You know .Shane., I am in college now, and every class this has come up, (about 2/3's) ever prof (black and white) says pretty much the CW wasn't about slavery, but slavery was used to push the issue.
See, here's the thing. I'm not sure if you're teachers aren't making the connection or what... but...
Typically the non-slavery argument goes that this is about <insert argument here>. Usually the argument is states rights, tariff, or culture. The problem is that all these other potential issues lead directly back to slavery.
For example. Take the tariff issue. First off, its a bit of a straw man because the tariffs in the late 1850s were the lowest they'd been in ~50 years. Probably the Republicans would've raised them, this is true. But they wouldn't have been something devastating, rather a mild, reasonable increase. I know, I know WTH does this have to do w/ slavery?
Answer: Why do southerners abhor the high tariffs? First off high tariffs are to help native manufacturing. The south had almost no native manufacturing capacity. Why? Because of the success and dominance of the planter-based economy (cotton was king). This had cultural implications as well. So, rather than develop a diversified economy (this might surprise you but southern agriculture was not nearly as self-sufficient as the north), the plantation aristocracy that controlled southern life, state politics and the southern input to national politics eschewed economic development.
Additionally, Europe would place tariffs on our exports (of which cotton was king) which did not go over well in Dixie.
Lastly southern tastes ran to the imported. Thus, import duties on imported French or English luxury goods also didn't sit well.
So Southern dependence on cotton = dependence on slavery... see, no matter how you slice it, the roots of all the potential issues/causes of the war come back to slavery.
Plus, there's the whole area of the events of the 1850s leading up to the war. Every significant polarizing national issue of that decade revolved around slavery. Preston Brooks didn't nearly kill Sumner on the floor of the Senate because of his views on tariffs. Americans didn't kill each other by the dozens in "Bleeding Kansas" over the issue of states rights.
Much like how pearl harbor forced the issue of the US going in to WWII, but the US would of been to war anyways in a few more months, if not pearl harbor, then something else. FDR was pretty much making sure of that.
Just an fyi, that's a very poor comparison. They don't really match at all. A more accurate comparison would be that the attack of the South on Ft. Sumter forced the North into the CW.
Do you have something i could look up that shows the judgment of most Historians says other wise.
I base this on the fact that the predominance of the primary CW historians share this view, albeit in varying degrees of directness. Among these would be James McPherson, Eric Foner, Stephen Oates, Kenneth Stampp, Alan Nevins...
Deal!
.
ROFL, you're gonna make him pay, aren't you?
Of course, that cuts both ways. I'll be burdened with the avatar of a man (
