Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War. I’ve asked for examples of historians who claim that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War (I guess I need to remind some people that “principal” or “primary” does not mean “sole”). I’ve wondered why some people insist on misrepresenting the claims of scholars as a prelude to their own tale of a not-so-bad slavery that did not cause the Civil War. And I’ve offered my own brief observation:
So I see the presence of slavery as necessary but by no means sufficient in constructing an explanation of how and why secession and war came. Moreover, the presence of slavery by itself did not cause secession and war.
I would think that would be clear to most people, but apparently Helga Ross remains confused. What a surprise.