Acts20.com

I am not asking that as a challenge to you, but because of an article I was reading in Smithsonian Magazine in which there was an attempt to justify the removal of southern monuments regarding the Civil War, since, as the magazine claimed, it was mainly about slavery.As you know, I DO think it was PRIMARILY about slavery (i.e., it was certainly the catalyst, and there is clear evidence that this was the main issue), but I also am open to the notion that it might have been about other things. However, while we could perhaps make the case on an INTERPRETATION of events, do we have any hard evidence that slavery was not the key issue?At the same time, we have to acknowledge that perhaps the winners of that war, getting to write the history, have interpreted things in their favor. To me, a major issue is why would poor white boys, who didn't own slaves, fight for slavery? The best argument I have heard is that, believe it or not, it was because if slavery continued, then those poor whites wouldn't be on the bottom of the heap, but would be at least be one-remove from the bottom.

Most historians fail to distinguish between what caused disunity and the war. They are indeed two separate issues.Indeed, slavery, within a certain context, was at the heart of the disunity. But what was that context? Was it the moral issue over slavery? No. The Abolitionists were a marginalized group of fanatics that were shunned by northern society in general including the churches. The context of the slavery argument was that of the three-fifth compromise. Allowing slave holding states to count 3/5 of their slaves towards congressional representation did not draw much ire up north until the Louisiana purchase, and the subsequent creation of the State of Missouri from that purchased land. Economic philosophy had divided the Hamiltonian north and the Jeffersonian south since the beginning. As the Union grew, that struggle became magnified as the North began to demand that tariffs be used to protect their industry against foreign competition. Free trade benefited everyone in the South, both rich and poor. The artificial inflation of the retail prices by these tariffs was rejected by southerners as unconstitutional as the constitution did not grant to the Congress protectionist powers through taxation. Later, the North would demand that these tariffs be used as a means to raise monies for internal improvements in their region. The south had no quarrel with small tariffs used to fund the few and defined powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution. But the north was using tariffs for much more.Through much of the 19th century, the balance of power between north and south remained even. But the annexation of lands acquired from Mexico would inflame the regional strife even more. Having shed more than their share of blood for the possession of those lands, southerners expected the Missouri Compromise line of 1820 to be extended to the Pacific Ocean. This is when the northern cry of stopping the extension of slavery became more shrill. Allowing a few more slave states to be created below the Missouri Compromise line would not have increased the number of slaves in the slightest. It simply would have changed their disposition. But the voting inhabitants of those new states would have been opposed to northern economic policy, slave owner and non-slave owner alike. Even a few thousand slaves in each of those states could be decisive in Congressional representation as well as the Electoral College. Their presence, via the 3/5 clause, would continue to enhance the political power of the south, a power that they otherwise would not have had.

Resident Skeptic, you have presented an excellent response to this question. The simple fact is that the Civil War was indeed about one thing only. M...O...N...E...Y was the total motivation. The South had some and the greedy Yankees wanted it. Neither the North nor the South was able to raise and maintain an army on the emotional issues alone whatever you believe them to be. When the fervour wained, both had to resort to a military draft. One big difference; a Yankee coward could pay someone to take his place or simply pay the money hungry Lincoln government $300 and go home.

Re: Excellent explination

And, in the case of the south, their chattel slaves. Maybe 1 out of 10, but who is denying it? Again, we all realize how morally superior you are to the rest of us, Dave

I agree with DrDuck's assessment that northerners would have put their weapons down and gone home had the war been solely or even primarily about slavery. Just pointing out that many of those fine southern gentleman would be going home to more than their farms and families -- they would also be going home to the human beings they possessed as property.

I agree with DrDuck's assessment that northerners would have put their weapons down and gone home had the war been solely or even primarily about slavery. Just pointing out that many of those fine southern gentleman would be going home to more than their farms and families -- they would also be going home to the human beings they possessed as property.Not sure why that upsets you so much. Nothing upsetting about your comment in the least. I am simply spotlighting your motives. And BTW, had the CS government accepted Lincoln's peace and reconstruction offer of February 1865, the 13th Amendment would most likely have gone down in defeat. The South rejected the offer

Most historians fail to distinguish between what caused disunity and the war. They are indeed two separate issues.Indeed, slavery, within a certain context, was at the heart of the disunity. But what was that context? Was it the moral issue over slavery? No. The Abolitionists were a marginalized group of fanatics that were shunned by northern society in general including the churches. The context of the slavery argument was that of the three-fifth compromise. Allowing slave holding states to count 3/5 of their slaves towards congressional representation did not draw much ire up north until the Louisiana purchase, and the subsequent creation of the State of Missouri from that purchased land. Economic philosophy had divided the Hamiltonian north and the Jeffersonian south since the beginning. As the Union grew, that struggle became magnified as the North began to demand that tariffs be used to protect their industry against foreign competition. Free trade benefited everyone in the South, both rich and poor. The artificial inflation of the retail prices by these tariffs was rejected by southerners as unconstitutional as the constitution did not grant to the Congress protectionist powers through taxation. Later, the North would demand that these tariffs be used as a means to raise monies for internal improvements in their region. The south had no quarrel with small tariffs used to fund the few and defined powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution. But the north was using tariffs for much more.Through much of the 19th century, the balance of power between north and south remained even. But the annexation of lands acquired from Mexico would inflame the regional strife even more. Having shed more than their share of blood for the possession of those lands, southerners expected the Missouri Compromise line of 1820 to be extended to the Pacific Ocean. This is when the northern cry of stopping the extension of slavery became more shrill. Allowing a few more slave states to be created below the Missouri Compromise line would not have increased the number of slaves in the slightest. It simply would have changed their disposition. But the voting inhabitants of those new states would have been opposed to northern economic policy, slave owner and non-slave owner alike. Even a few thousand slaves in each of those states could be decisive in Congressional representation as well as the Electoral College. Their presence, via the 3/5 clause, would continue to enhance the political power of the south, a power that they otherwise would not have had.