No, The War of Northern Agression was about Secession. That is why the North was fighting, and LINCOLN HIMSELF SAID THAT THAT WAS THE CAUSE.

The Corwin Amendment was just waiting to be signed by the South. Just. Waiting. It guaranteed slavery would not be interfered with in the United States. It was sitting there, and once the South ratified it, slavery would be, MOL, untouched evermore. But, the South didn't ratify it. Secession was already considered a done deal. People need to read ALL of Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Also, speaking of Lincoln, he didn't re-supply Ft. Sumter to free the slaves; he attacked it because he wanted a centralized government supremacy. The South didn't attack Ft. Sumter because the soldiers in the fort were anti-slavery, but because they were claiming it as theirs, and the North was staking their claim.

There is much more. Slavery was part, but, that ship had already sailed, cf., again, the Corwin Amendment.

BTW, Stephens was, as are all good politicians, a speechmaker. Whatever he said does not mean that he was correct. He may have been speaking before a group of slavers, he may have...etc... You have to know the facts, rather than hear a speech. Kind of like Kamala calling Sleepy Joe a rapist. Kind of like Dole speaking against the 1990s Gun Ban...right before he voted for it.

There's more, but, I tire...

No, the Corwin Amendment was just waiting to be signed by the South. It guaranteed slavery would not be interfered with in the United States. It was sitting there, and once the South ratified it, slavery would be, MOL, untouched evermore. But, the South didn't ratify it. People need to read ALL of Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Also, speaking of Lincoln, he didn't re-supply Ft. Sumter to free the slaves; he attacked it because he wanted a centralized government supremacy. The South didn't attack Ft. Sumter because the soldiers in the fort were anti-slavery, but because they were claiming it as theirs, and the North was staking their claim.

There is much more. Slavery was part, but, that ship had already sailed, cf., again, the Corwin Amendment.

BTW, Stephens was, as are all good politicians, a speechmaker. Whatever he said does not mean that he was correct. He may have been speaking before a group of slavers, he may have...etc... You have to know the facts, rather than hear a speech. Kind of like Kamala calling Sleepy Joe a rapist. Kind of like Dole speaking against the 1990s Gun Ban...right before he voted for it.

There's more, but, I tire...

No, the Corwin Amendment was just waiting to be signed by the South. It guaranteed slavery would not be interfered with. It was sitting there, and once the South ratified it, slavery would be, MOL, untouched evermore. But, the South didn't sign it. People need to read ALL of Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Also, speaking of Lincoln, he didn't re-supply Ft. Sumter because of the slaves; he attacked it because he wanted a centralized government supremacy. The South didn't attack Ft. Sumter because they were anti-slavery, but because they were claiming it as theirs, and the North was staking their claim.

There is much more. Slavery was part, but, that ship had already sailed, cf., again, the Corwin Amendment.

There's more, but, I tire...