Actually, no. The Civil War was a Constitutional issue. The Southern states seceded over states rights. Yes, slavery was a big part of the issue, but it was not the issue.
There’s a pretty good discussion of this at http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm.
Over Zealous was the tell-all memoir written by Mrs. Tower (the former Miss Black and inspiration for a Yeats poem) after their separation. The book was mostly forgotten save for its constant explication by Mrs. Black Tower’s son by the General, a professor of English literature named Ivory.
That name is a little too crude for romance novels. Say, I don’t suppose there’s a subgenre of… nah.
Yours have been about which family would get its useless sons first in line at the feed trough, never mind that they’ve all been pretty much interchangeable. England’s identity and integrity were never at issue.
Ours was about a Cause (which Cause depends on which side you were on, but still it was a Cause). Something bigger than ourselves, something worth dying for, something that actually mattered. Hell, even the re-enactors aren’t just fools playing solder. Many or most of them are trying to “see the Elephant” - to *become * part of that Cause.
Lincoln at his second inauguration:
That gets this Yank choked up even today, and I’m pretty typical of us in that regard.
It’s said, and I think correctly, that the Civil War is still being fought. The racial issues left behind by the war, and more importantly by the end of Reconstruction, are still with us. The prattling from Southerners (and other conservatives) about states’ rights, and the limits on federal power, is still with us. Those things are at the core of our national debate today.
Now, what was all that about which color rose should be on the crest on the chair at the head of the palace dining table?
Zoe, thanks. 
Well, to be fair to them, England’s big Civil War was about whether the country should be governed by meritocratic middle class Calvinists, or a Scottish pseudo-Catholic fop.
Slavery was pretty much the issue. The southern states liked states’ rights when the national government did stuff against slavery, and didn’t like them so much when individual states tried to do stuff against slavery. So, I think states’ rights is a red herring.
I could say the Southern states seceded over high cable bills, but even if I said it a thousand times that wouldn’t make it true. The secessionists themselves didn’t hesitate to explain their views on why they were seceding. And they made it clear that slavery was the reason.
The English civil war was a high point in a multi-century-long conflict between the Crown and the Parliament that started basically with the Magna Carta. It’s no longer a national obsession because by the 19th century or so, it became pretty obvious that Parliament had won.
Actually, isn’t there a similar interest in the Spanish Civil War?
And if re-enacting a past, and decided, issue is so silly and a distinctly American passtime, why is Waterloo getting re-enacted annually? 
Boy, they had some hellacious names back then didn’t they? In addition to Zealous Bates Tower, there’s also Alfred Thomas Archimedes Torbert, right there on the same page; Don Carlos Buell also strikes me as a rather dashing name, and from that page we also have Napoleon Bonaparte Buford and Catharinus Putnam Buckingham. Of course the Confederates had Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard, which is a moniker that’s pretty damned hard to beat.
(Alas, Simon Bolivar Buckner on the Confederate side is now mostly remembered for helping to coin the phrase “unconditional surrender” by doing so to Ulysses S. Grant)
Well, on the subject of names I have to yield to Chowder’s Civil War. Ours had no name to compare to Praise-God Barebone.
On the subject of Arlington: again, it didn’t belong to Lee. It belonged to his wife and their oldest son and was seized for $92 in back taxes. The son eventually received $150,000 for it when he took it to the Supreme Court in the 1880s.
That would be an interesting point IF anyone had made that claim.
There was no debate in 1772*********, slavery was ended by a judgment issued by Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench.
I assume you have a cite for this debate in 1102?
At no other time, in all of human history, was the morality of slavery questioned?
The morality of slavery was very clear to the first slave.
So, was it spreading slowly naturally or was it being actively suppressed?
If it was spreading slowly why was there a need to terrorize people into keeping their mouths shut?
Ben Franklin might have been the first North American Abolitionist, but certainly he wasn’t the first abolitionist!
Just as the first person to think slavery was evil was a slave, so too the first abolitionist was also a slave.
That history does not record this says more about the morality of history than the morality of slavery.
CMC fnord!
No need for the snarky remark 
. The saying BTW is unheard of in the UK.
My username was chosen after much deliberation, I originally thought of Cromwell but decided against it just in case you merkins figured I was just banging on about our civil wars…Ho-hum
/aside
I used to belong to the English Civil War Society, specifically the King’s Army (please don’t mentioned the Sealed Knot - the KA and the Roundheads Association both despise them). While travelling in costume down to Devon, our regiment stopped for a piss break at a service area where we attracted the curious attention of a bystander. We explained who and what we were - and he amusedly explained that his name was Oliver Cromwell (and provided documentary evidence). One of the funnier things that ever happened to me.
From the Wiki link:
The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:
*The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States. *
…and neither is ever gonna happen, as far as I can see. There have been several earlier threads on secession as a concept, and the legal basis (or distinct lack thereof, IMHO) for it.
I would also note that James Madison, among the foremost Framers, wrote to the July 1788 New York ratification convention that the Constitution “requires an adoption in toto and for ever” (emphasis in the original). Cite: Thomas Fleming, Liberty! The American Revolution (Viking 1997), p. 379. I’ve never read anything to suggest that any of the other Framers - Washington above all - thought otherwise.
The saying, “History is written by the winners,” was never more wrong when speaking of the American Civil War. It sometimes seems like every literate survivor–from both sides–wrote a memoir, and most appear to have been published.
Which is why you lost the Civil War.
Allus stopping for piss breaks and gassing to strangers who obviously were just decoys out there to slow you down.
Put your faith in God but keep your powder dry
Honestly
Dayum, I always figured they were talking about the '92 - '93 World Series.
I am reading Us Grants memoirs. many think it the best autobiography ever written. He writes very well and was involved in so much.
I’ve wondered before if Twain had a hand in writing or editing them.