Conflicting Perspectives on the Motivation of the Civil War

    It has come to my attention through many discussions that there remains a deep emotional and intellectual cut between the North and the South, concerning the precipitous debate of the American Civil War. The North upholds the abolition of slavery, the South defends slavery as an economic necessity of the period. Everyone seems to agree that slavery is wrong, southerners feel ostracized. Country folk are stereotyped as racists, illiterate, extremist, and are largely separated from scholarly contributions. As such, the history books are written in a Northern slant. So then, what is the truth behind this bitter divide?

There are many violent arguments between the North and the South as to several aspects of the Civil War particularly concerning the motivation of both sides. I understand the economic argument. But I don't understand why the South seceded. Many claim it was because Abraham Lincoln banned slavery, but he didn't abolish it until a few years into the war. In fact, Lincoln was a mediator. Frankly, he was a pushover by the political standards of the day. He was willing to give the south anything they wanted to maintain the union.

So what the hec is going on???