offhand i can't think of a single traditional historian who would make such a SIMPLISTIC argument.certain REVISIONISTS & southHATERS would however.
free dixie,sw
LOL!!!! You're really reaching now, sw. By "traditionalist," I take it you're referring to historians who agree with you.
I must rely only on such poor sources as John C. Calhoun's famous speech in opposition to the Clay Compromise of 1850.
He opens his speech with the following words:
I have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?
And there you have it all in one paragraph. Slavery, agitation for its abolition, the threat of disunion, and all in the context of one of the great Sectional Crises. The only thing I lack, apparently, is a "traditionalist historian." Alas, I must make do with the words of a great statesman of the time.
Now be honest, sw -- aren't you embarrassed to have such a weak position?