[colorado tanker]

The issue of slavery dominated the political debate in the 1850's and the Southern states seceded because Lincoln was elected President and was anti-slavery, even though he had no intention of pushing for immediate emancipation. (He hoped that restricting slavery in the territories would hasten it's demise in the South.) Any other reading of the history of the time is just dishonest.

The Beard thesis that all American history can be explained by economics has been debunked. It's really nothing more that the Marxist view of history in disguise. In American history, ideas matter, as the Democrats just learned again in 2004.

[The Iguana]

The issue of slavery dominated the political debate in the 1850's and the Southern states seceded because Lincoln was elected President and was anti-slavery, even though he had no intention of pushing for immediate emancipation. (He hoped that restricting slavery in the territories would hasten it's demise in the South.) Any other reading of the history of the time is just dishonest.

The Beard thesis that all American history can be explained by economics has been debunked. It's really nothing more that the Marxist view of history in disguise. In American history, ideas matter, as the Democrats just learned again in 2004.

You've pretty much nailed it.

Though I think some sincere folks making that argument aren't being dishonest so much as deluded - or highly selective - in their reading of history.

They really believe that states rights were destroyed by the Civil War. But they run into the problem of taking slavery off the table when they take that position. So, Presto! they look hard for - and find - economic causes for the war.

All the while overlooking what was the lynchpin of the southern economy.

[stand watie]

don;t you WISH you were correct?

must be your "pubic screwl edumakashun" that MIStaught you.