Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

Thank you for rebutting so quickly. Response to Rebuttals “The south at that time was a mostly plantations” --Absolutely Ridiculous. I already refuted the “Gone with the Wind” stereotype that the South was mostly plantations. That statement blatantly and shamelessly false, and stated without research. Only 5% of the Southern population owned slaves. Only a small margin of them owned plantations. Plantations were only big in states like Mississippi and Georgia, but otherwise scarce in other states, which were dominated by family farms and ‘small businesses’. “I meant those in power and ahead in society and plenty of them held a lot of wealth mostly because of slaves and would of course inquire and use their power to fight for it. ” --Perhaps some who held wealth did gain profit from using slaves, and it would be partly a reason for it. But it was a small minority. You have already accepted as true (by not responding to my argument about it) that Slavery was not going to be abolished. The rich in the South who depended on slaves would not care as much about them in terms of secession because abolition was not a serious threat. “The south was built on slave labor and survived of it and before the tariffs held much wealth. ” --First of all, the South was not built on slave labor. I have already proven so in my opening argument. Second of all, regardless of whether or not they were built on slaver labor, the South wouldn’t have seceded, at least not yet, because there was no immediate threat of abolition to the slave trade. “The north used their cards right and competed elsewhere rather than on the plantation front. ” --This is geographically incorrect. The reason the North didn’t pursue farming and plantations was because of the climate and terrain up north. [1] Sources” ~. http://en.wikipedia.org... “Reason 1. This one I hope is obvious. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. You see here the main reason cuts straight to slavery with one using slaves for the economy and and one hardly at all, and one commonly accepting the idea and one getting a away from the idea” --There were economic and social differences between the South, but not in the way you say. Only 5% of the South used slaves. The South wasn’t dependent on slaves. The economic concerns of the day, according to many, and note to the quote I used by Henry Morley[2] in my Opening Argument, revolved mostly around tariffs. Sources: [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... “In this one as the largely north controlled government pushed for more control the south pushed for less for numerous reason yes but it's undeniable that slavery was a large hand in it. ” --Slavery helped strengthen the divide between the North and the South, but little more. Closing Arguments --I do not deny the many reasons that caused the Civil War. Slavery was one of them. One of many. But to say it was the Primary reason is twisting history in favor of a government who used its power to commit evils upon its own people in favor of industry. With my closing arguments, I will strengthen and reinforce my assertions of the top three causes of the Civil War, and close off with evidence that Slavery wasn’t, in fact, a primary reason for the war between the States. • Underrepresentation Robert Barnwell Rhett said in 1860: “And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. --With the South having only a small percentage of the population, underrepresentation was a big problem. It didn’t matter if the South voted in Congressmen who all supported the interests of the Southern people (Which were family farms, not the ‘Gone with the Wind’ stereotype of plantations), because the North always had a majority, and with the sectional Republican Party elected in 1860, the South knew that they were going to be hit hard with a disastrous Tariff. With remembrance of the Tariff of Abominations, and in reference to, they seceded from the Union. Sources: ~. http://en.wikipedia.org... ~. http://en.wikipedia.org... ~. http://www.agclassroom.org... • States’ Rights Jefferson Davis said at his Inaugural Address “…that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. ” Striking up a similar tune, the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes for Secession notes: "the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," was the reason for secession. Southerners recognized that the Federal government was encroaching upon their rights as States’ to make decisions regarding their people. Just how today, many of us feel that the government is pressing too hard into our personal lives. Sources: ~. http://www.civilwarhome.com... ~. http://www.civil-war.net... • Tariffs Reinhard Luthin wrote: "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium. " Thomas J. Lorenzo writes: “So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected. ” --Everyone expected Lincoln to be the enforcer of the Morrill Tariff. He wasn’t expected to be the enforcer of abolition. He was never going to war for abolition. Why would he? Unless we should regard Lincoln as a disgusting and shameless liar, it is logical to assume that if Lincoln said repeatedly that he wouldn’t abolish slavery, then he wouldn’t abolish slavery. And therefore, if it is safe to assume such, and if his primary focus, as proven already, is Tariffs, then the primary reason for secession is Tariffs. I conclude with the following quote: Henry Morley wrote in the All the Year Round Magazine in 1861 that: “If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. .. [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel. ” Sources: ~. http://mises.org... ~. http://en.wikipedia.org...;