Replies

"Slavery," as then defined, was a precipitant of something less defined, but clearly more relevant. That was a breakdown in the mutual respect between the multi-generational communities that had rallied together in the Revolution, and joined together in a Federation of States, where part of the arrangement was that matters of "health, safety & morals," remained with those States and the communities within those States.

The sanctimonious passing of judgment on one another, increasingly evident after 1820, and accelerating into the middle of the 19th Century, was the actual cause. The idea of tearing down the honored heroes of the Old South, today, reflects a renewal of the malady--the dearth of mutual respect;--which, ultimately, is a repudiation of the very premises of that Federation.

Note how a great Twentieth Century patriot, General Douglas MacArthur appropriately honored both "Blue & Gray":

Duty, Honor, Country

Tolerating & respecting historic differences was the key to healing the terrible wounds of a terrible war. (Note MacArthur's father had been a General in that War, fighting for the Union side.

Yes, the mutual animosity created between both sides because of the incessant moralizing from the Liberal parts of the country (some things still haven't changed) was indeed a major factor in convincing the South that they didn't want to be part of the nation any more.

But the possibility of losing 3/4ths of all European trade (and potentially more) was the reason why the North could not allow the South to leave in peace.

There was simply too much money at stake.