Replies

from the article: "Thomas Fleming is known for his provocative, politically incorrect, and very accessible histories that challenge many of the clichés of current American history books.

Fleming is a revisionist in the best conservative sense of the word.
His challenges to accepted wisdom are not with an agenda, but with a relentless hunger for the truth and a passion to present the past as it really was, along with capturing the attitudes and culture of the times."

What a crock of BS!!
Whatever else he may or may not be, the author is a propagandist for the Confederacy, presenting it in the best possible light while mostly ignoring the other side.

In fact, from Day One of the Republic, the Slave Power was assertive, aggressive, demanding, expansionist, violent and uncompromising on its own basic principles.
There was to be no suggestion -- zero, zip, nada -- of abolishing slavery in the South, and every political negotiation involved questions of where slavery could, or could not, expand to.

The Slave-Power's high-water mark came the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, making that question all but answered: slavery was technically legalized everywhere in the United States.
And that is the point when slavery first became intolerable for most Northerners, even at the price of dis-Union.

In fact, from Day One of the Republic, the Slave Power was assertive, aggressive, demanding, expansionist, violent and uncompromising on its own basic principles. There was to be no suggestion -- zero, zip, nada -- of abolishing slavery in the South, and every political negotiation involved questions of where slavery could, or could not, expand to.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. In the early days of the country, anti-slavery societies were more numerous in the South than the North, especially in VA.

This was during the period when slavery was not particullarly profitabe for most owners, and was assumed by pretty much everybody to be a doomed institution, and the basic discussion was about how to wind it down with the least turmoil resulting.

But after the first decade of the 19th or so, slavery was increasingly profitable, plus it drew more began moving away from their abolitionists.

Southerners more and more abandoned their original position that slavery was an immoral but necessary institution and in self-defense (as they saw it) became increasingly aggressive in insisting on the protection and expansion of slavery.

By 1850 they had indeed reached the attitudes you describe, but that was most certainly not how G. Washington or T. Jefferson or most of the contemporaries viewed things.

The peculiar part of all this is that both sides viewed themselves as only defending themselves against the aggression of their opponents. And they were both right, in a way.

I take it you do not like or agree with the author. I found the article interesting. There are many ways to analyze the causes of the Civil War. I have even used old Aristotle's category of causes. There is also a lot of simply verbal disputes over what was the cause(s)and even verbal disputes depend upon the generality of the words used in the discussion; i.e. "Social Factors," are general terms; Bombing Fort Sumter specific terms referring to a specific causal event.

It would be foolish to claim slavery was not a causal factor in leading to The Civil War." probably even the "Final Cause" to us older language. But it was not the only cause or even a major cause.

Each and every discussion on slavery assumes it was an evil that is the basic premise. A moral judgment. The Bible never condemns slavery which fact is sometimes commented on.

Yes your correct

The final 4 straws if you will.

Dred Scott
Harper’s ferry.
Bleeding Kansas.
Uncle Tom’s cabin.

These events enraged both sides.

But after Harper’s Ferry the South was determined on War. At that point it wasn’t just about slavery, but John Brown was trying to cause a slave revolt and get a lot of people killed.

Slavery was by far the main cause of the war.