On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:23:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Nothing apologetic about it. Just historical facts that some don't want
to acknowledge in this day of political correctness. Also not an excuse
or anything close to a support of slavery. The issue of slavery
was and is real with regard to the Civil War but it was not the only
reason. It was more of the straw that broke the camel's back in the
eyes of the confederate states who feared federal government overreach.
Again, in those days people's loyalty to state government exceeded any
loyalty to the federal government, especially in the south.

Ironic that it was the newly formed Republican
Party who advocated and pushed for the end of slavery with Lincoln as
it's leader.


Leaving the union is what sealed the fate of slavery. If they had
stayed in the system and fought this politically, slavery may have
survived in some form for 20-30 more years.
They had 22 senators locked up and 8-10 more that would lean their way
most of the time and in a 72 member senate that is enough to hinder
just about anything. With the deal making that goes on in congress,
who knows how long it would have taken to bring this down
legislatively.
The swing vote in a tie (Andrew Johnson D-NC) was going to go with the
south. He had a long history of supporting slavery. The offer of the
VP seat was the main thing that kept him in Washington and not
Richmond.
That was why the abolitionists were so adamant about making sure no
new states would be slave states. That would water down the power of
the slave states assuming the new congressmen would be of a like mind.