Replies

It's not really about 1860. You can go back to 1812 and see that the north wanted commerce and the south wanted tariffs. The Missouri Compromise was an attempted solution between northern and southern interests. The nullification crisis of 1836 and the Compromise of 1850 was the same thing. Kansas and Nebraska, also a struggle between financial and political interests of these two parts of the country.

The South wanted citizens within their own state to control their destiny. The North wanted a feel-good solution imposed on those who were "less enlightened". Much of this was about money (commercial trading/industry vs agriculture) and much of this was about imposing morality on others.

The Democrats were morally wrong when they supported slavery, but they were morally right when they defended states rights. The North sought to use the national government to impose its will on sovereign states of the South, and that directly contravenes the type of government outlined in our constitution.

It's incorrect and simplistic to say that the ACW was caused by unhappiness of the election results of 1860.

. The North sought to use the national government to impose its will on sovereign states of the South, and that directly contravenes the type of government outlined in our constitution.

There were radical elements in the North who wished to do that, but they were not even a controlling element in the Republican Party. The South had more than a sufficient number of Northern allies to protect their domestic life.

But the Republican tide was a mortal threat to the expansion of slavery in the territories.

If the issue was merely sustaining non-interference in the slave states, the logical course would be to continue in alliance with the moderate North. Secession only made sense if the motivation was the militant radical spread of slavery.

It’s not really about 1860. You can go back to 1812 and see that the north wanted commerce and the south wanted tariffs

Actually..that would be the reverse. The North preferred tariffs to protect their growing manufacturing infrastructure....while the South wanted “Free Trade” to find markets for their agricultural products (mainly cotton)

If any one thing cost the South the Civil War was their insistence of Free Trade. As we can see in modern times....Free Trade does not allow for a strong manufacturing base...and the South did not have the manufacturing to build the materiel and weapons to fight the North. The help from the South’s trading partners (mainly the British) did not come forth. The North had the materiel, weapons, and the transport to fight an expansive war.

The South was correct in their interpretation of the Constitution and laws....but got burned by the economics.