Nah, negative believes that slavery had no bearing at all until 1862. I'm simply trying to point out that it did. That's all, really. It obviously seems like I think that's the number one issue because that's all Ive been referencing, but if you take a look back ove rmy posts you'll see that I'm just pinpointing where mistakes have been made and correcting them. I understand that it wasn't slavery that caused a war on it's own. I just think it's silly to totally deny that it had something to do with the polticial climate before 1862.

They didn't just pull it out of their ass in 1862 and say let's fight the war for this reason.

[/quote]

Yeah, like I said earlier, I did a year on the civil war, which also covered reconstruction and then led into black civil rights. Some interesting stuff out there. I have a bunch of books that I had to buy for the class that I've read over. I was warned by my history teacher about revisionist theories when I was preparing for exams, so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't recommend those books if they were....

I'm afraid I must agree with my Birmingham friend, The Southern States were fighting for thier freedom/Independance. It was a matter of Economics and freedom rather than a matter of Civil Rights.

But nearly 200 years later History remembers the dramatic Civil Rights strides made during and after the Civil War, not so much how the war started. That is the nature of history... hind-sight is very keen.

It could even be said that history, as shall be taught to our children in High School will see our current fight in Iraq as a huge step in the fight of terrorism and spread of freedom... they will likley not learn of the contraversies surrounding the reason for the invasion, or the suggestions that Bush has alternative motives.

I'm sure that somewhere on-line you can find real letters, and newspapers of the times that discuss the true feelings and opinions of the people of the time. This is, in my opinion the best way to begin to understand exactly what was going through the minds of the people of a nation at war with itself.

Sad day for the south. annoy:

you want to read a book with a spin on it get "Gettysberg" by Newt Gingrich (my uncle co-wrote it) you southerners would like it. I talked with him about the writing of it and it was very intesting.

Tripper-the only reference to slavery before 1862 was bleeding Kansas, which was about control in Washington. Listen to the people here.

Thought I'd bring some neutrality to the discussion. freak:

As with any war, circumstantial evidence and soldier/politician/civ(historian,etc) memoirs always manifest a different opinion and cause for certain things. So I'm going to go out on a limb here posting a few select paragraphs from a worthy site and show how you're all right. ;)

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

"At the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.

It seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.

But even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen.

While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth.

While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.

When Abraham Lincoln was voted in, South Carolina had enough eith Union Politcians. South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.

The sitting President, James Buchanan felt himself powerless to act. Federal arsenals and fortifications throughout the South were occupied by southern authorities without a shot being fired. In the four months between Lincoln’s election and his inauguration the South was allowed to strengthen its position undisturbed.

Lincoln’s inaugural address was at once firm and conciliatory. Unwilling to strike the initial blow to compel the southern states back into the Union, he decided to bide his time. When a Federal ship carrying supplies was dispatched to reprovision Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, the secessionist hand was forced. To forestall the resupply of the fort the Rebel batteries ringing it opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861, forcing its rapid capitulation.

President Lincoln immediately called upon the states to supply 75,000 troops to serve for ninety days against “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee promptly seceded.

The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that no combination of legal action on the part of the most virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished.
The war was on in earnest. "

In conclusion, my opinion and that website sees fit that the cause of the civil war had to do with the Slavery a little, but it's roots come from Yankee majority in politics ( Congress to be more specific ) and a few more small econonmic things.

Couldnt agree more with you.

Okay, so you guys all agree that slavery had NO bearing whatsoever, except for "bleeding Kansas" until 1862....?

...Because I disagree, and that's my only claim, which essentially is a counter-claim seeing as negative originally posted it.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my posts....?

I never agreed that slavery was the soul issue or that it even had a majority bearing on events....Everyone seems to think I did.

I said the exact opposite actually. Either way, there's defintely no "soul" issue as you've said. It stems from many different things.

lol sorry....I kinda sped through your post because I had read that stuff from the site you linked....

....and that means negative fully changed his opinion if he "couldn't agree more" with your post.

you should re-read my posts-why would I change my opinion--I am a Civil War historian cool:

I reread them over and over again.... rolleyes:

.......

slavery is a minute part of the civil war, trippster. although it was tagged the 'war to end slavery' with the signing of the emanciapation proclamation, it was given that coverage to dissuade Britain from intervening on the side of the Confederacy. still, i in no way mean to degrade the image of Abraham Lincoln, he was an abolitionist since day one. point being, slavery has as much to do with the civil war as much as terrorism has to do with the war in iraq.

Besides the fact that I like the enfield rifle over the springfield rifle because i own two of them...Im all for the north.