That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.
Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War
It was all about econimcs. Slavery WOULD have ended. Society was evolving. The north could have worked much more efficiently to bring about social change than they did. It became SOLELY about sovereignty. Tragic.
I have documented my position, and could continue to do so ad-nauseum. Can you document that the primary economic issues involved were not primarily slavery-associated ?
FYI, the "average northerner" and the "average southerner" did not start the war. We are talking about who did, and why, are we not ? The powers in the South wanted to be free of any impositions from the North. Most of those impositions were inter-twined with slavery.
Last edited by VanceMack; 06-12-11 at 11:28 AM.
We would agree with the South not wanting to be told what to do by the North, but again, virtually all issues there of any import were significantly inter-twined with slavery. Where the passion for war existed, those issues revolved around slavery and abolition.
It was called "King Cotton", was it not ? How many Southerners owned cotton plantations ? Yet their entire economy was hugely inter-twined with cotton. When you look at those in power, who had the political influence, you need only follow the money. It led to King Cotton directly or indirectly an overwhelming amount of the time. King Cotton was slave-based. Hugely so after the invention of the cotton gin.
How about a link and some good concurrent debate ?
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf