> But the greatest flaw of this - and most analyses of the antebellum era - is that it does not sympathize with the problems of the past. I think you're critiq

> But the greatest flaw of this - and most analyses of the antebellum era - is that it does not sympathize with the problems of the past. I think you're critiquing a different article than the one submitted here. The author never questions whether it was understandable that the South went to war to defend its economic interests. You're giving way too much credit to the South by implying that they were interested in finding an alternative to slavery which they weren't. After the war alternatives were found, were they not? They had less wealth but wealth generated from the use of slave labor is wealth that shouldn't exist in the first place. > The war did provide two political benefits - it mostly settled the slavery question, and it did not shift the burden entirely upon the South; the North had to put a little of its own skin in the game. If you accept that slavery isn't moral why is it a benefit that the North had to put some "skin in the game" in order to end it? After all, anyone in the North involved with the slave trade, however indirectly, already had some skin in the game and was going to feel the adverse economical effect if the practice was ended.