their human trafficking business until 1865.

You should reread the various declarations of secession and see what the southern states themselves had to say on that subject, especially vis-a-vis the north. They were pretty clear on the concept.

I have read them. There's too much to type here, so watch this video I made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzkxXVHk61Q

Couple of points.

* You must therefore also be aware that the original founding fathers knew well the conflict between a free republic built on the rights of man, and slavery, and took steps in hope we would economically evolve out of it. Some however chose to remain morally blind and took no interest.
* The right of secession was of course intrinsic, but it was built on falsehoods, and I remind you again, Ft Sumter did not fire on itself.
* The Western expansion issue disproves the claim the South had abolition forced upon it. The understanding was always that it would be restricted from westward expansion. The arrogant pricks decided however they weren't going to put up with that, because that would impugn their "peculiar institution." Had they left that alone, they probably would have gotten away with the human trafficking economy for much longer.
* Saying the liberation of slaves was no different from debt repudiation is a false equivalency that deliberately disregards the moral issue. I hope you agree that one exists? If not, of course, you morally entangle yourself with them. You should read Bullwhip Days, a balanced collection of slave accounts compiled during the Depression WPA-type programs. I will assume you have already read Frederick Douglass.
* You are aware the residuals of the institution here and there in the North were not economically significant and part of the evolution out of it I already mentioned in connection with the framers.

There were a few more points I could make, just not going to spend that much time. But if you were a believer in the divine, you are probably forced to accept it was ultimately a Go Down Moses situation created by the pharaonic arrogance and perversity and inhumanity of those who refused to bite the bullet. Honestly, Lincoln's Second Inaugural - for all its brevity - said it better than I could have.

If I can watch your video, you can go reread that.

Actually, the Southern Militia first fired at The Star Of The West - a steam boat, filled with an additional 200 soldiers and munitions, heading to reinforce the Union Army at Fort Sumter, after Major Anderson agreed to vacate. But Major Anderson obviously had no intention to vacate, and had been procrastinating for 2 months. This violation was clearly an act of war. So the Southern Militia fired across their bow (meaning they did not hit it ) to make it turn back. Then they fired at Fort Sumter (But again, never hit any of the soldiers) to make them vacate. Upon leaving, the Union Army "Grounded" their cannons (as they had done at Fort Moultrie) so that the South would be unable to use them. That's when the clumsy Yankees accidentally lit off an ammo supply, which exploded and killed two of their own soldiers.
But blame that on the Southern Militia, too because you've been spoon fed pseudo history.
So to answer your first point, YES Fort Sumter DID fire on itself.

As far as Western Expansion goes, there were two sides of the political aisle trying to gain political power. I agree with that.
What I don't agree with, are the labels traditionally used. "Free States vs Slave States."
It was the Union vs The Confederacy. The debate over keeping slaves in the West is a red herring. Or have you forgotten about how many slaves were freed in the South BEFORE the Civil War? Former slaves who were FREE to purchase land, own businesses, and even buy slaves themselves (such as William Ellison who made a fortune making and repairing cotton gins).

Your third point references Frederick Douglass's story, which is another fairy tale.
The man he was sent to work for, Edward Covey, studied working conditions to see if they were too rough. He worked alongside field hands, to see if they needed regular breaks. In other words, he was an efficiency expert.
He also monitored the worker's behavior secretly to see if they would work or slack off.
The first day Frederick Douglass was sent to him, Mr Covey gave him a simple task of gathering firewood. He even supplied Fred with an ox and a cart.
But Fred wasted the whole day, failing to gather any wood at all. Then blamed the ox saying it overturned the cart, damaging it.
Obviously, Mr Covey had seen what actually happened - while not recorded in the pseudo history books you read - can be deduced to that Fred made up an excuse for wasting hours and hours, doing no work at all.
[continued....]

Since Fred was a young teenager, Mr Covey spanked him with his belt.
But After Fredrick Douglass ran away, he exaggerated the story, claiming he was bull whipped.
His family bought him a train ticket, and he sat on the train for a short ride to Philadelphia.
But in his own narrative, he makes it sound like he was running for his life.
No. The only person he encountered was an attendant everyone's tickets.
Clearly his story was once again over-dramatized.

I don't agree with Slavery, but you don't need to make up stories to convince me slavery was bad.
I also don't agree with abortions, but you don't have to fabricate stories of doctors being butchers, turning women inside out to convince me of that, either.

You should read Bullwhip Days in any case. It's a fine piece of work. Oral history, and this is the good stuff, has a way of concretizing human realities that otherwise tend to stay far off in the realm of abstraction.

I far from agree with everything wikipedia says, but they do make a passable show of documentation. E.g., do you deny the SC militia fired from the shore? This would be a novelty, as I believe the South hitherto never denied that. Or if you think he had a valid ticket instead of stowing on the train, feel free, but you'd need to cite a source there too.

The West was absolutely not a red herring. I repeat: had the South not overreached and insisted on the EXPANSION of slavery westward, the crimes against humanity might have gone on a bit longer.

I don't have infinite time for this, but you never said if you went and reread the 2nd Inaugural, which would have taken about the same or less time as I spent watching that video.

Since when is Freeing slaves, allowing them to own land, and allowing them to own businesses, while standing up for their SOVEREIGN RIGHTS considered "crimes against humanity"?
Meanwhile, the Union wouldn't allow Dred Scott to have his freedom in the North. (They declared black people weren't citizens and had no rights).
They had rights in the South.
Not in the North.
So who were the bad guys again?

"Bullwhip Days" - 29 cherry-picked stories from 2000 interviews.
Next, you'll ask me to read 29 stories about UFO Abductions from 2000 UFO sightings. (UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", not "Little Green Men from Mars".
But I bet you might be able to write a book about "Little Green Men from Mars" based on 29 cherry-picked stories from 2000 UFO sightings.)

Cherry picking: the polemical pseudohistorian's term for editing about subjects that terrify him.

Actually, you should learn about ufos, they're real, and so are those who pilot them. I've seen them myself, and so have my friends from the South.

I've swept nothing under the rug, and if you had read my memes, you would know that your claim I ignore issues today is a lie.

At that point I know not to be bothered with your versions of "history" any more. Thanks for the chat.

Simply put, I don't waste my time with anecdotes. Not from Union Soldiers, Not from Confederate Soldiers, and not from Slaves.
I'm interested in the big picture, and uncovering the true cause of the US Civil War.
When you try to sweep it under the rug, you ignore the issues we are facing today, which could lead to a 2nd Civil War.
Personal stories won't help us there.