When was your last original thought?
When has anyone on this forum EVER had an original thought?
How much time have you wasted listening to and repeating the Jim Quinn's of the world?
Are you done with the rhetorical questions yet?
Any serious student of the Civil War has access to factual history as to the cause of the Civil War. Just read the state Constitutions of the seceding states. Read the Constitution of the CSA, itself. You'll see where slavery is named in each one as a reason for secession.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a divisive issue.
Part of the "States' Rights" argument regarding reason(s) for the CIvil War was that a state had the "right" to secede from the Union. Your argument, favoring secession was declared 'null and void' by the outcome of the Civil War. That you would still want to maintain that false concept only shows your ignorance of Constitutional history and theory.
Here's what I said in a previous post about California secession.As it stands, federal law actually prohibits any state from leaving the Union (which sounds a little draconian to me), so as much as we want to secede we know it's going to be a long process and this initiative is only a step in that direction.
So, you want to tell me again, how ignorant I am about constitutional history and theory? (BTW, "constitutional" is an adjective, you don't capitalize it).
...Maybe you should just present the facts as you know them, instead of being arrogant and telling people what you think they know or don't know.
If a Civil War was fought to keep the UNion in tact in 1861, why would you not think another civil war wouldn't be fought to maintain the Union, today?
Because 2017 isn't 1861 alabuck. A lot can change in 156 years... For instance, in the mid-19th century there was still a lot of territory in the west that had yet to be conquered and assimilated and expansionists in both the North and the South were in direct competition for that territory. Deciding if a territory is to be admitted as a slave state or a "free" state, made a big difference on the kind of business that can succeed there. That competition doesn't exist anymore.
I'm not saying an attempt to secede wouldn't lead to a war. But I'm willing to find out how far the effort can go before it gets to that... *IF* it ever does.
As to economics and territorial competition being the actual causes of the Civil War, as I stated earlier, slavery was an integral part of both of your arguments. Without slavery in either equation, there wouldn't have been any economic or territorial competition.
Well... I don't have quite
the imagination to envision a world without economic or territorial competition but yes, I agree that slavery was an integral part to both arguments. But this perspective should tell you that slavery was only a factor in the economic and territorial dispute. Granted, the issue did play a more critical role than just the "attention getter" that I was portraying it as but nevertheless, I think it *was* a divisive issue and as I had said in my opening statement... "I've always believed the conflict was more about economic and territorial competition between states than slavery."