I think you missed my point but I don't know how better to explain it than the middle sentence I already wrote. Sure if you are analyzing things from a war historian's perspective then it's important to know the full context and what motivated both sides leading up to it for 100 years. If one is simply asking "was the civil war fought over slavery?" then conflating that with secession muddies the waters and causes us to talk past each other. As Lincoln's war, it's only necessary to look at his political concerns and writings to answer the question.
I don't disagree so long as we are contextualizing the question.
"Was slavery the central issue to Lincoln's War?" No. Hell no. Obviously. No argument exists to say that slavery was the primary motivator in Lincoln's decision making regarding a military response to secession. In fact, propaganda efforts on both sides were made to specifically identify it as a "White Man's War", that blacks shouldn't even be involved in.
But, objectively, was slavery the central issue to the American Civil War? I would say yes. If the issue of slavery was already settled, would the American Civil War have even happened? No, I don't think so. Best you might get was a small scale conflict, but the issue of slavery was broiling the culture to a fever pitch, and had been doing so for decades. Economics, taxes, tariffs, central government control, all of these played a part and could certainly caused a secession crisis, but in both previous crises, neither resulted in the death of 2% of the population of the US.
So yeah, if we're speaking clearly about what our context is, then our statements make sense.
I can even admit that slavery was indirectly a cause from Lincoln's side. The abolitionists were a strong political faction, so some of what he did was playing to that bloc despite thinking they were fools.
There is no difference. The war was about secession, about state's rights, and about slavery.
wut?
All belligerent's motivations are needed in all conflicts.
I think you missed my point but I don't know how better to explain it than the middle sentence I already wrote. Sure if you are analyzing things from a war historian's perspective then it's important to know the full context and what motivated both sides leading up to it for 100 years. If one is simply asking "was the civil war fought over slavery?" then conflating that with secession muddies the waters and causes us to talk past each other. As Lincoln's war, it's only necessary to look at his political concerns and writings to answer the question.
I don't disagree so long as we are contextualizing the question.
"Was slavery the central issue to Lincoln's War?" No. Hell no. Obviously. No argument exists to say that slavery was the primary motivator in Lincoln's decision making regarding a military response to secession. In fact, propaganda efforts on both sides were made to specifically identify it as a "White Man's War", that blacks shouldn't even be involved in.
But, objectively, was slavery the central issue to the American Civil War? I would say yes. If the issue of slavery was already settled, would the American Civil War have even happened? No, I don't think so. Best you might get was a small scale conflict, but the issue of slavery was broiling the culture to a fever pitch, and had been doing so for decades. Economics, taxes, tariffs, central government control, all of these played a part and could certainly caused a secession crisis, but in both previous crises, neither resulted in the death of 2% of the population of the US.
So yeah, if we're speaking clearly about what our context is, then our statements make sense.
I can even admit that slavery was indirectly a cause from Lincoln's side. The abolitionists were a strong political faction, so some of what he did was playing to that bloc despite thinking they were fools.
Alright, yeah, that's fair. The Republican Party definitely gained prominence using slavery as a cultural issue.