Revisionist History

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

This thread is a good example of the cesspit that boards has become.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

All serious historians agree slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War. The seceding states said as such at the time.

https://www.historynet.com/which-states-referred-to-slavery-in-their-cause-of-secession.htm

You're missing the point... I haven't said that slavery wasn't the primary cause. It was. The issue of Slavery was used as a weapon for economic and political gain.

It's this simplistic attitude to history that I would like us to avoid. Simply saying slavery was the cause, ignores all the factors that made slavery the primary issue. The numbers of abolitionists and their supporters in the US was relatively small, and without the influence to cause the war on their own. God knows, they tried on numerous occasions by inciting slave revolts. and leaving the slaves to be slaughtered... For actual war, they needed the support of the industrialists and politicians. There were other motivations, and agenda's than simply freeing the slaves.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

This thread is a good example of the cesspit that boards has become.

In reference to whom?

pgmcpq

It is important to note that many of the confederate memorials removed or being considered for removal were actually erected during the the 1940s,50s and 60s as an explicit celebration of segregation and later as a protest against the civil rights movement in the 60s. They do not date to the civil war era.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the same with someone like, Robert E Lee, who wasn't a owner of slaves (to my knowledge), and wasn't a supporter of slavery in politics. He returned to fight for his state.

Lee owned slaves.

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder

1641

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing the point... I haven't said that slavery wasn't the primary cause. It was. The issue of Slavery was used as a weapon for economic and political gain.

It's this simplistic attitude to history that I would like us to avoid.

I agree with you that any notion that the North went to war to "free the slaves" and promote the "rights of man" is absurd. This would have been imposssible as no political party could have gained and maintained power on such a platform at the time (or maintained an army in the field). The Abolitionists were a small and noisy minority. There was a much larger northern constituency who wanted to see an end to slavery as an institution. And more still were opposed to any further extension of slavery into the west. But most of these people in 1860 would have regarded as absurd the idea that the slaves could be freed, granted equal citizenship and enter ordinary society as free and equal (certainly not their own society). Hence the ideas of the gradual "fading away" of slavery, of establishing overseas colonies where they could go, and/or giving them free passage and a sum of money to go to Africa.


So it is understandable that Southerns are offended by a right versus wrong (or racist versus non-racist) narrative. But at the same time plenty in the South have also promoted their own reinterpretation of history - of a society of freedom loving cavaliers, slaves working plantations but generally well cared for, everyone happy in their place, etc. That in many ways the black population was better off then. In much the same ways we tend to tell our own, and our family histories, to highlight (or exaggerate) the achievements and to conceal, or forget, the embarrassing bits.


As to the monuments, though. Most of these were erected during the height of the Jim Crow era, the era of lynchings, of the most embarrassing black suppression. They are of a triumphalist nature - to our great hereos of our heroic past. They are not a memorial to the tragic losses of the war across all sectors of society, or to those who suffered most. They were built to glorify a version of history as reinterpreted from a southern white perspective. And they were built to tell the black population just who is in charge again. That is not to say that all who visit these monuments share these views.

jmayo

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

If I ruled my land I would send Unionists to Scotland and I would also ban tourism, the English language and sex before marriage, degeneracy and USA ruined the world. I pity the future generations living in this modern clown world, humans are going to die out anyway as only handsome men will breed in 200 years due to the female ego, there aren't enough handsome men in existence. Women think that breeding with a healthy strong man will breed healthy off spring but it seems that illnesses, autism and ugliness manages to seep through anyway. I hope there is an after life so I can watch the clown world with my binoculars with popcorn. Women think they can get rid of failures like me by breeding with successful handsome men but we will always be around lurking in the gene pool. Society has been trying to get rid of us for milleniums yet here we still are, inferior men.

Ahh ... now the username makes sense.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the same with someone like, Robert E Lee, who wasn't a owner of slaves (to my knowledge), and wasn't a supporter of slavery in politics. He returned to fight for his state.

Lee took over the Arlington plantation and slaves of his father in law, a step grandson of George Washington, when he died.
The will stated that the slaves be emancipated over 5 years, but Lee was slow to do it and ended up breaking up slave families because they were unhappy and were revolting.

And Lee has a very questionable incident in his history where it is claimed, even by one of the victims, that he had three runaway slaves, including a woman, whipped by an overseer.
Then the slaves were then sent to work on the railroads.

So Lee is not as clean as some might claim him.

joseywhales

Let sleeping dogs lie?

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

So Lee is not as clean as some might claim him.

Thanks. My VPN isn't connecting for the last few days so it's difficult to get a variety of sites for research. The sites I found said he wasn't a supporter of the slavery issue, but hadn't mentioned his links to it.

1641 wrote:

So it is understandable that Southerns are offended by a right versus wrong (or racist versus non-racist) narrative. But at the same time plenty in the South have also promoted their own reinterpretation of history - of a society of freedom loving cavaliers, slaves working plantations but generally well cared for, everyone happy in their place, etc. That in many ways the black population was better off then. In much the same ways we tend to tell our own, and our family histories, to highlight (or exaggerate) the achievements and to conceal, or forget, the embarrassing bits.

Totally agree, which is why I tried to avoid promoting such claims. Although some books I've read on the topic said that the slaves lot after the war wasn't much better than before. At least not for the first two-three decades. It was just slavery under a different name, and Northerners were often just as racist as the southern slave owners. Still, I agree with you that the Southerners have promoted their own propaganda on the whole thing.

It's the reason why people should examine history and demand a fair study of it, rather than encourage this revisionist attempt just to spare some people's feelings. People have the choice to avoid the things that offend them... they don't have the right to change history to suit them.

As to the monuments, though. Most of these were erected during the height of the Jim Crow era, the era of lynchings, of the most embarrassing black suppression. They are of a triumphalist nature - to our great hereos of our heroic past. They are not a memorial to the tragic losses of the war across all sectors of society, or to those who suffered most. They were built to glorify a version of history as reinterpreted from a southern white perspective. And they were built to tell the black population just who is in charge again. That is not to say that all who visit these monuments share these views.

It's an association that has been encouraged by the Blacks themselves too though. The rhetoric of black leaders on this issue constantly reinforce the connection to the slavery issue as being paramount rather than considering anything else. It's a competition for scoring points, and just another indication of how divided the US has become racially over the last few decades.

I have friends in the South who view these statues and memorials as being part of their heritage. They're not white supremacists, or racists. They've got more black friends than I have and understand black american culture more than I ever will. They live in areas with both white and black populations... but they're offended that their history has to be torn down. Try doing the same for someone like Malcolm X, and you'd hear cries of outrage all over the place.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Deleted User wrote: »

In reference to whom?

The likes of you, peddling a dishonest lost cause narrative.

pgmcpq

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an association that has been encouraged by the Blacks themselves too though. The rhetoric of black leaders on this issue constantly reinforce the connection to the slavery issue as being paramount rather than considering anything else.

Given that it was the paramount issue in American politics and economics for several centuries it is hard to imagine that the association could be missed or needs any "rhetoric" to reinforce the connection. This is like being surprised that someone mentions the 800lb elephant sitting in the corner of the room.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a competition for scoring points, and just another indication of how divided the US has become racially over the last few decades.

This is one of the myth that repeated often enough becomes accepted. The US is not "more racially over the last few decades". What is true is that racial barriers have been challenged over the last few decades.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have friends in the South who view these statues and memorials as being part of their heritage. They're not white supremacists, or racists. They've got more black friends than I have and understand black american culture more than I ever will. They live in areas with both white and black populations... but they're offended that their history has to be torn down. Try doing the same for someone like Malcolm X, and you'd hear cries of outrage all over the place.

Sadly, this is pretty much the definition of dog whistle racism. Plausible deniability was the bedrock of the Republican "Southern strategy" . I'd recommend reading "Angry White Men" or "Strangers in their own land".

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

This thread is a good example of the cesspit that boards has become.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The likes of you, peddling a dishonest lost cause narrative.

Ahh, well, you're a perfect example of what I dislike about the west these days. Mounting an ivory tower of righteous indignation that someone doesn't accept a whitewashed, simple and safe version of history.

You posted a single contribution to this thread which didn't contain any of your own opinions. Instead it was a link to an article which didn't go against what I'd said. Just repeating the same simple projection that slavery was the only issue worth considering. You still haven't addressed the points I've made whereas other posters were willing to discuss the issue with some respect even though they disagreed.

You're like the trend of feminism that exists in American Universities. If someone disagrees with your rose-tinted perception of the world, then they're scum. You can't tolerate any differences. Hence I'm an example of how boards has become a cesspit.

Now... you haven't debunked what I've posted. Others haven't either, except for my mistake about Lee not owning slaves. The Slavery issue was used for political and economic gain for the North, and the belief in a pure crusade for the freeing of slaves is propaganda designed to dumb down history. If you believe me to be incorrect, argue against me.

In some ways you're right that boards has gone downhill, but it's not boards... it's the unwillingness of many posters to engage in intelligent discussion.

pgmcpq

pgmcpq wrote: »

Sadly, this is pretty much the definition of dog whistle racism. Plausible deniability was the bedrock of the Republican "Southern strategy" . I'd recommend reading "Angry White Men" or "Strangers in their own land".

Will do. Thanks.

s7ryf3925pivug

It's about symbolism.

Cromwell symbolizes republicanism to the English. This is why the 90s Labour UK government briefly hung up a portrait of him in Downing St - in place of something they felt was too imperialistic. Their next guest was Bertie Ahern, who did inform them of what he represented for Irish people.

Some upper class type British people express a deep dislike for Cromwell. This is often to convey an association with the vanquished aristocracy rather than anything else.

1641

Deleted User wrote: »

Now... you haven't debunked what I've posted. Others haven't either, except for my mistake about Lee not owning slaves. The Slavery issue was used for political and economic gain for the North, and the belief in a pure crusade for the freeing of slaves is propaganda designed to dumb down history. If you believe me to be incorrect, argue against me.

Agree it wasn't a pure crusade of freeing the slaves.

But the new Republican party was a coalition. It included that faction with just this intention. It also included other factions with the aim of limiting slavery to the original core southern states, limiting the application of federal slave laws in the north, and/or graduallly ending slavery through economic compensation. (It also included other unsavoury elements, such as radical anti-immigrant, anti -Irish and anti-Catholic vigilantes, but that is another matter). All of these were against slavery as an institution. Its just that most of them weren't against it for what we would regard nowadays as "anti-racist" motives.


On the other hand, the South were definitely pro-slavery. But more damning for them was the failure to come to terms with the consequences of the war. They complained about Federal Reconstruction but once they had got rid of it by the late 1870s they began systematically rolling back all the rights that the black population had gained. This reduced them to near pauperhood, eliminated their voting rights, excluded them by segregation from public services, loading the legal sysyem against them and let the Klan run an unofficial system of terror and lynching. The statues were built during this era and as extension of what was going on generally. They are a symbol of white superiority. I have no doubt that some southerners visit them just to remember their fallen ancestors but they are also visited and used to further a white supremicist narrative and the narrative of the glorious "lost cause".


You mentioned a number of times that the North wanted to pursue an economic policy against the south and that this was their motive. This is also part of the "lost cause" account. In fact, southern politicians had dominated the US from the 1820s to 1850s and northerners had long complained that their economic policy disadvantaged the north by giving the then world-dominant Britain free access to American markets. Britain was industrially advanced and benefitted by having direct access to almost unlimited cheap basic commodities from across its empire, including India. It also was the biggest importer of southern cotton (cheap, slave produced). If Northern trade policy was against anyone it was against Britain. It wanted tariffs to as to limit British access to American markets, and to let American manufacturing to catch up and compete. It wasn't anti-south although the south felt disadvanteaged by it. And not enough to base a "lost cause" narrative on (as if slavery, in one way or another, was not central to the issue).

nkl12xtw5goz70

Deleted User wrote: »

In some ways you're right that boards has gone downhill, but it's not boards... it's the unwillingness of many posters to engage in intelligent discussion.

I've noticed this too, and it's very sad.

In reality, the Civil War had multiple interrelated causes — but the complexity of history is often lost on those who just want to argue (usually from a stance of knowing virtually nothing about nineteenth-century American political history) whether it was caused by A, B, or C.

s7ryf3925pivug

Esmeralda Dazzling Buggy wrote: »

I've noticed this too, and it's very sad.

In reality, the Civil War had multiple interrelated causes — but the complexity of history is often lost on those who just want to argue (usually from a stance of knowing virtually nothing about nineteenth-century American political history) whether it was caused by A, B, or C.

But one side was fighting to keep slaves. If there were other factors it doesn't take away from that.

Hitler was fighting to keep the USSR from invading Europe. But he was also fighting to commit genocide, subjugate peoples and take over most of Europe himself. So nobody says "Well there were multiple factors" when people say Nazi Germany was bad.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Kaylani Moldy Relaxation wrote: »

Hitler was fighting to keep the USSR from invading Europe. But he was also fighting to commit genocide, subjugate peoples and take over most of Europe himself. So nobody says "Well there were multiple factors" when people say Nazi Germany was bad.

When it comes to the rise of Nazi Germany, there were most certainly multiple factors at play — to the point where historians have written numerous book-length treatises in an effort to explain how and why that happened. But the tendency today is to reduce enormously complex political, economic, and social histories down to something the length of a Tweet. I genuinely believe that due to phones and social media, many people are losing the ability to read books or process complex arguments. Instead, they home in on the simplest and easiest explanation and just run with it.

alastair

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Direct from the horse’s mouth - Alexander Stephens, 1861, on the bedrock of the Confederate Constitution - three weeks after Lincoln became president.

1641

alastair wrote: »

Direct from the horse’s mouth - Alexander Stephens, 1861, on the bedrock of the Confederate Constitution - three weeks after Lincoln became president.

True, alastair. But what a pro-southerner would probably say is that a central tenets of the speech is one that would have been shared fairly commonly in the north at the time, incredible as that may seem now. However clumsily, it might be seen as an appeal to the North to avoid conflict on the basis of a shared value, namely this:
"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error."

Stephens may also have been subtly reminding people that he and Lincoln had formerly been close political allies and that their views would then have been broadly in accord. You will note that one of the "lost cause" lines of defence is that northerners were just hypocrites as they generally did not view the black population as any more equal than they (southerners) did.

In saying this, I emphasise that I find the "lost cause" line generally distasteful when not ridiculous. But they do have a point when they rail against those who, they believe, portray the war as essentially one between "woke" northerners and southern racists.

alastair

I don’t see anyone arguing that the union was in any way ‘woke’, but the contemporary statements from the leading secessionists make very clear that the crux of the argument was to do with the continuance of slavery. Plenty of ground between casual societal racism and advocating for slavery, and that’s the key issue at play.

1641

alastair wrote: »

I don’t see anyone arguing that the union was in any way ‘woke’, but the contemporary statements from the leading secessionists make very clear that the crux of the argument was to do with the continuance of slavery. Plenty of ground between casual societal racism and advocating for slavery, and that’s the key issue at play.

I am not suggesting anyone here has suggested that the north was "woke" and motivated by racial justice and egalitarianism. But it is, in one form or another, a position that some has been put forward by some (playing into white supremicist hands, in my opinion).

Just to note that, in his election campaign, Lincoln had indicated that he accepted the right of the original southern states to maintain slavery. More generally, the Republican Party in Congress also made this offer to the south. The crux of the matter was the extension of slavery into the new territories to the west. Lincoln and many Republicans to a considerable extent hoped that time would find its own solution in the old south, as they didn't then have another proposal that they considered practical and implementable.

1641

1641 wrote: »

I have no doubt that some southerners visit them just to remember their fallen ancestors but they are also visited and used to further a white supremicist narrative and the narrative of the glorious "lost cause".

Mostly agree and appreciate what you've said up to here.

You mentioned a number of times that the North wanted to pursue an economic policy against the south and that this was their motive. This is also part of the "lost cause" account. In fact, southern politicians had dominated the US from the 1820s to 1850s and northerners had long complained that their economic policy disadvantaged the north by giving the then world-dominant Britain free access to American markets. Britain was industrially advanced and benefitted by having direct access to almost unlimited cheap basic commodities from across its empire, including India. It also was the biggest importer of southern cotton (cheap, slave produced). If Northern trade policy was against anyone it was against Britain. It wanted tariffs to as to limit British access to American markets, and to let American manufacturing to catch up and compete. It wasn't anti-south although the south felt disadvanteaged by it. And not enough to base a "lost cause" narrative on (as if slavery, in one way or another, was not central to the issue).

In a previous post I recommended to a poster that he? check out the War of 1812. This was a war with Britain over illegal searches of Shipping and the taking of those with British heritage to be impressed into their navy. A southern president led the country into the war, which the US were raped in. The northerners blamed the war on the south, and threatened secession on a number of occasions. So, I agree with you about Southern power in government for a long time.

However, that didn't last and the Northern parties gained power in the government ousting the southerners. Fine. No problem with that. The difference though is that the North had always been wealthy due to it's industry and trade connections. Yes, the South had been shipping to the British and others but the Northern industrialists wanted those exports to be sold to them instead. Which is what they pushed for through the use of tariffs and other economic measures.

This , in turn, increased the wealth of the industrialists, and their influence in the government, along with the government itself gaining wealth from the tariffs. The south, on the other hand, were obliged to sell to the North, and since the obligation was there, the prices were much lower than would have been received from exporting, and exporting had so many tariffs to make it far less profitable. Pretty simple economics. No need for a southern lost-cause narrative, since that's essentially what was being pushed on them. The South was disadvantaged by it because wealth equaled the ability to buy votes, and the influence to garner resources to develop their states. Remember, that the North held the majority of industrialists and that included aspects like rail or other avenues through which modernization was pursued. Consider, for a moment, just how effective the blockade of the South was... that shows just how powerful an economic concern the North was to the South.

I'm not seeking to provide excuses for slavery. I can certainly understand wanting to secede due to the economic considerations.. and I'm not terribly interested in promoting this "lost cause" angle either. I'm always willing to be convinced.

Kaylani Moldy Relaxation

Kaylani Moldy Relaxation wrote: »

But one side was fighting to keep slaves. If there were other factors it doesn't take away from that.

Hitler was fighting to keep the USSR from invading Europe. But he was also fighting to commit genocide, subjugate peoples and take over most of Europe himself. So nobody says "Well there were multiple factors" when people say Nazi Germany was bad.

Hitler wasn't fighting to keep the USSR from invading Europe. To do so, he would have need to invade Germany, his ally. Not just his ally but the cousin of his ideology. Nationalist socialist. People tend to focus on Nazism as if that's all there is to it. National socialism had many connections with both socialism and Marxism.

Stalin had no interest in invading Europe. He was far too concerned with consolidating his control over Russia, and due to his paranoia, this was something he'd never succeed at. The invasion of Finland was a disaster, and that loss of respect made him even less likely to invade anywhere else, except perhaps by going south... but even then, he was more concerned with the expansionist Japanese.

And as Permabear II, has pointed out there are plenty of books about WW2 discussing it from all angles. It's probably the most researched and most written about conflict in all of human history.

RandomName2

Aegir wrote: »

Franco’s Grave has become a shrine and a place of focus for those that want Spain to return to its fascist past.

It isn’t about trying to erase the past, it’s about not wanting it repeated.

It's ironic that the only far right party in Spain (Vox) was nowhere until recently, and it's only with the actions of the government (including but by no means limited to this pantomime with Franco's tomb) that has launched them from obscurity into the spotlight. If this was the intention, it seems to not be working.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Hitler wasn't fighting to keep the USSR from invading Europe. To do so, he would have need to invade Germany, his ally. Not just his ally but the cousin of his ideology. Nationalist socialist. People tend to focus on Nazism as if that's all there is to it. National socialism had many connections with both socialism and Marxism.

Stalin had no interest in invading Europe. He was far too concerned with consolidating his control over Russia, and due to his paranoia, this was something he'd never succeed at. The invasion of Finland was a disaster, and that loss of respect made him even less likely to invade anywhere else, except perhaps by going south... but even then, he was more concerned with the expansionist Japanese.

And as Permabear II, has pointed out there are plenty of books about WW2 discussing it from all angles. It's probably the most researched and most written about conflict in all of human history.

Yeah I read a lot about it and one of the stated primary objectives of the Axis was to combat Communism. Hitler referred to preventing hordes of Cossacks pouring into Europe. The Nazis hated Communists and persecuted them in their own country.

Stalin did invade Europe. He invaded Poland simultaneously with Germany.

I dunno, I think pretty much everything in your post is wrong, yet you still present it in a condescending manner.

1641

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not seeking to provide excuses for slavery. I can certainly understand wanting to secede due to the economic considerations.. and I'm not terribly interested in promoting this "lost cause" angle either. I'm always willing to be convinced.

This whole emphasis on economic and trade policy is a classic "lost cause" argument. There would never have been a civil war if it were not for slavery. The US came quite close to Civil War on this very issue in 1850 and it was probably only avoided by the sudden death of then President Taylor. The subsequent "compromise" only exaggerated tensions and postponed the final confrontation on the issue. And the issue was slavery, not economics. It was the focus of all the most serious quarrels over previous decades. There were differences on economics but there would have been no secession or war as a result of them.

Kaylani Moldy Relaxation

Kaylani Moldy Relaxation wrote: »

Yeah I read a lot about it and one of the stated primary objectives of the Axis was to combat Communism. Hitler referred to preventing hordes of Cossacks pouring into Europe. The Nazis hated Communists and persecuted them in their own country.

Stalin did invade Europe. He invaded Poland simultaneously with Germany.

I dunno, I think pretty much everything in your post is wrong, yet you still present it in a condescending manner.

Hitler had a reason to tell his people for every country that he invaded. Doesn't mean that the reasons were true. If that was the case, the genocide of the Jews and other undesirables would have been merited. As for the hatred of communism, you definitely need to do some reading to understand my point.

Stalin invaded Poland, which had previously been part of Russia not that long previously. So technically he didn't invade Europe considering the perceptions of people of that time. Even now, we don't consider Russia to be European and we're only starting to include Eastern European countries as being European.

As for a condescending manner, that's your perception, not a fact. You haven't proven me to be wrong, and until you do, I will continue to consider my opinions valid. It's possibly condescending because you haven't sought to prove anything, simply that we accept your opinions as fact.

1641

1641 wrote: »

This whole emphasis on economic and trade policy is a classic "lost cause" argument. There would never have been a civil war if it were not for slavery.

Agreed... but since slavery had economic and political implications it's not part of the lost cause excuse and therefore invalid.

The US came quite close to Civil War on this very issue in 1850 and it was probably only avoided by the sudden death of then President Taylor. The subsequent "compromise" only exaggerated tensions and postponed the final confrontation on the issue. And the issue was slavery, not economics. It was the focus of all the most serious quarrels over previous decades. There were differences on economics but there would have been no secession or war as a result of them.

Which doesn't counter what I previously posted about both the economics and the buying of political favor. Slavery was the primary issue, but the issue of slavery was a weapon to diminish the power of the South, just as much as any real feeling towards helping the slaves.