[maxerickson]

Lincoln was elected in large part because he was opposed to allowing slavery in new states (a popular position in the North) and secession followed directly from his election, because the Confederate States saw limiting slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their own practice of slavery.

It's also kind of funny to hand wave about how the war was about a "pro-agrarian society" instead of necessarily about slavery and then immediately toss in a mention that the pro-agrarian society "required" slavery.

[shawndumas]

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” — Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley; August 22, 1862.

[bscphil]

As I said in a comment cousin to this one, the reasons that Lincoln entered the war aren't equivalent to "the reason the war happened". What you call the "cause" of the war depends on what level you're looking at.

The direct cause of the war was the Fort Sumter altercation.

The reason the Fort Sumter event occurred was that both sides were angling hard for a war they thought they could easily win.

The reason the Union wanted to fight the war was (mostly) that its leaders had strong political inclinations and economic incentives to reject the right of the Southern states to secede, and to use military force if necessary to maintain the union.

The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

While it's technically true that the story is more complicated than just "the war was fought over slavery", that doesn't change the fact that the existence of slavery was the most significant point of strife in the run-up to the war. But for slavery, the war would not have happened. There are few, possibly no other institutions in the America of the 1850s you can say that about. So it's absolutely correct to say that slavery was the reason the Confederates fought the war, even if it's not the reason Lincoln did. I think that gets you most of what people want to say when they say the war was over slavery.

[watwut]

> The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

The south was trying to expand slavery to territories and north.

[bscphil]

Even assuming that is true, it makes no sense as a reason to secede. Assuming the Civil War never happened, they would still have lost all political influence by seceding.

[watwut]

The whole conflict was about territories. It is not like north would care what happens to slaves in the south.

There was balance - half states slave states, half not. Territories being not slave states would disturb balance. They feared being outvoted. They feared that territories being not slave states would be addmission that slavery is wrong and put pressure on them to stop slavery.

Seceding makes you completely independent. You dont loose power, you gain it.

[0815test]

> The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

Well, that, and there was a popular perception that abolitionism was just the camel's nose under the tent; the shared mindset within the South was very much "okay, we may or may not like slavery but unless we put up a decent fight now, those busybody Northerners are going to screw us over completely, what with their control of the federal government. So we've been put in a position of having to defend slavery now, whether we like it or not." If you accept this point of view, you could even view the war as having been a success for the South; sure, they gave the North abolition, but it stopped there; their broader cultural specificity was nicely preserved, in a way that it might not have been otherwise!

[maxerickson]

Written after secession...

Note how my comment talks about why Lincoln was elected (and not how he talked about the war) and about how the Southern states responded to his election.

[shawndumas]

NB: I am against slavery and racism in all its forms and times. You may believe it ridiculous that I am stating this but one never knows so I wanted to be explicit.

I didn't mean that quote as a contradiction to your statement. Indeed Lincoln had a personal wish that all be free [1]. My point was that slavery was an ancillary issue to both the start of succession and the war to end it. If what powered the south's livelihood was--let's say for the sake of argument--oil and the north was looking to ban oil as reprehensible and to make it a legal obligation to use only renewable energy then the outcome would have been identical.

Yes, Lincoln being personally for renewable and himself anti-oil would certainly have affect voting blocks respectively. But I maintain that it was still only a component of what started and sustained the war; the south saw the north as an existential threat to their mode of existence. By disallowing new regions statehood unless they outlawed oil the north was severely disrupting the previous balance of power.

-------------------------------------------------

[1]: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." -- from the same letter

[maxerickson]

So, uh, the existential threat was to which exact mode of existence?

Was it the oil or was it the use of slaves? Go read the things the states said about secession!

For instance:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

They were just trying to protect their mode of existence!

[shawndumas]

I feel like there may be a misunderstanding.

I was not saying that oil was an historic reason for the civil war. I was trying to say that—for the sake of argument—oil and slaves are fungible with regard to the impetus for succession.

[maxerickson]

I think there isn't really a misunderstanding, I was being snide about the comparison because there's so much material that makes it clear enough that slavery was not ancillary to secession.

I mean, I didn't time travel and get Mississippi to create a resolution saying Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

[epynonymous]

spot on!