Nikki Haley-What was the cause of the Civil War

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You shouldn't feel odd asking this question, because the main cause has shifted over the years.  Oddly enough the "needs" of left leaning academia is, IMO, the cause.  For most of my life the war was about slavery, either ending it or fighting to keep it.  Then around my college years (mid early to mid 90's) it changed to states rights, i.e. a federation or a confederation.  The US is an institutionally flawed, and most importantly racist, nation and would never go to war to liberate nonwhites. Then around 2016 (I wonder why?) the issue of slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War, because absolutely everything in this country must be viewed through the lens of race.  So your confusion is founded in reality.

Some further musings for anyone still interested in discussing the causes of the Civil War and a national politician's difficulty in answering questions about it.

Reading the above post got me to wondering "for whom" the cause of the Civil War has supposedly shifted, as well as whether, when and why?

First, irrespective of "cause," did most post-WW II Civil War historians think that slavery was the primary cause--the North trying to end it, the South trying to preserve it--until "early to mid '90s," when their consensus changed to "state rights" as a cause? Is that factually correct?  Or was there some other group able to shift the cause, and for whom--college students? The news consuming public? Public school teachers?

The above appears to say there is a group out there--"left-leaning academia"--whose "needs" required a shift in an existing consensus about the cause of the war.  It's not clear what those "needs" were though, or why a shift to "states rights" as a cause would satisfy them. Did this group need to think the Union would NOT go to war to "liberate non-whites"? 

But the North did go to war. So if not liberate non-whites, is their claim then that the North went to war for "states rights"? "Left-leaning academia" was large and powerful enough to change, what, the consensus of historians? Public discussions in the news or on the internet? Nikki Haley's views on the war? She did not seem to think slavery belonged in the discussion.

Also not clear for whom, around 2016, "slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War." That wasn't a "laser focus" during the early 90s when the great shift in explanatory cause occurred? From whom/where did that "laser focus" emanate? And how is that measured? Was it evidenced in books written, scholarly articles published, online forums, news commentary, government policy, or where?

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Truthfully, I think it was largely (80%) about slavery, with the states rights issue hinging on, but limited to, that issue.  The interesting thing about that though, is that around 600,000 Union soldiers (almost exclusively white men) died fighting the Civil War to end slavery.  Which kind of complicates the whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument.

According to The History Channel, about 620,000 Americans on both sides died during the war, but 258,000 of those deaths were Confederate. So it might be accurate to say that over 600,000 died fighting over the question of slavery, but it is not accurate to say that number died TO END slavery. 258,000 (exclusively white men) died trying to preserve it. https://www.history.com/news/american-civil-war-deaths

Also wondering who or what is the source for the "whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument"?