I agree...Slavery WAS an issue, but NOT the main issue of the war...
What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?
A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states’ rights.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.
The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.
Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.
In my opinion, from history, stating the Civil War was because of slavery is a simplistic approach to a very complicated issue...
I don’t understand how you can say that slavery was not the main issue of the war, and then immediately thereafter say that it was the economics of slavery and the political control of slavery that was central to the conflict, without spraining your brain.
“In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of (Slavery) that system that was central to the (Civil War) conflict.”
So, the Civil War was about slavery.
This is correct. It was all about the money and who was going to control it.
The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn’t support, especially laws interfering with the South’s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.
You focused on the wrong laws. They wanted to abolish the "Navigation act of 1817" that forced them to use North Eastern Shipping monopolies and made it illegal in some cases and prohibitively expensive in others to use foreign ships. They wanted import tariffs to be low so that European Ships would have a profit advantage to trade at Southern ports instead of sending the bulk of their commerce to New York.
They wanted to get out from under laws that had the effect of transferring 60 million of their dollars to the North Monopolized/Government Subsidized industries every year.
Another factor was territorial expansion.
The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.
Not because of moral objections I assure you. The coalition of Northern states had at that time control of congress. If slavery expanded to the territories, those states would likely vote as a coalition with the other slave states, and thereby deprive the North Eastern power barons of their control of Washington.
The Issue of who would control Washington and therefore Government power hinged upon whether the states would vote with the Northern Coalition or the Southern one, and for that reason the Northern power brokers absolutely did not want Slavery to expand to the territories.
The War was about Money and Power, and who would control it.