But, I think it was from of the Confederate political discourse where a number of the Southern States held the position that if the secession had been about slavery they would have preferred giving up their slaves rather than go to war.
This seems unlikely. They chose to secede at the very moment an anti-slavery president was elected (and before he got into power). What else was there about Lincoln that deserved such an extreme and pre-emptive move? And they were generally very clear in their official declarations that preserving slavery was the key reason for secession.
(E.g. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states , “The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which [the North] supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”)
Depending on who one speaks to or reads the US Civil War was either all about slavery or not really about it at all.
Yes, for some of the states the immediate cause was Lincoln but for others they did not succeed until Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to subpress the rebellion—and did so it seems to avoid having to provide troops.
My point about all about or little/not about slavery has to do with the separating that out of all the other inter-State politics and political economy going on. Some what to make it the central source which doesn’t seem fully supported.
I wish I could recall the source for the claim that many (most? could have been wrong on that) would not have fought a war just for keeping Slavery but alas cannot. I think the “serios historians” seem to be a kind of shady trick to disqualify historians that might cast things is a different light. Here’s a linkto one that suggests it wasn’t all about slavery, or even primarily about slavery. I think the quote from Woodrow Wilson might be worth considering.
This seems unlikely. They chose to secede at the very moment an anti-slavery president was elected (and before he got into power). What else was there about Lincoln that deserved such an extreme and pre-emptive move? And they were generally very clear in their official declarations that preserving slavery was the key reason for secession.
(E.g. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states , “The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which [the North] supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.”)
You can say that about anything, but it seems that survey articles show that serious historians mostly agree that the civil war was mainly about slavery:
Yes, for some of the states the immediate cause was Lincoln but for others they did not succeed until Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to subpress the rebellion—and did so it seems to avoid having to provide troops.
My point about all about or little/not about slavery has to do with the separating that out of all the other inter-State politics and political economy going on. Some what to make it the central source which doesn’t seem fully supported.
I wish I could recall the source for the claim that many (most? could have been wrong on that) would not have fought a war just for keeping Slavery but alas cannot. I think the “serios historians” seem to be a kind of shady trick to disqualify historians that might cast things is a different light. Here’s a link to one that suggests it wasn’t all about slavery, or even primarily about slavery. I think the quote from Woodrow Wilson might be worth considering.