My response:
The reason that the Civil War was fought was different than the reason that the Southern States left the Union.
I agree that a primary reason for the Southern States' departure was the difficulty in consensus among the States about slavery. While there were other major issues such as taxes and the role of the Federal Government (sound familiar?), "slavery" is rightly seen as a good representative "reason for secession".
The two sides fought for differing reasons, however. The South fought to put reality to their declarations - they wanted self-determination and independence from the other States (think Federal Government). The North (again, think Federal Government) fought to deny independence to the Southern States.
Make no mistake, Lincoln - if he is to be trusted - tried to arrest the exodus of States by declaring in his First Inaugural Address, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
He also stated to Horace Greeley, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that."
Further, when some counties of Virginia broke away from that State, Lincoln welcomed them into the US as a slave state as West Virginia.
If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he did so not on principle, but as a means to his primary end - maintain dominion over the Southern States.
I've learned that the history of slavery in the US is more complex that I originally thought. I've learned that blacks in the South sometimes owned slaves - sometimes many slaves. I've learned that whites were sometimes slaves - though not at the time of the Civil War. Complexity brings about differing opinions that ought not be derided simply as "spin". The Civil War was fought for reasons good and bad, but it is not as clear cut an issue as Mr Dionne states.
I agree that a primary reason for the Southern States' departure was the difficulty in consensus among the States about slavery. While there were other major issues such as taxes and the role of the Federal Government (sound familiar?), "slavery" is rightly seen as a good representative "reason for secession".
The two sides fought for differing reasons, however. The South fought to put reality to their declarations - they wanted self-determination and independence from the other States (think Federal Government). The North (again, think Federal Government) fought to deny independence to the Southern States.
Make no mistake, Lincoln - if he is to be trusted - tried to arrest the exodus of States by declaring in his First Inaugural Address, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
He also stated to Horace Greeley, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that."
Further, when some counties of Virginia broke away from that State, Lincoln welcomed them into the US as a slave state as West Virginia.
If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he did so not on principle, but as a means to his primary end - maintain dominion over the Southern States.
I've learned that the history of slavery in the US is more complex that I originally thought. I've learned that blacks in the South sometimes owned slaves - sometimes many slaves. I've learned that whites were sometimes slaves - though not at the time of the Civil War. Complexity brings about differing opinions that ought not be derided simply as "spin". The Civil War was fought for reasons good and bad, but it is not as clear cut an issue as Mr Dionne states.
