Partially. Historians today might disagree but economies, social structure, customs and political values of the North and South were in also in play. Maybe because slavery was woven in these matters too.
There was also protectionism - northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.
And, the south wanted to right to secede whenever it wanted. The north insisted on a more solid union.
Slavery was an underlying cause, but I believe it was more about States' rights. The States entered into the union voluntarily, and even to me (never lived in the South) it seems reasonable that they should be able to leave the union at any time.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Yes, of course it was. Slavery as the economic backbone of the South was well worth defending in their eyes. Now of course from Lincoln's perspective, the war was to protect the Union, but the Union ultimately fractured in the first place over a perceived threat to the South's continued existence as a slave-based economy.
Incorrect, though you'd get an "A" in current US History courses.
Actually it's not incorrect at all. But I'd be interested to hear your explanation that isn't steeped in revisionist Southern nostalgia.
You mean things like the fact that it was the North that actually started the entire conflagration by trying to tell the South exactly how and with whom they could do business? That the North wanted to be the ones to tell the South what prices they could set on their goods and services? That the Northern forces were the ones who actually began acts of violence against civilians and not the Southern forces?
Nah, it wouldn't matter what I said. You've already made up your mind that you're right and I'm a single toothed product of incest residing in Southern climes.
It really doesn't matter now anyway, history is written by the victors of wars. As you so aptly demonstrate.
So you're going to play the persecution card, eh? Nice. You're more interested in feelings than you are in facts. Makes sense coming from someone like you.
There is no doubt that there was animosity between the North and the South, no doubt that the South felt that the North was treating them unfairly. But if there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been no Civil War.
It is somewhat reductionist to say the Civil War was "about slavery". But I do believe that it was ultimately the root cause behind the animosity and the outbreak of the war.
It was about Slavery sure but far from being the only cause for it as others have mentioned.
It was about many things including slavery, taxation, cultures, and legal control, but slavery was the emotional human rights issue that people could get behind.
Yes. Too bad Trump was absent in high school the weeks they studied American History.
By the way, making a comment, then blocking someone - is no way to display that you are above letting your feelings of butthurt dictate your actions. http://amirite.com/808985-the-c...mirite/2558717
Only liars say otherwise.
The Civil War, like all wars, was economic. It's always about money.