Initially the view of historians was that the war came because of its Irrepressible nature. That is the way Seward described it in 1858. He saw it coming. While many in the South agreed that it's deep set causes made it irrepressible and many there worked long and purposefully to make the split happen. They wanted no part of a United States which would neither allow slavery to expand within this nation nor actively work to allow its spread abroad to the South.
The Revisionist view is that it was not irrepressible but was contingent upon accident, bad faith, etc. My view is definitely NOT Revisionist. I believe it was definitely irrepressible.
Moral equivalence is rejected because I do not believe the South stood for anything consistent with the writings of the Founders either as regard slavery or real Liberty. They found the former so repugnant that they blamed it on the King of England and hoped for its eventual disappearance. The Latter is impossible if it is based upon the removal of some men's liberty. It can never rise above oppression.
However, the Union stood for and protected ALL the beliefs of the Founders and proved strong enough to stand against a deadly firestorm of such force that many nations would have succumbed. It CAN rise above oppression now that the Compromise has been removed from the political body though with horrendous Fire and Blood.
TC- would you not agree that the term Revisionist is as I describe it? stand won't believe me.
Agree. The die was cast with the 3/5 compromise in Philadelphia in 1787.
That, I suppose, was the best they could do then to get the agreement of all 13 states, but it was only done as a compromise to keep the two smallest and arguably weakest of those thirteen in the union, and was just the beginning of "fourscore" of compromise over our founding principles that finally reached a breaking point in 1860.
One can only wonder what would have / could have, been if the other 11 had simply told those two states to go their own way back in 1787.
That would be the alternative history to write. Would they have survived on their own? Would they have relented? Would they have gone back to the British? What would of those two have done and how would the nation have been different today?
Interesting points for conjecture.
Yes, I agree that events were set in motion that propelled ths country toward war. But the blame is not solely on the South.
laughing AT you sanctimonious IGNORANCE of BOTH history & historiography.
free dixie,sw