Did slavery cause the U.S. Civil War?

[Zhukov]

I just finished up writing a paper on this subject for a U.S. History course. What do you guys think?

[Raj]

It led to alot of the sectional tensions between the north and south but there were other reasons beyond that as well. For example, the North becoming industrial and the South staying agrarian led to the differences. That and slavery were the two major reasons, some minor ones included the South having to rely on the North for many things and ended up having to pay higher taxes (hence why Calhoun pushed nullification in South Carolina so much, because of the tariff of abominations) and another buildup to it was the North constantly having the upper edge against the South's way of life and business. Overall, yeah it was slavery and the differences between industry/farming but there were so many minor advancements which led to the war.

[Skarl]

Northern aggression caused the war. The elimination of slavery was an obvious perk, but it was an afterthought. Pretty sure my beloved SC had already elected to secede.

The south predominately farmed whereas the north dealt in textiles. Both regions recognized that the north had a more lucrative slot.

I think Lee is an interesting factor. Both sides wanted him to lead them, but he only agreed to help the south street his home state of Virginia joined the war. He initially supported Northern rationale, but wouldn't go against his roots.

[Zhukov]

Northern aggression caused the warWhat Northern aggression are you referring to?

[GOAT]

Slavery had nearly nothing to do with the start of the Civil War. The secession by the South was primarily due to their favoring of states' rights while the North favored a more powerful national government. The states that favored states' rights seceded and formed the Confederation, electing Jefferson Davis as president in doing so. The North (which many consider the true United States due to a higher number of historical cities that participated in the Revolutionary War and D.C. itself) was interested in keeping the South as part of the country due to the monetary profit made in the agriculture of the South. President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't really do anything but he used it as a symbolic and political move to prevent other countries from assisting the South during the war.

[Zhukov]

What specific state right did the nation get worked up over besides slavery though? I mean you didn't see Bleeding Kansas happen for lower federal tax rates, or John Brown go on the warpath for womens' rights.

[GOAT]

Sorry, I have been at work. But states rights in that they should be allowed to levy their own taxes, create their own laws, and essentially not have the national government rule over them completely. It wasn't so much a specific right of the states, it was their general rights to govern themselves more independently. Incidents like John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry were somewhat uncommon, but a common mentality regarding the Civil War is that it actually was fought to free the slaves and so those incidents have been played up and romanticized and given a bigger role in history than they actually did. Abolitionists such as John Brown did exist, no question, but slavery was not the focal point of the Civil War. I will not deny that there were citizens who were genuinely concerned with freeing the slaves, including Abraham Lincoln, but that is not why the Civil War started in the first place. Here is a link that talks about some myths of the Civil War: [Only registered and activated users can see links] It is pretty obviously a satirical website designed to poke fun at certain issues, but they link to all the other points that they are referencing and have genuine information, if you can get past the vulgarity of course.