Was the civil war originally a war about states rights to succed from the union & later became a slave issue?

Actually if the historians do not tell the truth about this war --- is this actually educating people or just teaching contradictions which if learned causes a person to be classified as an educated person?|||Southern Democratic states seceded because Republican northern states were levying ever higher tariffs on their tobacco and cotton trade with Europe. The north was hurting economically, particularly after the flood of overpopulating Irish potato famine refugees. The south was getting richer selling their cash crops to Europe and loading the returning ships with fine European manufactured goods.





The financial and commercial interests in the Republican north were spitting purple over that and clamped down hard on the Democratic south when they got control in Washington in 1861. The southern states have the right to secede but the north reprovisioned Fort Sumner instead of abandoning it. It was able to blockade Charleston's port so Carolina fired on it.|||The winners write the history books, that's why.

Report Abuse

|||I think it very unlikely that the entire historical establishment is somehow out to delude everyone else. Historians make it their life's work to investigate stuff and find out what happened. And they don't agree on everything, not by a long shot- evidence is limited and there are very few issues which aren't debated ad nauseum.





I'm not in a position to discuss the ethics of our education system, but about the causes of the war: My understanding is that, as is often the case, it was a combination of factors which lead to the conflict. While the war itself might have been ostensibly fought over the rights of states, the long term causes of the war (those which produced a situation in which war was likely) were caused by slavery. Without slavery, the economic situation as it was simply could not exist, and those profiting from it- also those who had any power- were not prepared to give it up without a fight.|||Yes, slavery was not an issue until Lincoln made it so in 1863. As far as education, schools and college no one gets an education any more they get a transcript. Libs made sure of that and for government education to succeed everyone attending must be dumbed down. History revisionist have tried unsuccessfully to change the facts surrounding the War of Northern Aggression for years. It appears that they have not let up so it is to your advantage to study the war individually using any material at your disposal.|||I thought the cause of the war was primarily that the limited crops: high manual labor cotton, tobacco, and sugar, were the number one economic activity of the south totally dependent on slave labor.





On the other hand, the north (a highly diversified economy not dependent on slave labor) was basically saying we are putting your entire economy in the toilet.





Imagine the global warming crowd walking up to the arabs and saying, the oil in your land can no longer be extracted. "but, but, our entire economy depends on this" and the reply was "too bad"





What would happen?|||The Civil War was not a "war against slavery". The black leaders and anti-slavery whites knew it too, but they also knew that it was a good opportunity to take advantage of the situation to end slavery.|||From outside USA looking in I would research war of Independence first then look to similarities which brought about the American civil war . it appears to me the South was still closely attached to UK and the North was against this association|||slavery|||The issues were inter-connected.