[marron]

Lincoln had stated he would do anything needed to keep the Union together.

Yes, he did. He was a well known abolitionist, which is why the moment he was elected the south started seceding.

But his primary purpose was to hold the union together, and he said he would allow slavery in the south to continue to its natural death. What he would not allow was its extension into future western states.

And, if you read the articles of secession of the various states, that was what the war was about. They knew that if they couldn't spread slavery into the new states, over time the institution would eventually die out in the south too.

So from the point of view of the north, it was a war to preserve the union. From the point of view of the south it was to preserve the institution of slavery, and for both north and south the prize was the American West. It was not a war over whether or not the south would retain slavery, as Lincoln had already granted that. It was a war over who would control the west.

[djf]

Thanks. Good summary.

[lentulusgracchus]

So from the point of view of the north, it was a war to preserve the union. From the point of view of the south it was to preserve the institution of slavery, and for both north and south the prize was the American West.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood something.

As some of us have pointed out repeatedly, the war was in fact an attempt by the Southern States to preserve their right to run their own affairs. They saw that Lincoln was bent on turning the Republic into a national empire, and they wanted out.

After all, it was Lincoln's Republicans who came up with the slogan "national greatness" in the days of William McKinley, the last President of the U.S. to have held a commission during the Civil War.

That greatness was built on the necks of the South and the West.

[Sherman Logan]

What he would not allow was its extension into future western states.

Not quite correct.

Once a territory became a state, it could institute slavery and Lincoln and the federal government would have no way to prevent it.

What Lincoln opposed was allowing slavery in the territories north of the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 brought this whole issue back into play and, not incidentally, also brought A. Lincoln back into politics and created the Republican Party.

Of course, if no slavery was allowed during the territorial period, when the area became a state it would be unlikely to bring it in.

[SunkenCiv]

Bravo!

[wardaddy]

you were doing ok till you editorialized your own logic at the last paragraph

aside from seething resentments and strong cultural friction between north and south and economic issues aside from slavery, your first nuggets are fair enough but then you went subjective.

the expansion of slavery and what Lincoln’s election with a minority of the vote foreshadowed was the catalyst issue for both sides

preserving the union only became the focus for the north after the south started seceding after the election of Mr Lincoln...who was not actually a real abolitionist like Sumner or Stevens since as you correctly claimed did not intend to abolish slavery where it already existed.

after the South seceded, the North fought to keep them in the Union and the South fought to secede or more practically to fend off an invasion after they tried to secede

had the North done nothing, there is no hint the South would have invaded the north...and for what?....