baldeagle wrote: . . .
I think it's abundantly clear what the cause of the Civil War was - the Republicans wanted to abolish slavery and were willing to use every means they could employ to succeed. The southern states did not want slavery abolished and chose to leave the Union rather than submit to the government.
And I disagree with you. Yes a variety of states did not want slavery abolished because it would irrevocably damage their economies, but many of those same states were willing and ready, and even starting, to "phase out" slavery. One big issue was that the industrialized north was increasingly "ruling" over the agricultural based south, kind of a macro version of NY City ruling the rest of the state. which has led to secession efforts in NY State several times, or like Chicago's machine politicians ruling the rest of the state, which would be a geographical nightmare to secede from.
I grew up in a family with deep roots on both sides of the line, my "Aunt" (who was really a much older cousin) Ruth ALWAYS described "the late lamented war" as
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/08/the- ... ggression/. I got lectures from northern grandparents and southern grandparents to whom the was was a very recent memory, my paternal grandmother's father was a Union soldier, but her "lessons" on the root causes of the war were what I would consider very balanced. One of the things my "Gram" used to point out was that although the politicians on both sides generated the war, the vast majority of those who actually fought it were not slave holders themselves and were fervent believers that what they fought for was indeed the rights of their states to self determine rather than be ruled by the north.
My Texas born and bred "Grandpappy" (mother's father) was equally "fair" in his treatment of the issue, his father having fought for the south and become a "refugee" from northern justice. My maternal grandmother was perhaps the most prejudicial in her treatment of the issue, and she was raised in England, her viewpoint was that the north was entirely in the wrong, even though her native England had pretty much phased out slavery before our rebellion began, she saw the issue as one that could be resolved by less radical means, as England had done.
And consider that the states that were not "in rebellion" did not get slavery outlawed, and it was even practiced commonly, until well after the 13th Amendment was rolled out. At first it looked as though the 13th would be ratified by 18 states, leaving out the "states in rebellion" and forcing them to accept the amendment in order to be able to rejoin the union. Of course Virginia and Louisiana ratified in the first go 'round, and many of the other rebel states only ratified after their governments were "reconstructed" for them, ensuring ratification.
In December of 1865 Secretary of State Seward certified that the amendment had passed due to ratification by 27 of the 36 existing states, and only then did slavery officially cease to exist, although the word did not spread very well because it was still practiced, to some extent, in California and parts of Texas.
It is also somewhat interesting to note, as part of the overall picture, that Mississippi, Kentucky, NEW JERSEY!, and DELAWARE! ALL rejected the amendment the first time around, with NJ ratifying in 1866, Delaware delayed until 1901, Kentucky finally decided to break down and ratify in 1976, and Mississippi in 1995, but not certified as ratified as such until just two years ago.
In any case, and in my view, while the various issues surrounding slavery were among the root causes of the rebellion, there were so many other issues that to lay the blame solely on on slavery is naive at best, and disingenuous to boot. Just as the causes of the American Revolution can hardly be ascribed to a single issue, the causes of the War of Northern Aggression were many and varied.
