Was the Civil War about slavery or about states' rights?

Yes, it was all about the states rights, as Gary says. Did a state in the US have the authority to govern its citizens in the way they wanted? Southern states had plantations and needed a lot of slaves for their economic success.

Northern states had less land and generally had created a factory-based, non-agrarian economy. They needed more skilled workers, not field hands.So the north was trying to impose its values, based on its economy, on the south, who had different economic needs. The south's future, based on its economic output, was threatened by the freeing of slaves.

So it is much more complicated than just slavery.

Thanks! Very useful. FaithWillKillUsAll 14 months ago .

Abraham Lincoln was willing to continue overlooking slavery if that was what it took to avert the war. Since the war could not be averted, he went ahead and abolished slavery while he was at it.

It was about the states' right to retain slavery as an economic model.

Wow, ElBanditoRose, we could have another North/South argument here. War of Northern Aggression? Who fired on Fort Sumpter--the first volley of the war?

Who seceeded from the Union but 11 Southern states so they could continue their policy of holding people in bondage to make themselves rich? "So the north was trying to impose its values, based on its economy, on the south, who had different economic needs. "I think we can all agree now that the continuation of the economic system of the South on the backs of slaves was too high a price to pay.

Lychobite: The will that Lincoln was trying to enforce was to prevent the secession of the southern states from the union. S opinion was that he did not approve of slavery in westward expansion but he would leave slavery where it existed. When the southern states decided that they did not agree with that point of view, they seceeded.As the war progressed, then the issue of freeing the slaves became an issue because of Abolitionists in the North raising the moral issue, and the reality that freeing the slaves would destroy the south's economy and a tool to win the war.

It would seem that southerners can not admit, to this day, that their entire economy based on slavery was wrong. You have to make it about money.

If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it. "If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began?

In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country. "Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? Why did it not not free ANY slaves directly under the direct control and authority of Union forces.

Does it not seem strange that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in Northern States but only those in Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. Does it not seem strange that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves under Union control in those counties and parishes in Virginia (the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia plus Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk (including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth) and Louisiana (St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St.John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St.Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans (including the City of New Orleans). The Emancipation Proclamation If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov.

Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status? Please go to the US National Archives and Records Administration website (www.archives.gov) and read the Emacipation Proclamation.

The North tried to impose taxes on cotton which led to southern states seceding also. Lincoln used the Slavery issue as a recruitment tactic to make it appear that the North was more morally justified imposing its will on the South. The real casualty from that war was the constitution.

It was about the states' right to retain slavery as an economic model. Danielpauldavis 62 months ago.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.