What did the Confederates agree on with Lincoln? That the Founders opposed slavery of course.

PGA Weblog ^

[FLT-bird]

Cannoneer: The historical cause of the Civil war is a well discussed and argued subject. If we posit the idea that if there had been no slavery in America from the beginning, I argue that the foundation for the Civil War (and for that matter secession) would have been greatly different.

The South was going to have an economy based on growing cash crops for export no matter the labor system. Had Blacks been sharecroppers, those crops were going to be produced. Had they been wage laborers those crops were going to be produced. Had the labor force been indentured servants from poor places in Europe (like Ireland) those cash crops were going to be produced. Had it been all yeoman farmers and their families producing 100% of the crop, those crops were going to be produced. They were lucrative. There was a market. The Southern states had the right soil and climate. It was always going to happen. With that established....the labor system wasn't the issue. No matter the labor system, the Southern states were always going to want decentralized power, low taxes and low tariffs. That was in their economic interest. The Northern states which were industrializing - particularly the Northeast - were always going to want high protective tariffs and they were going to want to offload as much of the cost for the necessary infrastructure to support a manufacturing economy (canals, roads, railroads, etc) to be offloaded onto the Government. That is particularly so when somebody else ie, Southerners were paying the overwhelming majority of the tariffs that filled government coffers.

The specialization of the economies in the two regions meant they had diametrically opposed economic interests. As it turns out, they had major philosophical differences about centralized vs decentralized power as well.

[Cannoneer]

"The specialization of the economies in the two regions meant they had diametrically opposed economic interests. As it turns out, they had major philosophical differences about centralized vs decentralized power as well."

Seems like your arguments try to negate slavery entirely from the discussion. I am sure that not one historian, no matter their loyalty, would go that far. The idea that slavery had no bearing on the civil war or secession or even the foundation of the country is troubling.

I am interested if you even think that the institution of slavery had anything to do with the civil war and it's outcome. Can you even defend the institution of slavery at any point.

[FLT-bird]

Seems like your arguments try to negate slavery entirely from the discussion. I am sure that not one historian, no matter their loyalty, would go that far. The idea that slavery had no bearing on the civil war or secession or even the foundation of the country is troubling.

I just point out that slavery was not what drove either secession or the war. I didn't say it had "no bearing". I've argued that it was not the driving force....the sine qua non as PC Revisionists would have it.

I am interested if you even think that the institution of slavery had anything to do with the civil war and it's outcome. Can you even defend the institution of slavery at any point.

Anything to do with? Sure. It was an issue. I'll even agree that it was an important issue in that it animated folks on both sides. I do not think secession or the war were "about" slavery and think the same would have happened even had there been no slavery. Do I "defend" the institution of slavery? Of course not. I would point out that there was nothing new or uniquely American or uniquely Southern about it, but that's not to defend it.