[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.