I have read through all the comments on this board (about 40), and am amazed at the utter historical ignorance being shared. When we talk about slavery “causing” the Civil War, that is like saying Comey’s letter caused Hillary’s defeat. A kernel of truth in a much more complicated set of occurrences. First, the NORTH sure as hell was NOT fighting over slavery. In fact, Congress passed a constitutional amendment in early 1861 that would have guaranteed that slavery would be legal in the South forever. The Republican Party was not an anti-slavery party; it was, in fact, an anti-EXPANSION of slavery party. Most people in the North could have cared less about slavery—like 98%. Republican politicians despised slavery b/c the 3/5th Compromise gave rural Southerners a numbers advantage in Congress over the more heavily (white) populated North. This pissed them off, bigly. Also, many in New England saw slavery as a black mark on America—not b/c slavery was evil, but b/c New Englanders saw mixing black blood with white blood the same way Hitler did. If the North was NOT fighting to free the slaves—and they most assuredly were not—then how could slavery be THE cause of the Civil War. I could go on and on....
I think this is an aspect that is perhaps not fully explored in these discussions. In the last two years that I have been discussing this issue in depth, I have been focusing on the distribution of wealth and power involved in the Civil War and the events leading up to it.
It is easy to see that the 3/5ths rule would give Southerners what would be seen as an unfair advantage in terms of electoral prospects, and you can see how such a thing might be greatly resented by those who didn't have such and advantage.
This 3/5ths rule did in fact give a political power advantage to those who exploited it, and it's easy to see why their political opponents in the North wanted to take it away from them.
Also, many in New England saw slavery as a black mark on America—not b/c slavery was evil, but b/c New Englanders saw mixing black blood with white blood the same way Hitler did.
Not just New England, but pretty much all of the Northern States. Lincoln himself was an officer in an organization dedicated to deporting blacks to other countries. Lincoln himself wrote about how much he disliked the mixing of bloods. Illinois had laws prohibiting black people from settling in their state.
Institutional and pervasive racism was the norm back in those days.
If the North was NOT fighting to free the slaves—and they most assuredly were not—then how could slavery be THE cause of the Civil War. I could go on and on....
If you start participating in these Civil War threads, you will pretty much have to "go on and on...." :)
People will refuse to grasp the point the first hundred or so times you try to make it.