The civil war, like the Iraq war, was fought for many reasons. Dubya’s personal motivation was clearly “nation building” and the hope that the less fundamentalist Iraq could be turned into a democracy as an example to other Muslims.
But Dubya recognized that his personal motivation would not win over Congress. So, without lying, he alluded to the British intelligence reports of Sadam seeking uranium in Africa. The Dems bought into the WMD scare. Many Dems made it their reason for supporting the adventure in Iraq.
For others “oil” was the motivation.
The same is true of the civil war. Some had motivation A, some motivation B, some motivation C to engage in war. Only when a sufficient number were motivated did war happen.
My abolitionist ancestors were for ending slavery by any means necessary, including violence. Abolitionist militia were organizing in abolitionist churches. Some of my Amish-Mennonite uncles consciously chose to switch to Wesleyan or similar abolitionist church a la Reagan’s favorite movie “Friendly Persuasion” about Quakers itching for war. The religious fervor on abolition was that strong. They forced Lincoln’s hand. Some in the South saw it coming and were pro-active in peparing for it.
Possibly a few were motivated by economic explanations. A few, like Lincoln, were motivated to “preserve the union”.
Not everyone has the same motivation. The same is true in politics. Not everyone votes for a candidate for the same reason. Campaigns lose when they think that one-size-fits-all. Historically, the reason Dems win at elections but lose at governing is that in campaigns they oppose one-size-fits-all and build coalitions. But in governing they push programs that are one-size-fits-all.
Thanks for that post, very good.