Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

Thank you, for the speedy post. I wish to note, not out of contempt but as a future notice, that my opponent strayed from the debate format and seemingly posted a rebuttal to my argument instead of forming an opening argument. However, I will not let this interfere with the debate, and will allow the Jury of voters to decide whether or not this makes any real significance.Rebuttals“All the excuse of the war still held slavery in contempt to begin with.”--Not to begin with, no. As Henry Morley stated, in a quote that I used in my opening argument, it was a war founded primarily upon a fiscal issue. Of course, today, many see slavery as the excuse for the war, because otherwise, the North would be at fault.“You see the south held many things to make it wealthy at this time seeing as it held the most agriculture at that time. It also held many a cash crop (predominantly cotton and tobacco) and cheap slave labor to handle it all. The south was before it all wealthy and had a strong enough back bone to raise father ahead.”--Perhaps at the time it was wealthy, which was the reason why factory workers in the North sought a better life down South. I don’t know what you mean by ‘it held the most agriculture at that time’. Remember that only 5% of the population owned slaves[1]. The rest owned family farms and businesses, run primarily by a family. Most weren’t wealthy. They would’ve been hit hardest by the Tariffs. I don’t know whether or not to treat this as a rebuttal or an opening argument, and I fail to see the context nor the point of this, so I apologize if this rebuttal seems a little off target.Sources: [1] http://suite101.com...“While the north mostly held onto the fact of holding the capital before all this even sprinkled on down.”--I apologize, but I believe the syntax of your statement is incorrect. I am assuming that you are trying to make the point that the North had more money? Yes, that would be correct, but it doesn’t serve your argument better.“Do you perhaps remember in the late 17s how the states began to tariff one another , well of course you do, you yourself brought it up. So let me say this. The states where competing with one another.”--I think it’s fairly obvious that the States were sectionally competing on the issue. I made the point myself. I don’t understand what context you are using to help your own argument here.“So by keeping all instated material in mind that yes many things came to mind of the angry Americans but they all fall back onto slavery.”--That is incorrect. As I have already shown, generally the focus was upon fiscal issues instead of slavery. Slavery was a sub-issue.Remember Lincoln’s reasons? When he was asked by Rev. Dr. Fuller to allow the South to secede, Lincoln said: “And what shall become of the revenue? I shall have no Government - no resources!”[2] The focus and cause of Lincoln and his allies demanding a unity of states was revenue.Sources:~[2] http://www.southernheritage411.com...“The north became manufacturing and used it's advantage of capitol government to try in weaken the south for the fact is when our nation began the south held more competitive cards falling back towards those slaves.”--You concede that the North was at fault for trying to weaken the South. However, you make the claim that the North was trying to weaken the South because the South had become too powerful. That is blatantly incorrect. The South secede because the North had become too powerful in nearly every area, as I have already shown and proven. The North was more powerful in every area from Capital to Industry, from Congress to the White House. The South didn’t have said ‘competitive cards’, as you also try to claim. Slaves were only in the hands of 5% of the Southern population, and as I said and proven in my opening argument, the North had the ‘competitive cards’ in terms of just about everything.“So I rest on this the whole Civil War was for money and competition, the south needed the slaves to remain so profitable, while the north needed the slaves to not be slaves to get rid of that fact so to better compete.”--I have already shown that slave-owning plantations were not competition for the North. I have also shown that the South didn’t need the slaves, except for the small elite who owned slaves. I have already shown that the North’s interests were primarily focused on the tariffs, not on slavery. Your arguments are invalid unless backed up with evidence. Thank you,—The Yummy Cod