What was the primary cause of the American Civil War?

[Insomniac]

If you post, be sure to include where you live along with your vote.

And to follow my own advice: Slavery, from Texas.

[Morfin]

I'm from Wisconsin. Whooooo, Go Badgers!!! Yeah. What was the question again? Oh, yeah. Civil War.

The primary issue was slavery. States' rights was an off-shoot of this in terms of states wanting to determine for themselves, how they could live.

Minor issues involved the tariffs, which the Northerners wanted to protect their manufacturing interests, while the Southerners wanted them for revenue, but did not believe they should be used to penalize European goods (which made them more expensive to the Southerners).

[IdiotBrain]

I always saw it as an issue of states rights, with slavery being only the catalyst of the issue.

States wanted the right to determine laws and regulations for themselves.... slavery was just the top issue regarding those rights.

I'm from Texas.

[Claibo]

Slavery was the kicker - Texas

[Jackcraver]

Slavery - Texas

[dick_darlington]

slavery - illinois

[Archangel]

I'm from Seoul, North Rhine-Westphalia, Lombardy and Illinois, and I say that it was because Americans like shooting each other.
<3

[Daydreamer]

A bunch of white guys decided they'd rather shoot at each other than pick their own cotton.


and something or another about states' rights.

North Carolina-opposite end of the state from Marcus.
Yes I made a joke. No I am not quite as stupid as you think I am.

[redsox39]

Was Slavery a "States right" issue? Wasn't that the deal? If the states could have decided for themselves if they wanted slaves or not, there wouldn't have been war?

(until the north goods couldn't compete with the free labor southern goods)

[Da Raider]

As much as we like to think it was about slavery...it wasn't.

[ADD]

I live in Illinois.

The truth is the Civil War occurred to keep the Union as a whole. No one really gave a shit about freeing the slaves.

[Morfin]

If you look at it that way, maybe the better question would be why the South seceded. Granted, the war itself was a function of Lincoln's response to the Southern states seceding and his belief that they did not have that right and could not be allowed to happen.

But the Southern states began seceding within days of Lincoln's election, with the belief that slavery either would be abolished or that the new territories would become free states and they would ultimately lose, in their minds, the right to own slaves. Note that the initial confederate constitution -- which basically took the U.S. one and changed a few words -- specifically stating that slavery was allowed, as well as emphasizing the individual states' rights.

[Soup Nazi]

I grew up in Colorado, and I said states rights. Sure it sounds all nice, warm and fuzzy to say it was primarily about slavery, but I always thought that argument went to shit when pre-emancipation proclamation, 4 union states ((Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland) supported slavery, and 3 union territories supported slavery (Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico).

I'm not saying slavery wasn't a cause, but I don't see it as the primary cause at all.

[Gary_Busey]

I'm from New Hampshire, Italy, Michigan, New York and North Carolina and I have to poop.

[Archangel]

...all over the place?

[Mustard]

It's pretty simple to see that the cause of the Civil War was that since certain southern states didn't want to have the federal government repeal or revoke slavery as a means of economic gain, the south seceded and then attacked the union some months later. To me, this looks like the Confederates didn't care too much to being told what it could and couldn't do, rights-wise, got hot about it, and seceded.

Therefore, I think that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, and state that it was the act of the southern states viewing the abolishment of slavery as trampling their state rights, which led to the secession of southern states and culminated with the Confederates attacking the Union.

In short, the Civil War as we know it never would have happened had the southern states not viewed the abolition of slavery as a violation of their states' rights.

I llive in Oregon, for the record.

[Claydon]

California...

Slavery is what i voted, however that is far too simplistic of an answer. It came down to a fundamental form of government, a strong federal government vs. a weak central government. The north favored the the first, the south favored the latter. Now, economic issues played a huge role as well, the south was nearly a century behind with regards to technology and infrastructure due to their reliance on slave labor and an economy based on agriculture. The south was doomed to fail because by the time of the mid 19th century, european textile manufactuers were already switching to cotton from north africa and india. Let us never forget that the Emmancipation Proclomation, as historical as it was/is was a strategic military tactic and not a humanitarian act, although it would evolve into such a thing. It only freed blacks in the areas of the deep south where the Union forces had succeeded. It DID not free the border states slaves that were on the side of the Union. By signing this executive order Lincoln made it possible for these freed black slaves to join the Union Army whereby adding another 250,000 to the Union rank and file.

[Poop Sailboat]

more like gayvery

[Skybase]

I'm pretty sure it was chicks not putting out.

[Bizz]

I'm pretty sure it was Americans.

[Don Scrappy]

state's rights, and for purposes of this poll, WA. Slavery was a side matter, and was only important for support.