mckinley: "I didn't say slavery had nothing to do with the war. I said it was about economics and not morals."

Apparently I don't know what you mean by morals. I'm not able to separate morals from what goes on in our daily lives, and I think it may have played a bigger part in politics back then than it does now.

But assuming ecomonics was the major reason and driving force behind the civil war (and slavery only a sideline issue?), then can you explain what part economics played in sparking that war?

My understanding is the tension between the North and South led to the South wanting to secede from the Union, and it appears you are saying the reason for that tension had more to do with economics than with slavery. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

If the South's economy was not so closely tied to slavery, and Northern abolitionists were not against slavery, then how could economic forces alone have played a part in sparking the war? Are you saying the war had more to do with money than with ideological differences? If so, what did the South have that the North wanted so badly it was willing to go to war for it?

If you could tell me what you mean by economic reasons for the war, I'd have a better idea of what you are talking about.