I don’t think the cause of the Civil War was any one single event or theme.
Animosity was brewing between two factions and areas of the country since 1820, and festered for over 40 years before hostilities broke out.
What has become evident to me, is that the North did not have to fight a war, causing 600,000 deaths and the ruination of the South for a century thereafter, solely because of an attack on one fort.
What would have been so bad about having two seperate countries in 1861? After mechanization displaced slavery in another 15 or 20 years, the country could have reunited without all the bloodshed.
The war happened because of absolutes, with each side thinking God was on their side. Each had their orators, who eloquently spoke and fanned the flames of passion.It became a war of attrition, which the North was destined to win because of its resources.
What cannot be denied is the courage of those who fought and suffered for four whole years, on both sides. And the fact that they forgave each other and demonstrated to the country how to close old wounds by the fiftieth anniversary of Gettysburg in 1913.
They were a remarkable generation—both because of the passions of their beliefs and their capacity to endure and forgive.
We can only speculate, as their times are not our times.
But we face a similar division in our land, due to conflicting beliefs and views. What will future Americans say of us?
Then you are delusional.
Protecting the future of slavery was the reason for Deep South declarations of secession -- there was no other reason of consequence, regardless of what today's pro-Confederate propagandists claim.
exit82: "What has become evident to me, is that the North did not have to fight a war, causing 600,000 deaths and the ruination of the South for a century thereafter, solely because of an attack on one fort."
The white Slave Power did not have to declare its secession, did not have to provoke war by illegally seizing every Federal property it could, did not have to start war at Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and did not have to formally declare war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
But it did, and the results were the only ones historically viable: Unconditional Surrender and the utter destruction of it's "peculiar institution", slavery.
exit82: "What would have been so bad about having two seperate countries in 1861?"
But one of those countries -- the Confederacy -- provoked, started and declared war on the other: the United States.
The Confederacy then launched invasions and military operations in every Union state and territory it could reach, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Other states like California, Colorado, Vermont and even New York also suffered from Confederate special missions.
exit82: "After mechanization displaced slavery in another 15 or 20 years, the country could have reunited without all the bloodshed."
You must, must remember that 1860 was the high-water mark for slavery in America.
By 1860 slavery had been rapidly growing in numbers and value for well over 50 years, and its future looked brighter than ever -- to the white Slave Power.
The only thing Slave Power had to do was make certain slavery had plenty of territory to expand into.
And that's what anti-slavery Republican Lincoln's election threatened -- no expansion of slavery.
So, this whole notion that in 1860 slavery might eventually become "obsolete" or uneconomical was simply not contemplated by anyone then -- certainly not by the white Slave Power.
And why did slavery eventually become outlawed everywhere?
Answer: because the world's strongest military powers considered slavery an abomination.
But had there been a major Power, such as the Confederacy, so totally conceived and dedicated to the proposition that slavery was natural, necessary and legal, that Power could have delayed slavery's demise indefinitely.
Even as it was, the "ideal" of slavery long survived, grew and animated regimes world-wide at least through the times of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
Indeed, many argue that even today, a form of slavery is the goal of our Liberal/Progressive Democrats' many social welfare programs.
So slavery is far from dead, in theory or practice.
Even today, as 150 years ago, it must be defeated by very difficult political (or even military) lifting.
The Confederate government was aiming at detaching as much (slave) territory from the union as it could and dividing the rest of the country as much as possible. If there'd been a serious effort to sit down in Congress and hash out a separation agreement before any state took unilateral action perhaps the country could have been peacefully divided, but in the hurried and panicked circumstances of the time that wasn't going to happen. If you couldn't guarantee whether the capital city would be in the same country from one day to the next , you weren't going to get a peaceful separation.
What has become evident to me, is that the North did not have to fight a war, causing 600,000 deaths and the ruination of the South for a century thereafter, solely because of an attack on one fort.
They didn't start the war. Why attack the fort in the first place? What was Davis aiming at? Did he expect the union would just crumble and let him have everything he wanted? Did he expect to best the United States on the battlefield? Or was he as caught up in the rush of events as everyone else and trying to maintain his position at the front of the wave? One thing we've learned from history is, don't push the US around. We stand up for ourselves -- and we should. What made Davis think we wouldn't?