You need to go back and study your history. The economic issues between the North and the South were not of a nature that would explain the Civil War.
You could not be more wrong. The religious differences were not significant. The biggest political difference was slavery, and the South was not going to go to war against the North because of its industrialization. Get real.
Here's where you're skipping a step in the process. The South didn't "go to war" with the North. The South LEFT the North. Basically said "O.K. we're different, and need to separate. We ain't part of your country anymore", not "O.K, we're different, let's fight" With or without Slavery, the differences in the two regions would have continued to grow. Because of population, the North would have had a stronger and stronger pull in government. They would then pass more and more laws that benefitted the North (which conversely would have had negative impact on the South). Which would have led to Southern States wanting to seceed from the Union (VERY much like the original colonies "seceeding" from England). The North would have come South to fight for it (VERY much like England did for the Revolutionary war). If you can't see the parallels between the 2 situations (Revolutionary and Civil Wars), you're wearing blinders. Why would these differences be enough for these States to go declare independance (and then defend their land) in the 1770's, but not in the 1860's?
Read the articles of secession from each state. They all speak of taxes and tariffs (Georgia’s mention the Morrill tariff by name) that were crippling their agrarian economy. The states seceded because the northern states were taking advantage of them economically. The war occurred when the north aggressively invaded the south.
Talk about semantics. We didn't go to war against the North? Give me a break. The South seceded which led to the war. The South fired the first shot at Fort Sumpter. The bombardment of Ft. Sumpter was an act of war. The differences between the American Revolution and the Civil War were enormous. They were entirely two different situations and two different war caused by different circumstances and involving different grievances. The only thing in common between the two was that the American Revolution had a strong "civil war" aspect to it. I repeat, slavery was the key cause of the American Civil War. Without slavery there would never have been a civil war. Such issues as economic and cultural differences would not have resulted in the North and South going to war.
There were certainly other grievances, but slavery was the chief issue that resulted in the war. Those other issues mentioned in the articles of secession were more for the benefit of other nations. The southern states included them in part because they were felt be aggravating factors, but also because they hoped that by adding them, European nations might have an easier time supporting the Confederacy, which they would not have done if slavery had been mentioned as the only cause of the conflict. But the truth was that slavery was the fuse that touched off the powder keg called the Civil War.
Sorry, let me re-phrase it for you. Because of these differences, the South wanted to SEPARATE from the North. The South did not want to FIGHT the North for these differences. Yes, the 1st shot were fired by the South at Fort Sumter, SOUTH CAROLINA!! SOUTHERN SOIL!!! If the South were looking to start a war, they would have invaded Philadelphia instead of seeking seccession. Speaking of semantics. Let's review, shall we...... One side felt like they were losing their "voice" in government (Original Colonies, The South). The felt like laws were benefitting one side (England, the North), which conversely had a negative effect on their side (original colonies, the South). So they decided to declare independance and form their own country (original colonies, the South). The other side, refused to remove their armed militaries from this new country (England, the North), so they had to defend their territory in the form of war (original colonies, the South). I have never denied the role Slavery played in the War. Here is where we differ in our opinions.
Nonsense. Read your dictionary, amigo. It is possible, but unlikely. The other issues were more solvable. Even if the south had won the war, slavery wouldn't have survived another 25 years, certainly not into the 20th century. Only the wealthy planter class owned slaves in the first place. It was rapidly becoming inefficient anyway in the face of the industrial revolution. Slavery would have likely transitioned into sharecropping just as it did anyway, only without war and reconstruction. Plus the two "Of America" nations would have bumped heads many times over annexing the west and another war/wars could have happened. The Confederacy could have won the war and still not made it to the 21st century.
From webster.com : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country This clearly does not describe the War of Southron Independence.
You keep stressing this word "Southron," what does it mean? Reminds me of Obamatron, Clin-Ton, automaton, etc.
