No prob. As for the "600,000 dead for nothing" comment, I'm afraid that I have to agree with it. The Civil War was eminently preventable by both sides.
Note that the Civil War very nearly began in 1832-1833 with South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs. At the time, slavery wasn't that much of an issue in either the north or the south. Jackson sent naval gunships to South Carolina harbors and South Carolina began preparations for battle but a compromise was reached in the nick of time.
The north benefited from cheap slave-grown southern cotton and the tariffs it collected were spent primarily on the north's railroad, riverway, and manufacturing infrastructure. Southern resentment of tariffs remained high until the Civil War even though, ironically, by the late 1850s tariffs had dropped considerably. Lincoln's support of increased tariffs didn't help the political climate at all.
In summary, slavery was quite possibly the primary reason for the war but it was by no means the only reason. Plus, the institution of slavery was so tightly interwoven into the economic and social fabric of both the north and the south that the various causes of the war kind of blur together. The war could have been prevented by either side -- Lincoln didn't have to taunt the south by fortifying Ft. Sumter and the south didn't have to fire upon it -- but it would have entailed numerous changes in the economy and society of both the north and the south.
Looks like I was right the first time, you are a fringer. The "slavery had nothing to do with it" speech is on the way I have a feeling.
Note that the Civil War very nearly began in 1832-1833 with South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs. At the time, slavery wasn't that much of an issue in either the north or the south. Jackson sent naval gunships to South Carolina harbors and South Carolina began preparations for battle but a compromise was reached in the nick of time.
Because Jackson threatened to whoop ass.
The north benefited from cheap slave-grown southern cotton and the tariffs it collected were spent primarily on the north's railroad, riverway, and manufacturing infrastructure.
Of course. The Southern state's trade paid for everything, ain't that right. The industrialism of the northern states didn't pay for anything?
Southern resentment of tariffs remained high until the Civil War even though, ironically, by the late 1850s tariffs had dropped considerably. Lincoln's support of increased tariffs didn't help the political climate at all. In summary, slavery was quite possibly the primary reason for the war but it was by no means the only reason.
Well, you're not as bad as some of your brethren. They have the "slavery had nothing to do with it" revisionism in rote.
Plus, the institution of slavery was so tightly interwoven into the economic and social fabric of both the north and the south that the various causes of the war kind of blur together.
So the Republican Party didn't care about slavery?
The war could have been prevented by either side --
Especially if the southern slaveholders would've attempted to give up their filthy lucre instead of swearing to take slavery into perpetuity.
Lincoln didn't have to taunt the south by fortifying Ft. Sumter and the south didn't have to fire upon it.
Taunt the South? It was federal property. Are we taunting Cuba by keeping Guantanamo fortified? Diego Garcia? South Korea's parallel?
-- but it would have entailed numerous changes in the economy and society of both the north and the south.
Bull. There were people getting rich off of it and that was the motivating factor. They had no intention of ever ramping it down, they loved the system of 4 million slaves making a few plantation owners rich.