Nick Arnett wrote:
The final straw for the South was the election of Lincoln, who incidentally, was not an abolitionist. But if there is one thing that you can't get around if you're arguing the causes of the Civil War is that had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. If you argued that the war was not fought to _free_ the slaves I would agree. Lincoln had pledged to halt the spread of slavery, but repeatedly said that he was not trying to end the institution. The problem was that the South, which held a disproportionate share of power in the Federal Government prior to the war, knew that once the spread of slavery was curtailed, their hold on the government would weaken. Once weakened, they could no longer protect their "peculiar" institution or its associated culture. Beyond that there was the problem of a large number of African Americans no longer enslaved - a problem that Lincoln was very concerned with as well.I wasn't, so please amplify. I was a lousy history student. I've made up for a lot of that in regard to the Renaissance and Reformation, but not U.S. history, I fear. What *was* the Civil War (or, if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States) about?I thought the big issue was secession in response to the abolitionist movement.
That's the succinct answer. Obviously it is difficult to accurately summarize the determinant of any great human conflict in a few sentences, but I feel confident in my assessment that slavery lies at the root of all of the issues discussed as causes.
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
