Exactly. He rejects the "group think" common among historians, especially biased historians, and he looks straight to the economic situation which tells the truth.
As an economist, Roberts, like Marx and the Beards, prefers economic explanations of history.
Following the money will allow you to see through the lies.
Yet peoples and nations treasure more than mere treasure and are commonly motivated by ideas and emotions more than by calculations of economic gain or loss.
No they don't. Throughout all of human history, people make a pretense of being concerned with moral issues, but the reality is which side their bread is buttered on.
I dare say if you were asked to show an example of where people chose morality over greed, you would point to the Civil War as an example of this. Yet the economic numbers certainly make it look like the real issue of the war was the money the Northern power structure would lose if the South went it's own way.
We just have propaganda that says otherwise.
The idea that the South was struggling and economically oppressed by the North before the Civil War is absurd.
Nobody said they were "struggling", they were just aware that they were feeding a lot of Northern parasites with their industry. The South was greedy too, and wanted to keep more of their profits from their industry, rather than give it away to Northern interests under contrived legality meant to enrich those Norther interests.
So no, the South wasn't "struggling", but they did resent sending money to people who hated them. Wouldn't you?
Southerners wished for cheaper industrial goods, but their complaints never resulted in the South developing much of an industrial base before the Civil War.
The capitalization that would have occurred from an extra Hundred Million dollars per year going into the South would have very likely spurred exactly the same sort of industrial build out that they had already paid for in the North.
I have read newspaper accounts (From the Charleston Mercury, I think) talking about the massive boom in their economic activity which was a result of their secession from the Union. Industry was already moving South to take advantage of the massively increased profits which were perceived to be the result of the Southern industry no longer operating under Northern control.
Notably, one has to read contemporary political statements in the historical context of the speaker and the era.
"Fifteen days to flatten the curve!"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!"
"I did not have sex with that woman!"
"You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!"
Political statements are just lies usually told to gain support. Money tells the truth.
At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln and most Northerners did not want war, and especially not a war over slavery.
Well Lincoln didn't start a war over slavery. Lincoln started a war over the South refusing to pay Northern imposed taxes or follow Northern created protectionist laws. In fact, Lincoln urged all the states to pass the Corwin Amendment which would guarantee slavery indefinitely!
So no, nobody wanted a war over slavery, and they didn't fight a war over slavery. They fought it over money, and then mid stream started *CLAIMING* the war was about "slavery."
They resented and opposed Southern demands for the expansion of slavery, which Northerners saw as immoral and a menace to free men and the value of their labor.
A lot to unpack here. Firstly, slavery could *NOT* "expand". That was just a lie told for the purpose of gaining political support.
Secondly, why were people so opposed to "expanding" slavery into the territories? Was it because of the moral concern for the oppression of black people, or was it something else? Something wicked and ugly?
If the truth be known, the issue of "expansion" was about opposition to having black people in the territories. You talked about reading the political material of the day, and the ugly truth is that those opposed to "expansion" weren't concerned about the oppression of the black man. They simply did not want any black people in the territories. They wrote they wanted those preserved for the exclusive use of the white population.
Something that shocked me when I first learned of it is that the vast majority of Northern opposition to slavery had nothing to do with concern for the well being of slaves. It was all about hating black people being among them. They were motivated by *HATE*, not love.
You want proof? Look at the "black codes" in the Northern states. These were evil laws created by white Northerners to abuse, intimidate and punish any blacks that had the gall to settle among the whites.
We have been fed lies. The North hated black people. They weren't upset that they were worked or whipped. They were upset because they didn't want any of those people in their communities, or to associate with them in any way.
But we have all been led to believe the Northern white population was enlightened and loved the black man; That they loved him so much they were willing to fight and die to make him free!
But it wasn't true. It was propaganda. It was a pretty picture painted by people later to justify what they had done.
In opposing secession and the Confederacy, Lincoln was careful not to get ahead of public opinion in the North and in the border states. That is why he constructed a lawyerly argument for war based on federal powers and preservation of the Union instead of slavery.
He pulled a "bait and switch" like any good conman. He was a clever manipulator of people. Very good at it.
Why did the South secede due to Lincoln's election? Look at the Republican platform of 1860. It was expressly against the expansion of slavery and reopening of the African slave trade.
Slavery wasn't going to "expand" into the West, and not even the Southern government was going to allow any further African slave trade. Lincoln's election simply meant that the Southern states had no hope of changing or stopping any laws desired by the Northern coalition, and they would simply have to keep paying the North, and tolerating any abuse heaped upon them by the North. They were to be the permanent Milk Cow for Northern interests, and they resented this subjugation.
As Lincoln and other Republicans explained, they saw slavery as deeply wrong and their objective was to put it on the path to extinction.
Deeply wrong, so they passed the "Corwin Amendment" making it permanent in the United States? (If the Southern states had voted for it, it would have happened.)
One does not express concern for slaves, then throw them under the buss by voting to keep them in bondage forever. One does not do such a thing unless one is just lying about their concern for the slaves.
The Corwin Amendment proves their concern was for *MONEY*. It proves their concern was not for slaves. They voted to keep them in slavery so that they could keep getting the money.
The South recognized that despite the region's economic and political power, lack of enforcement in the North of the fugitive slave act would effectively end slavery because young, able bodied slaves could and did flee North in large numbers.
This statement makes me think you didn't bother to read Paul Craig's Roberts essay on why the Southerners claimed their secession was about slavery.
Also, the US Constitution imposed the "fugitive slave act" in Article IV, section 2. States were just ignoring Federal law on the matter, thereby breaking the contract with the Southern states. (Paul Craig Robert's point.)
As it was, Lincoln adopted the Emancipation Proclamation as a limited war measure so that he could keep slave holders in the border states with the North. After that, slaves flocked to the Union lines and freedom. Among other causes, this helped lead to the collapse of the Confederate economy and Union victory.
Yes, it was a cynical attempt to capture the moral high ground but not actually doing anything to justify it.
As William Seward said at the time, "We have set the slave free in areas where we cannot reach him, and kept him in bondage in areas we control." (Paraphrased.)
A London newspaper but it more bluntly.
"The moral is not that one man may not own another... it's that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
Like I said, Lincoln was a clever manipulator.
Or as George Bush would have said: “An insincere charlatan.”
We are back again at where we always seems to end up on this topic, with my posts eventually met by a torrent of spurious Lost Cause jargon, claims, and circular reasoning, with some contemporary political jibes thrown in. The hard facts of history are to the contrary though, no matter how effusive the Lost Cause outpouring may be.
A Disease in the Public Mind:
A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War
by Thomas Fleming
https://www.amazon.com/Disease-Public-Mind-Understanding-Fought/dp/0306822954
“By the time John Brown hung from the gallows for his crimes at Harper’s Ferry, Northern abolitionists had made him a “holy martyr” in their campaign against Southern slave owners. This Northern hatred for Southerners long predated their objections to slavery. They were convinced that New England, whose spokesmen had begun the American Revolution, should have been the leader of the new nation. Instead, they had been displaced by Southern “slavocrats” like Thomas Jefferson. This malevolent envy exacerbated the South’s greatest fear: a race war. Jefferson’s cry, “We are truly to be pitied,” summed up their dread. For decades, extremists in both regions flung insults and threats, creating intractable enmities. By 1861, only a civil war that would kill a million men could save the Union.”