That's a big, fat, bald-faced lie. The South DID Seceed because of slavery. It seceeded because, fundamentally, the northern states did not want slavery in the new territories, especially above the 36th parallel, if I'm not mistaken.
In the 1860 Democratic Party Convention, at Charleston, SC
, the "states-rights" win of that party put out a platform 1. would forbade any governing body in the territories in outlawing slavery; 2. It would forbade the Federal government from outlawing slavering in said territories; 3. It would forbade the PEOPLE in those areas from voting to outlaw slavery.
The only time slavery could be outlawed, this platform said, was when a territory became a state. By that time of course, it probably woudn't be voted out.
Since those that supported eventual Democrat nominee Stephen Douglas controlled the DNC, that platform was voted down, and most of the southern delegates left the convention-over the issue of slavery. That was the first move, overtly, that showed the south would seceed over this issue, instead of allowing slavery to be limited only to the south.
I've been reading a great set of books, written around the Centennial of the Civil war, by author Bruce Catton, and in the first book "The Coming Fury" he has a quote from famed Southern secessionist Edmund Ruffin (who was given credit for the first shot on Ft. Sumter, that started the war, and who commited suicide later, as he could not handle being under the Stars and Stripes), wrote a letter, I believe to Jeff Davis, in which he clearly stated he would rather leave the union, than to abandon slavery.
I'm reading the second set of books, entitled "Terrible Swift Sword" as we speak, so I'll have to go back to the library and get the first volume-I had some pages dog-eared, to support my conclusion.
Indeed, the south began to seceed when Lincoln was elected, because of his stance on not allowing slavery into the territories. Lincoln was willing, before the war, to let slavery remain in the south, but that's it. But that wasn't good enough for the south, and they became traitors and bolted the nation.
The Civil War was a war primarily of economics, not of the preservation of slavery.
Yes, you are right, but you fail to tell the reader that the ENTIRE economics of the south hinged on slavery. It was how the southern economy, an agrarian economy, built mostly on cotton trade, was built on slave labor, that was cheap, and those used as labor were not even considered human by those who employed them.
The world was just starting the industrial revolution. The old, aristocratic, slave-driven south, being conservative, saw it's old world start to slip away in the fires of industry that was the Industrial Revolution, and they resisted it. They KNEW, that if slavery was confined only to the south, that their old, traditional ways of economics and of social order would collapse. It would have collapsed anyway, but the south finally felt that, the ONLY way to keep their economic and social tradition of slavery alive-since it would not be allowed into the territories owned by the Union, was to leave the Union, and form their own nation, where slavery could be kept for as long as possible.
Lincoln did not want the war, at first, to be fought over slavery. He wanted it to be a war to only preserve the union. Up until the summer of 1862, he still wanted to keep slavery in the south in a bound-up Union, but he would not permit it beyond where it already was. But he finally, and rightly, came to the conclusion, that the war against the traitors could not be fought and won unless one things-slavery-was destroyed and abolished.
-90 can try to foster this lie, as many southerners, and many southern sympathizers do from time to time. But it's just what I said-a lie. It's a lie to try and hide their own belief that the South was somehow a romantic and noble entity, whcih it wasn't. It was made up of traitors-those who said, like Robert E. Lee, and Jeff Davis, hypocritically, that they could not raise their hand against their native state, but could against the country that fostered them into the military, gave them training and education, and then were rewarded by betraying that nation.
-90 feels these traitors should be honored. I do not. Maybe he can justify this war irregardless of the facts, but he's wrong.
Had slavery not existed, there would not have been a war. It was the over-riding social and economic divider between North and South for 20 years before the war, and secession occurred because the South refused to move into the future, and give up their beasts of burden.
But if you want to believe these lies, go to a website like . MD-90 would feel right at home there, I'm sure.
Once a traitor, always a traitor.