Quote:
Originally Posted by MetaMan
Lets take your point a step further. To me it was basically economic terrorism against the south knowing full well the necessity of slaves to keep the farms churning which was the majority of their economy.
Cut off slavery, cut off huge parts of the economy, cut off their wealth and power. Thus making it easier to control them and bring them under the Unions umbrella.
Telling the population "we want to go to war to stop other Americans earning potential so we can control them" doesn't have as nice a ring as "liberty and freedom for all".
It is not about the slaves it was and IS always about CONTROL. Especially ECONOMIC CONTROL.
|
i don't disagree with the premise, except history shows this happened the other way around. the SOuth seceded on account of Lincoln's government, which didn't acknowledge the seccession, thus, the South then started the war.
here's the thing, this is the most complicated and controversial period in American history, this debate still lingers and i get that, historians have often times clouded the issue due to its' emotional impact and people identifying with their own groups.
I'm not trying to claim i'm right and you are wrong, but i had to clear up the personal slur that educated people would never think that slavery was the cause of the Civil War.