Like many who posted here, I'm a bit of Civil War buff, so I think its disrepectful and disingenious for that old canard, "you were taught from the Northern history books ..." as if one can pretend that slavery was not an issue and probably the most important issue that led to the Civil War.
The North was JUST as guilty. They STARTED the slavery problem in the first place.
How can a section of the country which outlawed slavery be just a guilty for the institution of slavery as the section which practiced it and sought to perpetuate it to the territories? As for who STARTED the slavery problem, I think you have to go back to Ug the caveman who found that he could make another do his work (provided he had the bigger club.)
And most of the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. 3 of MY ancestors, for example.
Never said otherwise, in fact I was very careful to not state that.
As a matter of fact, the only ancestor that DID was my Great-Great-Great Uncle, U.S. GRANT!
True enough. Grant's wife Julia owned four slaves at different parts of her life (before the Civil War) and Grant himself owned one from 1858-59. Interestingly enough Grant freed his slave though he could have sold him for about $1,000. At this time Grant was in significant financial straits, but was unwilling to sell another human being. Grant was not an abolitionist and wrote in 1863:
"I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled."
I guess Grant was taught by the Northern history books too because there he is linking the Civil War to slavery. On the other hand since he lived through that period of time, was NOT an abolitionist, and had familial ties to the South - well maybe he just might have known more than you do about the connection between the Civil War and slavery. Now go back to your "Southern" history books ...
First:
I am a "bit" of a buff myself on the subject. I have been a reenactor for 15 years, and hold a degree in US History, from University of Texas, Austin.
There was no disrespect intended, but I find it discouraging that someone with an education (I am assuming here, again, not to insult) would believe that the WBTS was fought over Slavery. It was only one of MANY causes, and the real underlying cause had to do with States-Rights. Slavery just happened to be the issue that was used to goad Southerners with. And the first slaves were sold in New England, and New England Shipping Tycoons made their money transporting slaves,etc. They are just as guilty. In our Texas History books, we were taught just that.
"I guess Grant was taught by the Northern history books too because there he is linking the Civil War to slavery."
I think slavery was ONE of the reasons for the START of the Civil War - a significant one, but it certainly wasn't the primary reason Northerners fought (mainly to preserve the Union) or Southerneers fought (mainly to keep out Yankee invaders). Nor was it the SOLE reason.