Here’s my problem with the idea of the civil war was fought over slavery

Dunno, but each state was quite clear what their stance was with respect to owning slaves.

quote:

---

Why would this guy fight a war for this rich slave owner that benefited him in now way?

---

North central Alabama rebelled against the confederacy because they were poor farmers and miners with no stake in slave trade.

About 1/4 of Southern white families owned slaves. Large slaveowners (planters) were small in number, but they controlled the government, the press, etc. They banned the publication of anti-slavery materials and wouldn't even allow Lincoln to be on the ballots in 1860. Non-slaveholding whites were pretty lukewarm about secession, which is why the CSA enacted conscription before the North. Counties with few or no slaves were likely to be unionist in sentiment

Wars are fought over money and resources. In Iraq it is oil. The American civil war was fought over control of the two biggest cash crops that dominated the American economy at the time. "King" cotton and tobacco, both grown in the South. I just wonder if 150 years from now the history books will say the Iraq invasion was prompted by weapons of mass destruction.

The Civil War was a tragic colossal mistake that should have never happened.
Slavery was a tragic colossal mistake that should have never happened.

Slavery was bad for the average white person as well. Southern whites did much worse in literacy, nutrition, property, etc. Slavery only benefitted the fat cats who thrust the country into war when Lincoln wouldn't let them spread slavery everywhere

You free the slaves, then they would be free to compete with the poor whites to provide goods and services thereby reducing the value of their labor. If I was a poorer non slave owning white guy I would fight against it

Those numbers are impossible. The country had about 38 million people at the time, most in the north. Of that population about 3 million were black, it’s impossible that 33% of 35 million people (11.5 million) could own 3 million people much less once you split the north and south populations. I agree with most of your post but that number isn’t right.

quote:

---

Why would this guy fight a war for this rich slave owner that benefited him in now way?

---

1) How many times throughout history have we seen poor farmers go to war to fight for the interests of the wealthy?

2) If slaves were set free these poor farmers would be competing with the newly freed slaves at the market.

3) These poor farmers had dreams of striking it rich and owning slaves themselves.

quote:

---

Only the very wealthy in the south owned slaves.

---

That's false. About 20-25% of white males owned slaves. (Most of those people owned only one or two). This is easy to verify with census records which recorded the number of slaves in each household.

This notion that only the wealthy 1% owned slaves is revisionist history.