It (slavery) is a cultural holdover, it is a badge of status, but it is not an economic necessity.
In mid-east culture, not ours. Slavery had nearly died out in the southern states as well as the north in the late 1700s. Eli Whitney's invention made slavery very profitable in the south. Not so in the north, as cotton grew in southern climates.
Quote
Here is the deal, the Civil War was about slavery as an institution, as a monetary commodity and as a culture.
Then why, pray tell, did Lincoln make the well known statement as follows?
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
Slavery (as far as succession) was a big fish in a small lake, so to speak. There were lots of other reasons for succession too. But it had NOTHING at all to do with Lincoln's decision to force war on the south. That was a monetary decision, not a moral one.
Here's another quote by Abe.
When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
Lincoln had to retain federal property in southern states in order to collect tariffs and duties on commodities coming from other countries, it's as simple as that.
"Preserving the Constitution, fighting off the nibblers and chippers, even nibblers and chippers with good intentions, was once regarded by conservatives as the first duty of the citizen. It still is." � Wesley Pruden
