"Henry Clay and others brokered a compromise in Congress that averted a physical showdown between federal troops and the state of South Carolina. After the deal was struck, Jackson wrote to the Rev. A.J. Crawford in May 1833 that the tariff issue was a “pretext” and that the goals of the nullifiers were “disunion and southern confederacy” and “the next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/andrew-jacksons-conflicted-history-on-north-south-relations
So states the document but it is a matter of brilliant misdirection. President Jackson knew this would be the case 30 years before the Civil War commenced. Keep in mind, the claim of slavery in such documents have no justification as there is nothing in the Republican platform that would free even a single slave. President Lincoln fell for it and the abolitionists were angry with Lincoln over it. The Republicans were split and the war dragged on. Very inept president.
Jackson provides evidence to the contrary. The focus on slavery is largely because religious groups and abolitionists were free to argue their points. Virginia was poised to abolish slavery, but John Brown's raid took place. Keep in mind, the only states to secede before the war were all coastal states, Also, there are the border states. It helps to read the entire Republican Platform of 1860.
The problem wasn't that there weren't plenty of excuses other than slavery for the rift between Northern and Southern states.
The problem was that if the U.S. added any more free states to the Union, the slave states would lose the voting majority that had allowed them up to that point to keep their slaves. They knew that public opinion was against them and that it was growing ever more firmly abolitionist.
This was true even in the South. Most people didn't own slaves. Even in South Carolina, where plantations were the backbone of the economy, the number of American citizens owning slaves rose to barely half the total of those eligible to vote, and in most slave states, the percentage of American citizens who owned slaves was quite a lot less.
When Abraham Lincoln won the race for president, it became clear that the next few states to be admitted to the Union would be free states. This is why he didn't have to come out and openly support slavery: it was already being done in by sheer force of public opinion.
So--yes--the Civil War was about State's Rights and it was also about slavery--because it had everything to do with whether the slave states would be permitted to keep their slaves.
The plantation economic model was unworkable without slave labor.
In the North, the abolitionists had instead built factories powered by coal and steam, and by water and other mechanical ingenuities of the time. While factory conditions were far from ideal, there was a big push to find ways to make the jobs safer and to provide a living wage as well as mental stimulation for their workers by employing people to read aloud to them while they completed their repetitive tasks.
Meanwhile, Southern plantation farmers had no way at that time of replacing manual labor in the cotton fields with mechanical marvels, so they either had to go to war or quit farming cotton and tobacco. And they weren't about to quit farming these crops--at least not then. They were too lucrative.
Take a look at South Carolina's secession document. It is explicit about the reason for their secession.
"Henry Clay and others brokered a compromise in Congress that averted a physical showdown between federal troops and the state of South Carolina. After the deal was struck, Jackson wrote to the Rev. A.J. Crawford in May 1833 that the tariff issue was a “pretext” and that the goals of the nullifiers were “disunion and southern confederacy” and “the next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/andrew-jacksons-conflicted-history-on-north-south-relations
So states the document but it is a matter of brilliant misdirection. President Jackson knew this would be the case 30 years before the Civil War commenced. Keep in mind, the claim of slavery in such documents have no justification as there is nothing in the Republican platform that would free even a single slave. President Lincoln fell for it and the abolitionists were angry with Lincoln over it. The Republicans were split and the war dragged on. Very inept president.
You're saying they lied about their reason for seceding??? I'm not buying it.
The South saw the writing on the wall.
The big contention was the Fugitive Slave Act.
No states' rights for Free States who wanted to recognize the humanity of a runaway slave.
Why do you find it so hard to believe they lied to stir up hysteria when politicians do such things all the time?
Jackson provides evidence to the contrary. The focus on slavery is largely because religious groups and abolitionists were free to argue their points. Virginia was poised to abolish slavery, but John Brown's raid took place. Keep in mind, the only states to secede before the war were all coastal states, Also, there are the border states. It helps to read the entire Republican Platform of 1860.
The problem wasn't that there weren't plenty of excuses other than slavery for the rift between Northern and Southern states.
The problem was that if the U.S. added any more free states to the Union, the slave states would lose the voting majority that had allowed them up to that point to keep their slaves. They knew that public opinion was against them and that it was growing ever more firmly abolitionist.
This was true even in the South. Most people didn't own slaves. Even in South Carolina, where plantations were the backbone of the economy, the number of American citizens owning slaves rose to barely half the total of those eligible to vote, and in most slave states, the percentage of American citizens who owned slaves was quite a lot less.
When Abraham Lincoln won the race for president, it became clear that the next few states to be admitted to the Union would be free states. This is why he didn't have to come out and openly support slavery: it was already being done in by sheer force of public opinion.
So--yes--the Civil War was about State's Rights and it was also about slavery--because it had everything to do with whether the slave states would be permitted to keep their slaves.
The plantation economic model was unworkable without slave labor.
In the North, the abolitionists had instead built factories powered by coal and steam, and by water and other mechanical ingenuities of the time. While factory conditions were far from ideal, there was a big push to find ways to make the jobs safer and to provide a living wage as well as mental stimulation for their workers by employing people to read aloud to them while they completed their repetitive tasks.
Meanwhile, Southern plantation farmers had no way at that time of replacing manual labor in the cotton fields with mechanical marvels, so they either had to go to war or quit farming cotton and tobacco. And they weren't about to quit farming these crops--at least not then. They were too lucrative.
Look up and compare the Republican platforms of 1856 and 1860. You can see what issues were fostered to Republican advantage.
See my comment on other post about President Jackson. The war still boils down to taxation.
I read biographies of Lee and Grant. I was much more impressed with Lee!