N
Nemo1313
Guest
Basically all we learn in school growing up is that the South wanted to keep slavery, and the North wanted to free the slaves, so the whole war was fought over that, and so by default that made the North the "good guys". Well, I read a while ago that slavery was actually a minor, side issue/objective in the war and that the actual war itself was fought for completely different reasons. Is that true, and can anyone enlighten me on this or point me out to a place that talks about the war that's unbiased and isn't just, "zomg slavery WOOO GO NORTH!!". From what I remember reading, aside from the slavery issue, the South was actually the "good guys" and fighting more for the better of the country/their colonies, and that essentially the North just wanted the resources and land that the South had, as well as the money, and the North was pissed that that the South basically said, "We've got everything we need down here, we're good, we don't need you. We built this up and worked it, why should we give half of everything we have to you when we're fine down here?". The North had slaves too, and even Lincoln who freed the slaves, had slaves himself. So again is there anyone that can point me towards an unbiased place that will explain what it was actually all about, and doesn't focus the whole thing on slavery which was apparently a minor issue? Or if that's incorrect, please point me to a place that explains that. I've tried researching it myself, but again, all I get is "Slavery slavery blacks whippings slavery OMG there were slaves!". Yeah, we get it. But what was the main reason that the war actually took place?
[EDIT]: A combination of what Sadie and Alex said seems to be the most logical. I'll have to try to look up more on that, but does anyone know where, that's unbiased? And the other guy, maybe it's possible there wouldn't have been a war without slavery, but if so I'd assume it was caused by what Alex said, but even if that's true, that again means there was already a powder-keg there, and slavery was just the spark that ignited it all. And I'm not sure if Lincoln had slaves outright, or if they were indentured servants; but they're not too far off from each other. And again, from what I understand, slaves were all over, not just the south, so it's not like the North was in any position off the bat to be holier-than-thou. It sounds like they just used the situation politically as a reason to go to war. But again, does anyone have any links to an unbiased place I can go to read about it by chance?
[EDIT]: A combination of what Sadie and Alex said seems to be the most logical. I'll have to try to look up more on that, but does anyone know where, that's unbiased? And the other guy, maybe it's possible there wouldn't have been a war without slavery, but if so I'd assume it was caused by what Alex said, but even if that's true, that again means there was already a powder-keg there, and slavery was just the spark that ignited it all. And I'm not sure if Lincoln had slaves outright, or if they were indentured servants; but they're not too far off from each other. And again, from what I understand, slaves were all over, not just the south, so it's not like the North was in any position off the bat to be holier-than-thou. It sounds like they just used the situation politically as a reason to go to war. But again, does anyone have any links to an unbiased place I can go to read about it by chance?