Was the Civil War About Slavery?

South Carolina had already threatened to secede in 1830 over excessive tariffs. It was more over miss trust and irreconcilable differences. Yes Lincoln was an abolitionist but he had promised not to abolish slavery in the southern states. The Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court had pretty much quashed that. The main problem that the southern states had was the new states that were being added were free states and they were losing their power in Washington. Uncle Toms cabin had been published 10 years before and the this had fulled the abolitionist movement up north and had lead to the demonization of the southern states by the press. They saw the north as the barbaric powers from England the had overthrown the house of King Charles and the south was the From the genteel King Charles England a much more proper breed. At this point the north and south saw each other as a different species all together. South Carolina decided to secede but knew it would not be wise to go it alone so encouraged the rest of the southern states to go along with them. So in a nutshelll no. There were no immediate plans to end slavery and there had been a problem for years before, slavery was more of an excuse but it was mainly over irreconcilable differences.

Yes and no. The South seceded to protect slavery. So yes. The north fought to preserve the Union. So no.

Most wars are over money, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Rich Southerners wanted free labor to get richer. Poor Southerners wanted jobs, which were in short supply since slaves provided a higher profit margin. Northerners objected to inhuman treatment of the slaves. Add a good dose of propaganda by Mr. Griffith and...