George, I gave that sentence some thought before I wrote it, and I purposely avoided using the word "cause". That word has been the focus of endless, fruitless debate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's focus on the definition of "is".

Depending on how you interpret the word "cause", the cause of the Civil War could be construed as anything from the signing of the Magna Carta to Capt. George S. James' mortar battery firing the first shot towards Fort Sumter, or anything in between. It becomes an endless dance around the issues.

One constant, however, is present in some degree in all the other issues, and that is the issue of slavery. Take slavery out of the equation, and the war would not have happened. So was slavery the cause of the war? Define "cause." See what I mean? T.R. comes about as close as anyone to making the case for the "spark" that set off the war -- the secession of the Deep South states -- but once again, that pesky word "cause" rears its ugly head. We're not going to resolve that question on this board, but I must admit that I do enjoy reading the posts that try to.

Also, in your discussion of Lincoln's motives for meeting the secession crisis with military force -- all of them nefarious -- you left out a motive. Can we not concede that there is at least a remote possibility that Lincoln genuinely believed simply that the preservation of the Union was worth fighting for? We should at least give him that courtesy in our discussions of his motives. Maybe he was a scoundrel and an all-around jerk, but then again maybe he was a patriot. If we premise our discussions on a one-sided view of the man, we're never going to resolve anything.

And with that, I'll climb down off my soap-box and let nimbler minds than my own carry on this discussion.