The Instigator
TheYummyCod
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
damienvox
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Slavery was not the Primary Cause of the Civil War

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheYummyCod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,512 times Debate No: 35373
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

TheYummyCod

Pro

I will be debating that Slavery was not the Primary Cause for the Civil War.

Debate Format
Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion

Thank you,
—The Yummy Cod
damienvox

Con

Okay yummycod I will accept your challenge.
Cheers to what sounds like what will be a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheYummyCod

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

The sun beats down upon the graves of the 620,000 Americans who fought and died in the Civil War. Men have fought and died for what they believed in, willing to tear down family ties and commit themselves to fighting for their country. For what purpose? For what purpose did brother fight brother? There must be a reason! How do we justify this tragedy? This massacre? With slavery. We justify it with the ending of slavery. History books in our public schools have always told us that slavery was the cause of the war, that the war was fought primarily over slavery, that the South seceded because of their lust for slaves, that it was our moral duty to stop them.

Was it? Or was it not? Was the Civil War fought over slavery? Or is the ending of slavery justification for a war fought over different reasons?
I will be debating the latter.

Opening Arguments
-- Allow me to begin with Slavery. Slavery was a huge issue back then. The slave trade was dominant in the Southern states, where 5% of the white population owned slaves, and a small percentage of those owned plantations, where they would have large amounts of slaves work for free, giving them larger profit in the market. Slavery was relied on by big business industry, but less as much by the profitable family farm businesses that dominated the South. Slavery didn’t affect the farmers directly. If 5% of the South was fighting for slavery, what was the other 95% fighting for? We will examine this next.

Sources:
~http://suite101.com...

-- Seeking to protect Northern Industrialist interests, Representatives from the Mid-Atlantic and Northern States pushed forward a Tariff that would become the high point in the history of U.S. Tariffs. What we now call the “Tariff of Abominations”, was passed in 1928 by a close vote, and signed by President John Quincy Adams. The result of this was devastation in the South. The goal of this tariff was to tax imported goods into the States, which would allow factories in the North to raise prices significantly on everything. This crushed the Southern economy. The South, hoping that with the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 would stop the insanity, but it wasn’t until 1832, after the Southern economy was absolutely desperate, that Andrew Jackson signed in a new tariff to replace the Tariff of Abominations. However, since 1828, Tariffs became a major national issue for the next few decades.

Sources:
~http://en.wikipedia.org... ~http://en.wikipedia.org...


-- Before we continue with the tariffs, let’s zoom to 1860. The year is 1860. There is a fierce divide between the Northern and Southern states over a range of issues. After a fierce divide inside the Whig party, the party split up, and abolitionists seek to run a candidate for the newly formed Republican Party. However, to win the election, they need the support from the Northern voters who’s main focus was on protecting the interests of the industries. They needed support from the industrialists.
The industrialists want to pass another high tariff like the Tariff of Abominations, and before they will agree to join the Republican Party, they want the ‘Morrill Tariff’ put on the Republican platform in the 1860 election. This Tariff was a 48% Tariff on Southern imports and exports, which again would put ruin upon the Southern Economy. The Congress already had a Northern majority, and the South felt, and rightfully so, that they were being unrepresented.
Abraham Lincoln was an industrialist Moderate supported by big industry in the Northern and Mid-Atlantic states. It is well known that Lincoln supported it, and he made it a primary focus. Multiple times during his election, he stated that he would not abolish slavery, and that he would make no move to do so during his presidency.
During his inaugural address, Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
If the reason for secession was Slavery, then there would be no reason to secede, because Lincoln wasn’t planning to abolish slavery anyways.
The reason for secession was for Three primary reasons.

The South was being underrepresented in Congress.
Robert Barnwell Rhett said: “And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.”
The South believed that the Federal Government was encroaching upon States’ Rights
Jefferson Davis said at his Inaugural Address “…that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established.” The South Carolina Declaration of the Causes for Secession notes: "the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," was the reason for secession. Only four of the Seceded States’ Ordinances of Secession even mentioned Slavery, while all of them had some reference to the encroachment upon the reserved rights of the States.
The Tariffs.
Henry Morley, published in Charles Dicken’s magazine ‘All the Year Round’, stated in 1861: “If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

With that brilliant quote above, I conclude my argument that secession, and the Civil War, was focused not primarily upon Slavery.

Sources:
~http://en.wikipedia.org... ~http://en.wikipedia.org... ~http://www.southernheritage411.com... ~http://valley.lib.virginia.edu... ~https://en.wikipedia.org... ~https://en.wikipedia.org... ~http://www.civilwarhome.com... ~http://www.civilwarhome.com... ~http://www.civil-war.net...

Thank you,
—The Yummy Cod
damienvox

Con

Thank you but not exactly true think of it like this
All the excuse of the war still held slavery in contempt to begin with. Which brings me here.
First counter Argument
You see the south held many things to make it wealthy at this time seeing as it held the most agriculture at that time. It also held many a cash crop (predominantly cotton and tobacco) and cheap slave labor to handle it all. The south was before it all wealthy and had a strong enough back bone to raise father ahead.
While the north mostly held onto the fact of holding the capital before all this even sprinkled on down.
Do you perhaps remember in the late 17s how the states began to tariff one another , well of course you do, you yourself brought it up. So let me say this. The states where competing with one another.
So by keeping all instated material in mind that yes many things came to mind of the angry Americans but they all fall back onto slavery.
The north became manufacturing and used it's advantage of capitol government to try in weaken the south for the fact is when our nation began the south held more competitive cards falling back towards those slaves.
So I rest on this the whole Civil War was for money and competition, the south needed the slaves to remain so profitable, while the north needed the slaves to not be slaves to get rid of that fact so to better compete.
So in hindsight all the reasons fell back to who was in control and who wasn't and the slavery trade gave to much to the south and was the target and the reasoning to all the strife between said parties.
Debate Round No. 2
TheYummyCod

Pro


Thank you, for the speedy post.

I wish to note, not out of contempt but as a future notice, that my opponent strayed from the debate format and seemingly posted a rebuttal to my argument instead of forming an opening argument. However, I will not let this interfere with the debate, and will allow the Jury of voters to decide whether or not this makes any real significance.

Rebuttals

“All the excuse of the war still held slavery in contempt to begin with.”

--Not to begin with, no. As Henry Morley stated, in a quote that I used in my opening argument, it was a war founded primarily upon a fiscal issue. Of course, today, many see slavery as the excuse for the war, because otherwise, the North would be at fault.

“You see the south held many things to make it wealthy at this time seeing as it held the most agriculture at that time. It also held many a cash crop (predominantly cotton and tobacco) and cheap slave labor to handle it all. The south was before it all wealthy and had a strong enough back bone to raise father ahead.”

--Perhaps at the time it was wealthy, which was the reason why factory workers in the North sought a better life down South. I don’t know what you mean by ‘it held the most agriculture at that time’. Remember that only 5% of the population owned slaves[1]. The rest owned family farms and businesses, run primarily by a family. Most weren’t wealthy. They would’ve been hit hardest by the Tariffs. I don’t know whether or not to treat this as a rebuttal or an opening argument, and I fail to see the context nor the point of this, so I apologize if this rebuttal seems a little off target.
Sources:
[1] http://suite101.com...

“While the north mostly held onto the fact of holding the capital before all this even sprinkled on down.”

--I apologize, but I believe the syntax of your statement is incorrect. I am assuming that you are trying to make the point that the North had more money? Yes, that would be correct, but it doesn’t serve your argument better.

“Do you perhaps remember in the late 17s how the states began to tariff one another , well of course you do, you yourself brought it up. So let me say this. The states where competing with one another.”

--I think it’s fairly obvious that the States were sectionally competing on the issue. I made the point myself. I don’t understand what context you are using to help your own argument here.

“So by keeping all instated material in mind that yes many things came to mind of the angry Americans but they all fall back onto slavery.”

--That is incorrect. As I have already shown, generally the focus was upon fiscal issues instead of slavery. Slavery was a sub-issue.
Remember Lincoln’s reasons?
When he was asked by Rev. Dr. Fuller to allow the South to secede, Lincoln said: “And what shall become of the revenue? I shall have no Government - no resources!”[2] The focus and cause of Lincoln and his allies demanding a unity of states was revenue.

Sources:
~[2] http://www.southernheritage411.com...

“The north became manufacturing and used it's advantage of capitol government to try in weaken the south for the fact is when our nation began the south held more competitive cards falling back towards those slaves.”

--You concede that the North was at fault for trying to weaken the South. However, you make the claim that the North was trying to weaken the South because the South had become too powerful. That is blatantly incorrect. The South secede because the North had become too powerful in nearly every area, as I have already shown and proven. The North was more powerful in every area from Capital to Industry, from Congress to the White House.
The South didn’t have said ‘competitive cards’, as you also try to claim. Slaves were only in the hands of 5% of the Southern population, and as I said and proven in my opening argument, the North had the ‘competitive cards’ in terms of just about everything.

“So I rest on this the whole Civil War was for money and competition, the south needed the slaves to remain so profitable, while the north needed the slaves to not be slaves to get rid of that fact so to better compete.”

--I have already shown that slave-owning plantations were not competition for the North. I have also shown that the South didn’t need the slaves, except for the small elite who owned slaves. I have already shown that the North’s interests were primarily focused on the tariffs, not on slavery.



Your arguments are invalid unless backed up with evidence.



Thank you,
The Yummy Cod
damienvox

Con

To my opponent please excuse for I did digress also let me elaborate on held most of the agriculture.
The south at that time was a mostly plantations and etc. while the north went more of a industrialist approach so as I said they held more agriculture, but sadly I digress more.
Now on to your debate in saying my points where invalid well I brought up mostly largely well known things of the time.

Also the south holding wealth wasn't meant as they all held some strong found wealth. This has never been so. No I meant those in power and ahead in society and plenty of them held a lot of wealth mostly because of slaves and would of course inquire and use their power to fight for it. Also sorry if it wasn't all the way there and yes it was my opening argument.

Also the north indirectly held the capitol and held a northern president around at the time was more towards my aim.

Now My rebuttals

Look I will try to keep this together so stick with me.
The sates where in contempt on the fact of competing almost like wild dogs, even the placing of the capitol was disputed.
The south was built on slave labor and survived of it and before the tariffs held much wealth. The north used their cards right and competed elsewhere rather than on the plantation front. In the end though the two sides with their different approaches as to how to handle everything, just simply couldn't last.
Yes the civil had causes beyond slavery, this I know.
Yes some northerners and southerners where in it for other reasons.
But
Many slaves fought for the slavery and numerous white man fought directly for the slavery, but more so the slavery indirectly caused some of the other things that also caused the war and falls back onto the war is held in contempt as slavery being a main causer.

http://americanhistory.about.com...

Allow me t use this article as example. I will go from reason to reason.

Reason 1.
This one I hope is obvious. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. You see here the main reason cuts straight to slavery with one using slaves for the economy and and one hardly at all, and one commonly accepting the idea and one getting a away from the idea

Reason 2.
In this one as the largely north controlled government pushed for more control the south pushed for less for numerous reason yes but it's undeniable that slavery was a large hand in it.

Reason 3.
Well that goes straight to it doesn't it.

So I will rest it there by saying I show that slavery directly connects or in someway causes the top 3 reasons of the war and in so is the primary cause.
Debate Round No. 3
TheYummyCod

Pro

Thank you for rebutting so quickly.

Response to Rebuttals

The south at that time was a mostly plantations”

--Absolutely Ridiculous. I already refuted the “Gone with the Wind” stereotype that the South was mostly plantations. That statement blatantly and shamelessly false, and stated without research. Only 5% of the Southern population owned slaves. Only a small margin of them owned plantations. Plantations were only big in states like Mississippi and Georgia, but otherwise scarce in other states, which were dominated by family farms and ‘small businesses’.

I meant those in power and ahead in society and plenty of them held a lot of wealth mostly because of slaves and would of course inquire and use their power to fight for it.”

--Perhaps some who held wealth did gain profit from using slaves, and it would be partly a reason for it. But it was a small minority. You have already accepted as true (by not responding to my argument about it) that Slavery was not going to be abolished. The rich in the South who depended on slaves would not care as much about them in terms of secession because abolition was not a serious threat.

“The south was built on slave labor and survived of it and before the tariffs held much wealth.”

--First of all, the South was not built on slave labor. I have already proven so in my opening argument. Second of all, regardless of whether or not they were built on slaver labor, the South wouldn’t have seceded, at least not yet, because there was no immediate threat of abolition to the slave trade.

“The north used their cards right and competed elsewhere rather than on the plantation front.”

--This is geographically incorrect. The reason the North didn’t pursue farming and plantations was because of the climate and terrain up north.[1]

Sources”

~http://en.wikipedia.org...

“Reason 1. This one I hope is obvious. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. You see here the main reason cuts straight to slavery with one using slaves for the economy and and one hardly at all, and one commonly accepting the idea and one getting a away from the idea”

--There were economic and social differences between the South, but not in the way you say. Only 5% of the South used slaves. The South wasn’t dependent on slaves. The economic concerns of the day, according to many, and note to the quote I used by Henry Morley[2] in my Opening Argument, revolved mostly around tariffs.

Sources:

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

“In this one as the largely north controlled government pushed for more control the south pushed for less for numerous reason yes but it's undeniable that slavery was a large hand in it.

--Slavery helped strengthen the divide between the North and the South, but little more.

Closing Arguments

--I do not deny the many reasons that caused the Civil War. Slavery was one of them. One of many. But to say it was the Primary reason is twisting history in favor of a government who used its power to commit evils upon its own people in favor of industry.

With my closing arguments, I will strengthen and reinforce my assertions of the top three causes of the Civil War, and close off with evidence that Slavery wasn’t, in fact, a primary reason for the war between the States.

• Underrepresentation

Robert Barnwell Rhett said in 1860:

“And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit.

--With the South having only a small percentage of the population, underrepresentation was a big problem. It didn’t matter if the South voted in Congressmen who all supported the interests of the Southern people (Which were family farms, not the ‘Gone with the Wind’ stereotype of plantations), because the North always had a majority, and with the sectional Republican Party elected in 1860, the South knew that they were going to be hit hard with a disastrous Tariff. With remembrance of the Tariff of Abominations, and in reference to, they seceded from the Union.

Sources:

~http://en.wikipedia.org...

~http://en.wikipedia.org...

~http://www.agclassroom.org...

States’ Rights

Jefferson Davis said at his Inaugural Address “…that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established.

Striking up a similar tune, the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes for Secession notes: "the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," was the reason for secession.

Southerners recognized that the Federal government was encroaching upon their rights as States’ to make decisions regarding their people. Just how today, many of us feel that the government is pressing too hard into our personal lives.

Sources:

~http://www.civilwarhome.com...

~http://www.civil-war.net...

Tariffs

Reinhard Luthin wrote: "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium."

Thomas J. Lorenzo writes: “So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.”

--Everyone expected Lincoln to be the enforcer of the Morrill Tariff. He wasn’t expected to be the enforcer of abolition. He was never going to war for abolition. Why would he? Unless we should regard Lincoln as a disgusting and shameless liar, it is logical to assume that if Lincoln said repeatedly that he wouldn’t abolish slavery, then he wouldn’t abolish slavery. And therefore, if it is safe to assume such, and if his primary focus, as proven already, is Tariffs, then the primary reason for secession is Tariffs.

I conclude with the following quote:

Henry Morley wrote in the All the Year Round Magazine in 1861 that:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Sources:

~http://mises.org...
~http://en.wikipedia.org...;

I would like to thank my opponent for debating me on this topic,

—The Yummy Cod

damienvox

Con

Thank you to my opponent and sorry if I didn't supply as strong an argument as some may have liked but I digress.
Now let me say that when the south was wealthy I did not mean they all were and I never meant they all stood to gain from slaves. Also I didn't meant to make the south sounds as though plantations and nothing else I'm from Charlotte for one thing.

But

Let me say a few things here.

1. That 5% as you say would obviously fight to keep slaves and also since they are the upper crust would thereby make the rules. More money more pull on politics fact of life.
2. The slaves would also fight for slavery related reasons but to free themselves and some northerners would as well and even some southerners, so that 5% would obviously be much higher.
3. You brought up the poor representation well what about this. Do you not remember how the south could partially count slaves in as their own votes thus giving them more pull beyond just their money.
These reasons as well as how you admitted that slavery did have indirect cause in the other causes of the war would all add up to slavery being the main cause in the end.
But

Let me say by this point it is to the voters who is right and who is wrong. Also thank you yummycod you have been a lot of fun and very challenging to debate with and so it made it difficult to debate.
You put up a darn good debate old chap and I hope we can debate again, except next time let's get closer to something I'm better at ;).

So thanks again and good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by damienvox 4 years ago
damienvox
I must say I did run into a major problem. Simply put the pro taught me somethings. I came into the debate believing my end but as it went on I knew he was right I only carried on as to not be a simple forfeit, so I admit he won for he was right.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
This was an iffy debate albeit an excellent performance by PRO.

PRO's case was excellent. I had qualms about the narrative and implications from the propagandistic Lincoln movie and so found PRO's case to be a refreshing draught of fact and truth. I found his round #2 to be nearly air-tight and extremely convincing in that the Civil War was fought for fiscal reasons, as is consistent with the Revolutionary War before it.

On the other hand, I found CON's case to be almost entirely made of air. I could not discern any real substance from his points, and did not see how they offered a real rebuttal to anything PRO offered in round #2.

I did not read any of PRO's content after round #2, and read all of CON's content to see if he ever brought up a substantive case. He did not.

Arguments, S&G, Conduct to PRO (for not offering an opening argument in round #2). It would have been a full sweep, but PRO was heavily reliant upon wikipedia.
Posted by TheYummyCod 4 years ago
TheYummyCod
Thank you for debating, Con! It was a good debate.

Here's a few tips:
1. Use your formatting to your advantage. Highlight with bold, and emphasize with italics. Make everything look and feel organized.
2. Grammar and Spelling. Take advantage of the spell checker, and proofread your arguments for grammar errors.
3. Arguments. I appreciated that your arguments were small and to the point, but remember to focus on the big idea. I noticed that most of your arguments were revolving around the claim that plantation lobbyists had more influence in the government - which is a good point - but didn't help you with whether or not slavery was the cause of the war, because you should've focused more on the root of the problem - the fact that there was no immediate threat to slavery at the time. To paraphrase, focus your arguments less on my supporting details, and more on the big thesis that holds everything together.
4. Sources. I can't stress this enough: Do your research. Every claim you make has to be backed up by a source if you want a strong foundation behind it. You had one good source from About.com, but it was the only source, and it only supported your argument in a lopsided way.
5. Acknowledge and rebut all points. I said that you should focus on the main thesis, but you still have to address the supporting arguments. In debate.org, if you don't rebut it, it's accepted as truth.

Thanks again for debating with me, and I hope that you take this advice seriously.
"The Yummy Cod
Posted by TheYummyCod 4 years ago
TheYummyCod
I apologize for the small font in my closing arguments. I forgot to bring it up.
Posted by damienvox 4 years ago
damienvox
Of course it sounds like a good debate. Sadly only comments for now for I am at work but as oon as I get home I will provide my counter also thankyou for your starting argument very well put and sure to be fun for me to counter it.
God bless and cheers.
Posted by TheYummyCod 4 years ago
TheYummyCod
Thanks for accepting this debate, Damienvox. I look forward to a healthy debate on this topic.
God Bless,
"The Yummy Cod
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
TheYummyCoddamienvoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments, excellent performance by PRO.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
TheYummyCoddamienvoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both sides. I only recently had my eyes opened to the true cause of the Civil War. It is a popular misconception that slavery was the main driving force behind the conflict. However, I threw aside this bias and allowed myself to be swayed. However, I ended up at the same conclusion from the arguments presented. Conduct- Both sides were very cordial and polite. Thank you for that! S/G- Sorry Con, but sometimes I couldn't even tell what you were saying until I read over it a few times. Try using the spellcheck, and read the arguments of opponents who get points for S/G to see how to improve. Args- In the end, Con practically conceded by stating that slavery was not the primary cause, but rather a supporting role in the financially driven Civil War. At least, that's how I understood it. I apologize if I was incorrect. Sources- Con used one source. While it was reliable, it dwarfed in comparison to Pro's multitude of sources. Goof job both! God bless.