It is extemely important to note that that quote would be more proper to say prior to 1830, not 1850. The South became highly defensive of slavery after nat Turner led his rebellion that sowed hysteria across the south and most acutely in Virginia. In 1831-1832 the Virginia legislature debated the last emancipation proposals in the South, which were defeated when many who had been ambivalent to slavery were swung by this occurence. Furthermore, two other events happened at the same time to cement the South’s pro-slavery rhetoric. William Lloyd Garrison began publishing The Liberator around that point in time, which caused the South to believe the North supported radical abolition(which wasn’t largely the case). Furthermore, more physically Jackson’s strong-arming South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis and the Force Acts to enforce federal law by the use of the military caused fear the same principle could be expanded from tariffs to slavery.

It is important to note that without these events, Virginia may have emancipated slavery sooner. Virginia was part of the Old South, where slavery had less perception of economic necessity beyond the actual industry of exporting slaves to new cotton states in the Southwest.

Lee and Stonewall Jackson were personally good, but to deny the South fought for slavery is not quite accurate. It would be better to say the South fought for the right to have slavery, not necessarily on the instititution itself. Many poor whites who were low on the social ladder dreamed of moving up to the planter aristocracy.

About Ft. Sumter, the North I see as having a right to retain its property. The South while having no right to it should not be indicted for this, as it is a small bloodless offense. Some other method of recourse should have been followed.

Personally, I see the Civil War as a war between two loser sets of ideals- even if certain actors on both sides had the right idea, the mob mindset of the masses had only relative strains of morality.

I believe the libertarian historian/econmist Jefferey Hummel makes the same point about Ft. Sumter, Mr. Drunkenmiller. Is he “logically illegitimate” too?

BTW, I’m not sure what “logically illegitimate” means, since this is a question of fact, not logic. Perhaps you’ll elaborate.

I’ve been celebrating Robert E. Lee today, and the Rebel Yell whiskey has affected my editorial skills.

Strike “from the Union point of view.”

BTW, two and possibly three states who ratified the Constitution did so with the reservation of the right of secession.

And then there are, from the Unionist point of view, all that dicta from Jefferson et al. about the right of secession.

Oh, did I mention “et al.”:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. ” (Abraham Lincoln, 1848)

Save your umbragefor the historically uninformed.

You can look it up: Perpetual Union.

And just what exactly does the US first Constitution have to do with the unfortunate war? The Articles of Confederation were abolished a full 65 years before the war ever started.

PEACE

I’m aware of the historical facts, but you cannot just baldly assert that “the South had every legitimate reason” – that’s a evaluative, normative judgment on your part, and appealing to Foote is logically illegitimate. You think the South had “every legitimate reason”? You back it up and tell me why.

Regardless, the much-venerated Articles of Confederation provided solid legal footing for Lincoln to prosecute the war. I have yet to see that assertion somehow demolished.

“God, what a lunatic. I must have missed that day in history class when the North preemptively attacked Fort Sumter.”

What you missed, sir, are the historical facts leading up to the attack on Ft Sumter, which show that the South had every legitimate reason to do it. It’s in Foote’s history, for example. Why don’t you start there?

I never said slavery wasn’t an issue, nor do I downplay it. It was clearly one reason the South seceded. My point is that you can’t make the War into a moral crusade if that is not the reason the North was fighting it. They were fighting to save the Union. That is not a moral objective.