# Who is right about the causes of the Civil War? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898 "2015-06-07T16:27:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/61 "2015-06-08T17:34:22Z")
I wonder how the US might have turned out if the Boll Weevil had shown up 60 years earlier than it did. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/62 "2015-06-08T17:36:49Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I wonder how the US might have turned out if the Boll Weevil had shown up 60 years earlier than it did. There is a town in southern Georgia that has a monument to Mr Weevil. They got hit, started growing other stuff, and realized that they made more money doing so. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/63 "2015-06-08T17:41:43Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I wonder how the US might have turned out if the Boll Weevil had shown up 60 years earlier than it did. It would still be lookin’ for a home … ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/64 "2015-06-08T17:59:08Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > There is a town in southern Georgia that has a monument to Mr Weevil. They got hit, started growing other stuff, and realized that they made more money doing so. Interesting. I got it sorta backwards/sideways. Enterprise ALABAMA has a monument to the Boll Weevil (which I have not seen, but have driven close to many a time). Blakely County, Georgia has a monument to the Peanut (which I have seen). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/65 "2015-06-08T18:42:05Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I wonder how the US might have turned out if the Boll Weevil had shown up 60 years earlier than it did. Or if the cotton gin had been invented sixty years later. Cotton would have remained a marginal crop. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/66 "2015-06-08T18:52:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, it simply was not. > > A federative state cannot allow its subordinate jurisdictions to simply break away at will or else the state cannot continue to exist, because there’s nothing holding it together. Under such allowances, the CSA itself could not possibly have survived; eventually, Texas or Florida or whomever would have found some reason to leave. Hell, the western part of Virginia left as soon as they could hold a convention on the matter, and other portions of the CSA were grousing as well; Tennessee might well have split in two; East Tennessee counties tried to pull a West Virginia and secede at one point and had to be occupied by CSA troops, and in effect East Tennessee was occupied Union territory until liberated by Union troops. And why not? Why was Virginia leaving okay and the Union fighting to keep it in “bullying,” but West Virginia leaving Virginia wrong and Virginia fighting to keep it not bullying? > > For that matter, had the CSA been allowed to leave, what would hold the remaining USA together? Why couldn’t California have formed its own country? Every state, either alone or joining with a few others, could perpetually hold the federal government hostage with the threat of leaving the Union. > > If there is a legitimately pre-determined separation of two countries, it can work - as happened with, say, Czechoslovakia. But “we’re leaving, you can all go to hell” is a recipe for dissolution and disaster. Putting aside the issues of nations, there’s the issue of individuals. Lincoln, like every other President, had taken an oath to defend the Constitution. That meant he had a legal and moral obligation to protect the rights of American citizens. Including those American citizens living in places where the local government was trying to prevent the American government from protecting its citizens - and even in cases where the majority of people might no longer consider themselves as American citizens. If the United States government had agreed to secession it would have been turning over millions of American citizens to the control of a foreign government. Sure, many of those millions of citizens may have wanted this. But can anybody claim it was universal? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/67 "2015-06-08T21:00:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Putting aside the issues of nations, there’s the issue of individuals. Lincoln, like every other President, had taken an oath to defend the Constitution. That meant he had a legal and moral obligation to protect the rights of American citizens. To be honest I thought of including this but felt I was making one point and didn’t want to distract from others. > [@](#): > > If the United States government had agreed to secession it would have been turning over millions of American citizens to the control of a foreign government. I would argue there are situations where it is the moral and ethical thing to do to split a state in two. I don’t think every nation state MUST remain whole - it was okay for the USA to depart the UK, after all. It must, however, be a negotiated split to be a peaceful and fair one. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/68 "2015-06-08T21:14:11Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, it simply was not. > > A federative state cannot allow its subordinate jurisdictions to simply break away at will or else the state cannot continue to exist, because there’s nothing holding it together. Under such allowances, the CSA itself could not possibly have survived; eventually, Texas or Florida or whomever would have found some reason to leave. Hell, the western part of Virginia left as soon as they could hold a convention on the matter, and other portions of the CSA were grousing as well; Tennessee might well have split in two; East Tennessee counties tried to pull a West Virginia and secede at one point and had to be occupied by CSA troops, and in effect East Tennessee was occupied Union territory until liberated by Union troops. And why not? Why was Virginia leaving okay and the Union fighting to keep it in “bullying,” but West Virginia leaving Virginia wrong and Virginia fighting to keep it not bullying? And then note, some of the big cities in the South were against secession, so then we have cities seceding from States, and boroughs from cities and blocks from boroughs and then Bob Smith from his block. ---
**Author:** ![TallTrees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@TallTrees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TallTrees)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/69 "2015-06-08T21:58:35Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Good answer **engineer\_comp\_geek**. See what happens when you let a real engineer handle the question **TallTrees**? Nah, my comment was more generic than specific. Again, an engineer’s reading of what I said. The engineers I know seem to see the world in black and white. They don’t do well when things are gray, and even worse when the gray things are nuanced. That was the reason for the comment. To say “This is the cause of the Civil War” ignores the gray and the nuances. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/70 "2015-06-08T23:19:46Z")
> [@TallTrees](#): > > Nah, my comment was more generic than specific. Again, an engineer’s reading of what I said. > > The engineers I know seem to see the world in black and white. They don’t do well when things are gray, and even worse when the gray things are nuanced. > > That was the reason for the comment. To say “This is the cause of the Civil War” ignores the gray and the nuances. Hey, I’m jealous. Why didn’t you answer my question? I’ll repeat it. Name these gray and nuanced reasons for the war and show how they did not relate to slavery. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/71 "2015-06-09T01:25:42Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, it simply was not. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Let us remember that it was the South that first fired on the Union troops. The Union troops at Ft. Sumter were not occupiers. And the Union had no Navy to withdraw them, right? Sorry - that’s why this is a great debate and after a multitude of threads I read more than I comment. The same points over and over. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m not saying the pro-South side is wrong --------- I’m saying the one thing I learned about the war while at Pitt was probably right. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/72 "2015-06-09T02:15:09Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ecks](#): > > That is why westward expansion was so important to them. Political control was a great bonus, but starting new plantations was a necessity. That is why the Confederates talked about creating an empire. They literally had to expand or die. Well, or give up slavery in favor of a diversified economy. Was there no fertilizer that could make cotton fields sustainable? I don’t know. But I do know that people thought slavery had to expand or die, and this did have a lot to do with cotton. I think the South agreed with Lincoln’s famous words here: > [@](#): > > I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. > > . . . > > It will become all one thing or all the other. > > Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South. The Civil War wasn’t, until the end, about whether slavery would end right this minute. But it always was about whether slavery would be put on the road to ending. If Fort Sumter hadn’t been the trigger, there would eventually have been war when the CSA tried to expand into what is now New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Colorado. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/73 "2015-06-09T02:27:32Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > And the Union had no Navy to withdraw them, right This is again equivalent to saying that the North should have simply acquiesced and let the South go. Whether you think that should or shouldn’t have been an option, it never was one. Certainly not with Lincoln as President, and as close to unimaginable with anyone else who could have been elected in 1860. Nor could the North as a country have survived giving in to an unutterably repugnant set of narcissistic hatemongers and having them as neighbors and business partners. There would still have been a war sooner or later; the South absolutely demanded one and would have started one as a matter of “honor” in any reasonable future. They were essentially a theocracy demanding obeisance to their religion. That’s what makes the whole “the North caused the war by not letting the South secede” a nonsensical argument. The South’s being was the cause of the war; secession was merely a symptom of that cause. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/74 "2015-06-09T02:54:07Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Was there no fertilizer that could make cotton fields sustainable? This was back before the process of making synthetic fertilizer had been developed. Back in the nineteenth century, you had to fertilize your fields with “natural” products - ie a lot of poop. The alternative was crop rotation. You could plant valuable crops in a field one season and then plant something that would restore nutrients to the soil in the following season. The problem with cotton was that it was valuable and nobody liked to lose a field’s worth of production. And cotton really sucked the nutrients out of soil (it also used lots of water and encouraged erosion. So plantation owners were often tempted to keep growing cotton until a field had reached the point of collapse and it was difficult to recover a field from that condition. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/75 "2015-06-09T02:59:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Or if the cotton gin had been invented sixty years later. Cotton would have remained a marginal crop. A vastly underestimated cause of the Civil War. Slavery was on the decline until the cotton gin took the entire Southern economy by storm. With the new technology it became highly profitable to have spend money on slaves that wouldn’t last more than a few years toiling in the fields. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/76 "2015-06-09T03:28:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I would argue there are situations where it is the moral and ethical thing to do to split a state in two. I don’t think every nation state MUST remain whole - it was okay for the USA to depart the UK, after all. It must, however, be a negotiated split to be a peaceful and fair one. A great line comes to mind from James Clavell’s Shogun. Captain Blackthorne, who was the captain of a Dutch merchantman and privateer, has been taken before Lord Toranaga, one of the leading Japanese daimyos, and is being interrogated by him. Acting as translator is a Portuguese Jesuit, who explains that the Dutch are in rebellion against the Spanish. Blackthorne admits that and starts to explain that there are mitigating circumstances, but Toranaga cuts him off angrily, crying out that “There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.” Blackthorne answers “Unless you win.” The split between the US and UK wasn’t peaceful, and wasn’t necessarily fair, but the US won, and so that justifies it. Had the Confederacy won, somehow, and survived, it’s possible attitudes towards it and the rightness of its action might be different. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/77 "2015-06-09T04:10:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This is again equivalent to saying that the North should have simply acquiesced and let the South go. Whether you think that should or shouldn’t have been an option, it never was one. Certainly not with Lincoln as President, and as close to unimaginable with anyone else who could have been elected in 1860. Nor could the North as a country have survived giving in to an unutterably repugnant set of narcissistic hatemongers and having them as neighbors and business partners. There would still have been a war sooner or later; the South absolutely demanded one and would have started one as a matter of “honor” in any reasonable future. They were essentially a theocracy demanding obeisance to their religion. > > That’s what makes the whole “the North caused the war by not letting the South secede” a nonsensical argument. The South’s being was the cause of the war; secession was merely a symptom of that cause. Indeed. I imagine that had the South been let go the Fugitive Slave Law would have just been ignored in the North after a while and the South would have gotten full of their usual tantrums once again and then… ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/78 "2015-06-09T04:33:28Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > This is misleading. The planter class completely dominated Southern politics. The economy of the antebellum South was extremely primitive. They didn’t even have very many towns. If you needed to buy a shovel or shoe a horse or repair a plow or, (most importantly of all to a farmer) if you needed credit, you had to go to a plantation. Small farmers had to remain on good terms with their local planters or they wouldn’t be small farmers any more. That doesn’t create a situation where they could exercise much political muscle. Remember, literacy wasn’t common in the South either so all voting was done out loud in public. > > I’m afraid this is even more misleading. The North had a more diversified economy. Industrialists were certainly important but so were merchants and farming and even shipping. Abolitionists do not make the list. Their position in society was approximately that of a pre-Great Depression socialist. That is, they were objects of ridicule and fear that their ideas might inflame the masses. There was no gradual upswelling of political power or influence of abolitionists. When the Republican coalition was forming from the ashes of the Whig Party in the 1850s, prominent abolitionists were discretely asked not to publicly support them. Even as the Great Unpleasantness began they were still being labelled as troublemaking zealots. It was only when it sank in that the slave owners were now (mostly) the enemy and there was no going back that abolitionism began to grow in popularity. > > Industrialists didn’t want more industrialists. That would just mean more competition. They wanted higher tariffs to discourage foreign competition and also to fund canals and railroads to improve their access to markets. They were happy to allow the Southern elite to foolishly pretend to be medieval barons. They just wanted to be the ones supplying the goods the Southerners were too stubborn to make for themselves. They had no problem with slavery because they were profiting from it. > > The American political system is not set up in a way to make this type of behavior feasible. We don’t have a parliament where one side can get a majority and ram everything through on party line votes. We have a decentralized system where the president’s party (assuming there was more than one major party at the time which wasn’t always the case) rarely also controls the House and the Senate. And even within a party there are a variety of interests which affect different issues in different ways. As such compromise is the norm. When compromise breaks down then our system stops working as we see today. > > One thing that there could be no compromise on was the expansion of slavery. Northern whites didn’t want to compete directly against slave labor so they wanted new states to be free so their children and grandchildren could eventually move there and take up new land or businesses. Planters needed new slave states because cash crops are land intensive. After a while tobacco and cotton would suck the nutrients from the soil and the land would become unproductive. Slavery had to constantly expand to reach new fields and to allow plantations in older regions to remain profitable by providing the new plantations with labor. That is, breaking up families by selling slaves down the river. In opposing the expansion of slavery you were opposing slavery itself. > > That then was the source of the growing anti-slavery feeling in the North. It wasn’t a humanitarian abolitionist movement but a practical matter. Slavery was evil as everyone in the North (and many in the South before 1830) agreed. But so long as the blacks stayed safely in the South where Northerners could join in the profits of their exploitation without seeing it first hand, it wasn’t a big issue. That changed in two major ways. For regular folks in the North slavery struck home when authorities were obliged to return black refugees. Here actual abolitionists helped influence public opinion by organizing mobs to remove escaped slaves from custody. Southerners were outraged. They felt “decent” Northern whites should form their own mobs to lynch the abolitionists. This led to calls for more stringent enforcement which became more intrusive in the free states which led to more opposition to slavery. > > This led Southerners to become even more cynical about Northerners which led to a 2nd way that slavery came home for Northerners. Southerners stopped trusting outsiders with positions of power. This infuriated Northern elites who saw all the important political jobs they were hoping to fill now or in the future going to planters and their allies. When Northern and Southern Whigs stopped cooperating the party fell apart and the path to the birth of the Party of Lincoln was open. > > The election of Lincoln was important in a way that isn’t widely understand today. If the North could elect a president over the objection of the unified power of the slave states then it wasn’t just that eventually free states could significantly overpower slave states in the Senate as they already could in the House. An anti-slavery president could begin undermining the institution right away. No longer would trusty slave owners or allies be running Washington DC or overseeing the interests of the planters as ambassadors in Europe. What if President Lincoln started appointing opponents of slavery as postmasters across the South? Then the embarrassing tide of abolitionist literature could no longer be held back. You couldn’t lynch every federal official in the South. What if the Navy actually worked to enforce the prohibition on the importation of slaves? What if customs officials in the South started going over every ship manifest and passenger and crew list with a fine tooth comb to maximize revenue and prevent the illicit importation of slaves? > > With the appointment power alone a president could do a lot of damage to the institution of slavery. It’s not that the planter class overreacted to the election of Lincoln. It spelled the death knell of their way of life sooner rather than later. They went to war to leave the Union knowing that now was their last best hope to remain the masters they saw themselves. Fortunately they lost and the South is no longer the backwards shithole they were trying to preserve. Yup. There’s the explanation, in a nutshell. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/79 "2015-06-09T10:37:27Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Indeed. I imagine that had the South been let go the Fugitive Slave Law would have just been ignored in the North after a while and the South would have gotten full of their usual tantrums once again and then… Interestingly enough, there was a Missouri politician, and I forget who it was, who used the Fugitive Slave Law as an argument for Missouri Unionism. Stay in the US, he said, and legally, the Fugitive Slave Law protects our slaves. Leave, and, well, have you actually seen a map of Missouri? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898/80 "2015-06-09T11:30:42Z")
Could slavery had expanded anyway, further than central Texas? For labor-intensive agriculture, you need rain-intensive climate. You can’t use slaves on land suited only to grazing: who’s going to give their slaves six-shooters and horses? More land was made available on the Central Plains when a plow was invented to cut the tough sod, but that same industrial revolution brought harvesting equipment that negated an army of slaves with scythes (which is why the Russians could free their serfs at about the same time) The South was destined to lose the war, but if they’d stayed in the Union, they’d have lost their shirt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-right-about-the-causes-of-the-civil-war/721898.md?page=5)