The war’s causes and the importance of slavery among them can be debated, but this article loses much credibility by its historical inaccuracies.
The South maintained slavery because it was integral to the economic and social structure. The author seems to be implying that the South would have voluntarily rid itself of slavery except for fear of slave revolts.
The “micro civil war” that erupted in the 1850s was a result of the doctrine of popular sovereignty that was implemented in the Kansas Nebraska Act. Certainly the goal was to make slavery legal in the newly incorporated Kansas Territory, but it had no effect on Missouri, which was admitted as a slave state via the Compromise of 1820.
I’m sure there are others, but I am not wasting my time reading any more of an article by an author who cannot manage to get basic history correct
I didn't get that impression from the article at all. That must be your own subjectivity giving you that result.
In 1776 when all the states in the Union were slave states, the abolition of slavery in each state was gradual. It picked up over the years, and the process was inevitably in the direction of abolition. I used to know where a GIF map was that showed the effect.
The point is, had everyone just left it alone, the effect would have eventually reached all the states, and it would have been eliminated peacefully.
“The South maintained slavery because it was integral to the economic and social structure.”
Exactly.