Who argues slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war?

Question: Who argues slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war!?

Say whatever you want if there is no slavery, there is no Civil War!.

Alexander Stephens, the VP and one of the writers of this abominable document, even stated in his famous Cornerstone Speech: "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the (deragatory term for blacks) in our form of civilization!. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution!."Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I think youre correct, without slavery there would have been no war!. There were other issues, the tariff was always contentious, but nothing that would justify four years of slaughter!.

This is not to say that what individual southern soldiers fought for was slavery!. You couldnt sell that too easily, even to unsophisticated farmers!. Would you go fight, and fight hard, so some rich man could keep his slaves!? The southern soldier believed he was fighting for independence, and, if the road was rocky, it was no worse than the one which eventually carried his grandfather to Yorktown and victory!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Slavery was for sure a cause of the Civil War!. If there was no slavery there would be no separation between free and slave states or the decisions made to remedy the situation (Missouri Compromise; the Compromise of 1850; Kansas-Nebraska Act) that actually made the situation far worse!. Even though slavery was a major factor leading to the war, it was not a war aim by the Union to put an end to slavery but instead reunify the union!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

But it wasn't the simplistic thought that the North thought slavery was bad and the South thought it was good!.

The North was developing into an industrial economy, while the South remained an agricultural economy!. As they needed slaves to harvest the cotton, they were threatened economically by the possibility of the end of slavery!.

Plus there was the states vs!. federal rights issue and the refusal of nullification!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think there were many reasons for the Civil War!. Most of those could have been negotiated and some compromise found!. Slavery, however, was an integral part of the South's economy!. The South would never give that up willingly!. So I agree with you, the institute of slavery makes the Civil War inevitable!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I could easily argue that the Civil War was more about individual states' rights against federal authority and the defiance of the agrarian south towards the industrialized north!.

But I already wrote that paper back in high school, now it's your turn!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The American Civil War was the result of a variety of causes ranging from slavery and states rights to industrialization and societal change!.
Most people would say that slavery was the mane cause!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Part of it was probably because the south wasn't changing it's ways fast enough for the north!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Are you on crack, or just a member of a small white supremacist organization!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm with Sambo!. Couldn't have said it better!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No one was trying to end slavery in the south when the Civil War started, so how was it about slavery!?

on 1/1/63, Lincoln's Proclamation freed the slaves in the
rebellious states!. (But the rebellious states didn't take orders from the US government anymore because they had their own government!.) The 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery everywhere wasn't passed until 1865!. And at that time slavery still existed as far NORTH as New Jersey!.

The North or the President were not trying to end slavery in the southern states!. Not once was the institution of slavery in states it already existed threatened!. Lincoln at first only freed slaves in areas that were in rebellion!. But the areas in rebellion didn't take orders from the US government anymore because they had become their own nation!. So the institution remained in rebellious states and in "neutral" states like Maryland and Delaware!.

What's even more astonishing is that in Southern territories that the North captured, like New Orleans and Hampton & Norfolk, Virginia, the North kept the institution of slavery in place!. So you have southern areas, captured by the great Northern liberators, who kept slavery in place!.

What did scare the South was that in new territories that were going to become states, the federal government tried to prohibit slavery from being spread there!. I don't think this was enough alone to push half a country into rebellion!. After all, the South's system of slavery was not threatened at the beginning!. No one was trying to end slavery in the South when the war started!. It has more to do with the federal government overstepping its boundaries!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Interestingly, Stephens's Cornerstone Speech lays out the differences between the constitution of the new CSA and the constitution of the US, as then ammended!. In that speech, Alexander Stephens points out the grievances that were held by the South against the North, most notably economic grievances and the use of Federal power, taxation, and spending of Federal money!.

True, Slavery was a social issue of the day!. Abolitionist were viewed by most at that time as the radical left is today!. Stephens makes reference to Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject and that the slavery issue would one day split the Union!. also, (it has been a while since I've read the Cornerstone speech) I seem to recall that reference is made to how recently slavery had ended in the North!.

Stephens is a most interesting figure to study!. Previously, Stephens had been a member of the Whig party before it split along sectional lines!. Likewise, Stephens made a number of speeches against succession, before Georgia finally did succeed!.

My view on the Civil War is this: As much as the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, more so was it fighting to limit the control of the Federal government!. Likewise, the North was not fighting a war of liberation of the slaves!. That became the necessary evil, if you would, for Northern victory!. If anything, the North was fighting to establish the authority of the Federal Government over that of the States, and to ensure Northern domination of economic affairs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The north had slaves as well as the south!. They were the last ones to free their slaves!. So how can you say that the war was about slavery!. Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves to an island and get them out of the country not free them and let them stay in the U!.S!. His state was the last to set slaves free!. The was about states rights period!. The same reason the U!.S!. fought the British for its independence during the revolutionary war!.Www@QuestionHome@Com