It's been programmed into us that secession equals war, but that just isn't so. The American Revolution is one example, but there have been plenty of peaceful secessions in the world. In fact I'd say it's the most common by far. Look at the breakup of the British Empire. Or the Czech Republic splitting from Slovakia. Or Norway and Sweden splitting.Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:24 pm Completely inaccurate, horribly so for a very dedicated set of abolitionists who were in a minority but a politically powerful one.
If you read the war was not primarily over slavery at its core, you are reading widely discredited historical theories generated by southern historians starting in the 1880s running into the 1940s. There are huge numbers of accounts written by wealthy European travelers concerning discussions they had with southerners and northerners on the issue of slavey.
The historicity on this is pretty clear.
That’s not to say the large majority cared, they did not.
Finally, the historical record, and particularly regarding Lincoln, makes it very clear anti-slavery opinion hardened considerably over the period of the war. So what may have been true in 1861 was not by 1865. Many writers who take this stance seem to snap the chalk line in 1861. I’ve always been befuddled by this line. It’s destroyed by one rhetorical question: Why did the southern states secede?
Wars do that.
It's pretty clear that slavery was the primary driver of the first batch of states to secede. But can you say that about the second batch? The ones that left AFTER Lincoln raised an army to go invade their neighbors?
So you can say that slavery was the reason for the first secession (and we should clarify, the issue at hand was whether the South would be allowed to participate in development of the territories or whether those should remain for white people only), but not the reason for the war.