Didn’t the first US civil war come straight after the first US Mexican war?
It was a little over a decade apart. So not quite so close.
1 Like
There was no small connection though, with the issue of potential slavery in the territories won in the war being very important.
Yes, and it was a series of provocations by ideologues on both sides (Bloody Kansas, Dred Scott decision, John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry) that led up to armed conflict.
**Interesting history fact - Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. was actually the first federal fort attacked and seized in Dec. 1860. Because the Union garrison surrendered without conflict the escalation was not as provacative as the attack on Fort Sumter would not occur until 4 months later in Apr. 1861.
2 Likes
I think this puts overdue emphasis on the Mexican-American war as casus belli of the US Civil War. The root issue, behind both wars, was “manifest destiny.”
Indeed, but the sentiments behind such outbursts were widespread. The political movements they spawned ultimately drove events.
1 Like
I don’t think I quite said that! I remember we couldn’t agree on some of these issues before.
How do you mean?
Accurately saying “slavery” being the primary cause of the Civil War really puts a bee in some peoples’ bonnets. 
I wonder why that is?
“When Southern states issued their declarations of secession, they explicitly cited slavery as their core grievance.”
No need to polish a turd here fellas. Just embrace it. That would be the “Alpha Male” thing to do. 
Slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but not the sole cause of the Civil War. So it wouldn’t bother me to say so, but it wouldn’t be entirely accurate either.
Mexican American War - yes. Civil War - no. More of a power struggle between North and South, and the process of how the South could retain it’s waning dominance in congress and of the presidency.
Wish I had my books with me. Could reference some good reading material if you’re interested in studying history.
It was thought that settlers were destined to spread throughout North America, south of Canada and north of Mexico. The question left unanswered was, what about slavery in new territories? Bloody Kansas and whether it should be free, and the political reactions to that question, ultimately led to war. Not the Mexican-American war per se.
I always love the cutting juxtaposition of Trump apologists masquerading as Civil War scholars when confronted with the reality-breaking concept that disunion over the practice of slavery was the core cause for the war…
YET when Trump does anything morally/ethically condemnable, they turn a blind eye and pretend there is no precedent of other shitty people in history doing shitty things, through which lessons can be learned. 
It’s like a rubric that they rarely sway from. Really amazing what echo chamber media has cultivated.
Facts don’t care about your feelings or misplaced sense of nationalism.
From AI:
“When Southern states issued their declarations of secession, they explicitly cited slavery as their core grievance. For example, Mississippi’s declaration states, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.” Such primary documents make clear that secession was motivated chiefly by the desire to preserve and expand slavery. Recent overviews of the origins of the Civil War highlight that historians today “overwhelmingly agree on the centrality of slavery in the conflict” and note that “while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war” en.wikipedia.org. The very timing of secession—immediately after Lincoln’s election on an explicitly anti-expansion-of-slavery platform—further underscores how inseparable slavery was from the move toward armed conflict.”
Sure, I’d welcome new reading material!
As a fellow American and fellow casual student of its history this always feels a little like a 19th-century American discussion about scripture and what verse says what and how no, you’re wrong it means this instead … 
2 Likes
I agree, I think we’re talking about the same thing. Some of the territories were from the Mexican War, some from national purchases, and there were competing feelings about how they should be governed.
2 Likes
The American Civil War and the Early Republic were my focus of study at university so…
Lincoln had a personal dislike of slavery an an institution antithetical to the values of a free republic, but even during the war his goal was preserving the union. He didn’t care for the fate of slaves one way or the other.
In any case I’m veering off topic from the riots at hand.
Back on track.
1 Like
This is not the esoteric knowledge you think it is.
Historians are still largely in consensus that the practice of slavery was the core cause of the Civil War. While of course you are welcome to hold your off-beat opinion, don’t expect it to be taken seriously when there is an abundance of evidence suggesting it is fallacious. 
True, but it should be noted that there was no immediate threat to legal slavery in the South even from the anti-slavery Republican party at the time. The trends were not good, with outright abolitionists becoming more of a force and the idea that slavery should be restricted and set on a gradual path to extinction becoming more mainstream in the North. But the North was not going to go to war to end slavery in the South at the time, far from it.
1 Like
I would hope it isn’t, but american teenagers consistently prove me wrong in this respect…
What was interesting was the Calhoun successionists and their partnerships with the liberal Democrats of the time–the locofocos…lots of uni papers I wrote on this era.
Locofocos - Wikipedia
Loco Foco and nulification nuptials | Library of Congress
Just 99%.