Hey friend, thanks for the article.

I'm pretty sure you started the 'fox news move' when you said that Grant had slaves and Lee didn't. But both of them were imperfect men, and like all men back then they were products of their time. I don't think my post denigrated Lee in any way.

There were definitely other reasons at play than slavery, but slavery was THE reason we had a war. Please don't mistake me for trying to demonize the south. Slavery itself was a multi-faceted issue, and everything has to be understood in the context of the era. I've got relatives who fought on both sides of the war, and I think we can all agree that soldiers rarely fully understand or care about the reasons old men have for going to war.

For example, Tariffs are often listed as being another issue, and they were an issue. But as a percentage of the southern economy captured, the tarriffs were much higher in previous decades, and yet there was no war. In fact, the most recent law passed by congress relating to tariffs was in 1857 and it favored the southerners and was opposed by northern politicians.

But tariffs are just one of many issues civil war revisionists continually bring up in an effort to disguise the history.

If you understand anything about the politics of the time, or in the decades leading up the war - you will understand that slavery overwhelmingly dominated the politics of the era. It was THE issue in american politics decades before Lincoln, and decades before the civil war. Read up on the history of the Buchanan and Pierce administrations and you will begin to understand how important slavery was in Washington.

The president before Lincoln desperately wanted to avoid secession. As Lincoln's inauguration approached he formed a committee who's sole purpose was to reach a compromise that would form a solution to stop southern secession. They reached the unfortunate conclusion that the only way to avoid secession was by passing a constitutional amendment which would permanently protect the institution of slavery. In truth there were several peace committees by many different politicians, and they all reached a very similar conclusions.

As for your article, it doesn't really say much of anything. State's rights is basically a euphemism for slavery. The southern states weren't so big on 'states rights' when it came to enforcing the fugitive slave act. There is a link in your article titled 'states rights'. And if you read that page, you'll notice that every 'state right' that's mentioned on the page is related to slavery. There isn't a single 'states rights' issue on that page that isn't slavery related.

The truth is that historians have been pretty united on the cause of the civil war being slavery for a long time, but the public is still confused.

You should come on down to the civil war talk forums(not sure if it's ok to link to other forums in reddit). These guys have heard it ALL before. I promise whatever research you think you have - we've seen it a thousand times before. We've done the research, we know why the war happened.

You're an American, and you deserve to know the truth. I don't blame you for not seeing it. There has been a concerted effort over multiple generations to distort the truth. But I promise you, I have done the research; I'm not ignorant on this issue. If you want to have a real debate with sources then I welcome you. Alternatively, take a look at any one of the many many threads where civil war revisionists have tried to argue that the war was about something other than slavery, and you will see how thoroughly they have been debunked over and over and over and over again.

Thanks for your time friend, I know from experience that this won't change your mind, but perhaps this will give you cause to take another look at the research, or even participate in more formal debate. Have a great day!