A message to our Leadership in America

[DuncanONeil]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[denuseri]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[Bren122]

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Duncan is partially correct; had it been possible for the previous compromises to continue in relation to the admittance of the states on the basis of free and non-free then the war either would have been long delayed or never have taken place. mechanisation of cotton production would have effectively seen slavery die out anyway. it was the unwillingness of the North to change constitutional conditions for state entry that ultimately led to the war. combined with a fear that the industrial strength of the North, already quite pronounced and shortly to become overywhelmingly dominant in the world, made an attempt at secession an increasingly now or never alternative- even 10 years on would have made a big difference in terms of population and economic power. eventually the south was swamped in a war of attrition.
slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis. the election of Lincoln was the spark to a volatile situation. while publicly stating he had no intention of legislating an abolition of slavery, as Duncan himself has pointed out in a previous thread, there was no guarantee for the south that he would keep his word when in office.

[DuncanONeil]

slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis.

Actually I would say the major difference between the North and the South was Agriculture vs Manufacturing, as you stated earlier. The fact that the South was almost totally agrarian did place them at a serious disadvantage in a war.

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it was not about slavery! I said the war was not a single issue event.
Ask most anyone what the Civil War was about and the answer you get is "slavery". On the face of it that can not be the raison d'être for the war. Else there would be no slaves in the North. As there were something else had to be the primary impetus for the war. Note I said primary!

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.