>Slavery was absolutely one of reasons several southern states entered the war, but it was by far not the only. Most southerners would not have fought purely fo

>Slavery was absolutely one of reasons several southern states entered the war, but it was by far not the only. Most southerners would not have fought purely for slavery because most of the soldiers were too poor to have owned slaves. It was still about slavery: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slavehol... >What concerned Southerners most about Lincoln’s election was his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories; Southern politicians were clear about that. If new states could not be slave states, went the argument, then it was only a matter of time before the South’s clout in Congress would fade, abolitionists would be ascendant, and the South’s “peculiar institution” – the right to own human beings as property – would be in peril. As I said before, while there are other factors and while they are interesting and worthy of study, sometimes the core reason really is that simple. It's not "enlightened" to pretend that simple things are complex. >Culture wars are useful for pushing narratives and keeping both sides locked in a relative stalemate. Coke and Pepsi both benefit from these antics (Are you a coke drinker or a pepsi drinker?), but it's not an appropriate framework for political decision making where you often need to find compromise and pressure points to move the conversation forward. It's worked great for the Republicans for the last 40 years (Ronald was the original Donald) and there is no sign it will stop working any time soon. It's only ever the left who have to compromise. Name a time in the last 40 years where a Republican has compromised and been rewarded for it.