7 added 325 characters in body
source | link

edit: this question originally asked if slavery was really the cause of the US civil war. I was able to reassure the OP on that point ;). The OP was not trying to claim tarrifs were the cause of the war, and refined the question to its current form. OP asked that this answer to the original question should stay, so here it is.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathisers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathisers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

edit: this question originally asked if slavery was really the cause of the US civil war. I was able to reassure the OP on that point ;). The OP was not trying to claim tarrifs were the cause of the war, and refined the question to its current form. OP asked that this answer to the original question should stay, so here it is.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathisers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

6 edited body
source | link

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impair hiringimpairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathizerssympathisers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impair hiring the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathizers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathisers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it.

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

5 added 388 characters in body
source | link

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impair hiring the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathizers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it. 

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impair hiring the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathizers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it.

The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it. The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

No, tariffs were not the reason. There are any number of sources from confederates explaining why they started the war (slavery) but perhaps the most obvious one is the confederate constitution:

  1. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impair hiring the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Democratic and Whig parties had split over slaves. The south's 1860 presidential nominee was solely concerned with protecting the right to own slaves. The south's sympathizers in the union congress tried to stop Lincoln from emancipating slaves. Slaves, slaves, slaves.

The obfuscation that the war 'wasn't about slavery' is founded on a distortion of the situation before the war. Attempts to abolish slavery immediately were not on the table, because the votes in congress did not exist for it. It is partly correct to say that the war wasn't (at first) about abolition. Before the war, abolitionists were an extremist minority, which serves as a reminder that the 'moderates' or centrists are not always right.

Mainstream republicans like Lincoln also wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, but they had a longer-term plan which didn't include an immediate antislavery law. The antislavery strategy was to limit slavery to the states where it already existed, and build up enough free states so that one day they would have the votes to end it. 

The south was wise to this strategy, and tried to establish its own state governments in the territories. That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was all about. They were bleeding over slavery, not tariffs. Eventually they concluded they couldn't stop antislavery this way, so they had to find another way.

4 added 1 character in body
source | link
3 added 15 characters in body
source | link
2 added 17 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link