0
1

[–] Walk1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There is such a thing as an ancillary or secondary cause for a Civil War. I think slavery was used as a front to justify the war when the primary causes were tariffs and the federal government taking control of arsenals in the South.

The South had a militia system in place where loyalty to your state was as important as the region itself. In this context, it was also a battle over the necessity of the articles of Confederation, so its roots go back to the period after the Revolutionary War.

It is fine to state that the Civil War was not over slavery, but in a sense it was, because the South was not only guarding political freedoms and traditions, but also the economy it had built up and it was the fourth wealthiest economy in the world.

0
1

[–] SeanBox 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

wow, they don't agree with history and have decided to rewrite it...

0
6

[–] HarlandKornfeld14 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The Civil War wasn't over just slavery. I am of the opinion that the right side won, but I do think they had a strong legal case for secession, which is somewhat of a legalistic ambiguity. However they blew it when they attacked Fort Sumter, which began the War Between the States. Had they not done so Lincoln might have just his hands tied legally and more states might have joined (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland) giving the South more strength.

The idea that the war was solely over slavery is just a political incantation. I mean clearly it was also over the question of how much power a state should have, taxes and tariffs factored in too. Also the British Empire wanted the USA to break up to get rid of the pesky upstart nation, to ensure their global domination.

0
1

[–] Walk1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Unfortunately, I must say the wrong side won, as the Union's victory is responsible for the current social, political, and demographic malaise in our country and it kind of speaks to the need for a third revolution to redeem the country.

There probably people in parts of the North, such as Southern Indiana, which is a very Southern part of the North, who would have cheered on Pickett's charge, but to be frank the Central/Western part of Maryland, Appalachian sector of Kentucky, and the Northern parts of Missouri were agnostic about the war and although there were many that were split in this area(German populations heavily favored the Union) they had their own agricultural communities and were opposed to both the federal government and the planters class.

Even in places like Ohio and parts of Southwestern Pennsylvania there was sympathy for the Confederacy, but most people fought for the Union in this part of the country(unless your name is William Quantrill), although in places like Ohio there was fierce resistance to the 15th amendment being enacted and in those parts of the North with close ties to Virginia, such as Southwestern Pennsylvania, the planter class was detested at the same time that the South was considered some idyllic and mystical land of happiness.

0
3

[–] HarlandKornfeld14 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't follow your demographic argument at all. The South wanted to a build a "Golden Circle" by incorporating all of the Latin American countries around the Caribbean, while expanding slavery into Arizona and Kansas. It demographic terms in a would be a clusterfuck.

Anyway, the South would be much better off hand Lincoln not been assassinated. Reconstruction would have been less harsh and it would not have been hijacked by robber barons. His plans for the greenback would have made the country more prosperous too.

Also Lincoln wanted to free the Blacks and give them their own homeland in Africa. It goes without saying that this would be improve the demographic situation.