ul negotiations"and compromises had been ongoing for decades before war broke out. The South was not haply with the status quo and were determined for slavery to expand into new territories. The gulf between northern and southern beliefs was unbridgeable. War was inevitable. The real crime,IMO, was southern leaders continuing to fight a losing war long after there was no Hope of winning.
It has become popular in modern times to say the war was not about slavery, and in a very abstract sense this is true. However, study of newspapers of the time, personal correspondence from both sides and public speeches shows that slavery was most certainly the major instigator. The south was in the wrong and THEY flatly refused compromise. In the end it brought about what they feared most, abolition, much sooner than if they had settled for what the north offered. Once war was unavoidable, death is the only thing that will end it.
As someone who has taught Civil War history at the small college level, and who is still a licensed battlefield guide at both Gettysburg & Antietam, I am constantly amazed at how poorly educated our citizens are regarding the American Civil War. I don't think you could have developed such a warped misunderstanding of the issues of the day on your own; someone with an agenda has obviously influenced you during your youth.
The agriculturally based South had legitimate grievances with the practices of the industrialized North that had grown to dominate Congress by the 1850's. Slavery was not an overwhelmingly important reason for the eventual conflict but it was a stick that helped to stir the pot. Stated differently, the American Civil War would have occurred for the reasons it did even if slaves had never been brought to these shores. The issue was used by both sides for posturing and propaganda, both before and during The Conflict.
If you want a villian, Lincoln is not the best candidate. That honor is reserved for Jefferson Davis and Robert. E. Lee. Davis & Lee had the choice to fight a military battle or a battle of recognition (if you don't understand the lay of the land in 1860 regarding world politics, the notion of a "battle of recognition" probably won't make any sense to you. There is no correlation in today's world.) James Longstreet understood this very well and, had he been in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, the South would have won the independence they claimed to want (for a while at least.) There was no need for a military victory. I think Davis understood this and I am sure Lee did. Neither man was willing to put their DESIRE for a fight ahead of their stated objective of independence. You want a villian? There's your best candidates.
Lincoln? The politics of the 1860's left him no other course than the one he took. There's no denying that Lincoln was inept as a wartime President but to say that his intentions were incorrect or dishonorable is to say that you have no true understanding of the political period or the variables that were in play. Educate yourself and from better sources than those you have already experienced.
Funny how people justify deadly force being used against neighbors and fellow citizens to make them come into line with their way of thinking.
You really think there is justification for deadly force should be used by the Federal government against citizens?
Likewise, there is far, far more to the story than what you relate. Slavery comes to mind. Here are copies of the exact documents that the Southern states issued to explain why they were leaving the Union. Don't take my word for it, read what they said about it:
Declaration of Causes of Secession
In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.
The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.
It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.
I love it! "Northern Aggression". So if the North was the aggressor, why did they not fire the first shots? As I understand the word, it refers to the person who starts the conflict. Who can say that cooler heads, in negotiation, couldn't have worked out a compromise?
In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.
The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.
It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.
There was a well established history of southern states attempting to negotiate peacefully prior to the military conflict, particularly in South Carolina. The response to the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts is but one example.
"In personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Rather, the true aggressor is the first who renders force necessary."
Under your "he who fires the first shot is the aggressor" theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?
Lincoln Provoked the War
Do some of your own research.
BTW, it is also worth noting that not a single person was killed at Ft. Sumter.
You do realize that you are quoting what Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, said after the war to try to blame it on the North as your evidence?
Yes, there were disputes over tariffs, but Stephens himself blamed it on slavery at the beginning of the war.
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America from a speech given in Savannah on the new Confederate constitution:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity."
- Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861
If you are going to rely only upon what the Confederate leaders said after the war was over, then I don't really know what to say to you other than that you are being willfully ignorant.
I know, but Henry has an interesting point if we can get past what the South was fighting for. The South largely fell victim to their own fears, they were convinced that the election of Lincoln would be the end of slavery. It is why they seceded and it is what they were defending.Dude, don't bother. Once confirmation bias has set in all they hear when you point out contrary evidence is .
No. A better analogy would be a wife, who has long been mistreated by her abusive husband, decides to exercise her right to walk away from the abusive marriage. She takes with her property that was hers prior to the marriage. She then attempts to meet with the abusive husband to pay her portion of debt incurred during the marriage as well as pay renumeration for any property the abusive husband claimed was not hers.
Instead of meeting with the wife to discuss such arrangements, the abusive husband beats the wife to death and is hailed as a hero for saving the marriage.
Jefferson Davis appointed a number of peace commissioners, in conformity with a resolution of the Confederate Congress, whose mission was to travel to Washington DC in March 1861 before the provocations at Ft. Sumter, and offer to pay for any Federal property on Souther soil as well as the Souther portion of the national debt. Lincoln refused to even see them or acknowledge their existence. (So too did the Union Secretary of State Seward.) Napoleon III of France offered to mediate the dispute but was also rebuffed by Lincoln, who refused to meet with him.
Also, it should be noted that US Constitution is a set of restrictions upon the central government. All powers not delegated to the central government were reserved by the States, including the power to secede. If that was not the intent, it should have been addressed, and properly so, through the amendment process for those States still party to the agreement.