That lends further credence to my asertion that the North did not go to war to abolish slavery. The border states, and areas conqured early in the war, such as New Orleans, were unaffected by the Emancipation Proclamation. These slaves stayed in bondage until the 13th amendment. If abolition were a war goal from the start why were these slaves not freed? If I am reading Bengal Buddy correctly he is saying the north went to war with abolition in mind, and that south went to war to protect the peculiar institution. That is just not true.
True, but the south did go to war to preserve slavery. The north went to war to preserve the union. The north intended to eventually abolish slavery by legislation, but was forced to go to war by the secession.
Are you saying the Republicans of that era didn't use slavery as an emotional device to obfuscate the real issue, much like some contend that today's administration uses terrorism?
I thought that this was much more widely agreed upon than it is, apparently. How could the war have been about slavery if Union states had slaves? For generations, the war has been portrayed as good vs evil, when in actuality, it was evil vs evil.
If you think none of the authors I have mentioned did not put slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War, then you need to go back and re-read them. There were other issues that divided the North and the South, but they were secondary to slavery. None slave holders, poor or not, supported the slavery because it was a means of racial control. It is true that Lincoln was not an abolutionist. But he was very anti-slavery, so-much-so that some Southern states announced that if he were elected they would suceed from the union. When he was elected they did precisely that. The war happened because the South fired on Fort Sumter. The "invasion" came later.
The south fired upon Sumter because the Union tried to fortify it. The were putting military assets in a sovereign nation. How do you suppose Bush would react if Russia tried to build a base in Alaska.
Okay, I will go over this slowly. The fort was federal property. It belonged to the United States. The men inside were United States soldiers. The fort had been there for some time before succession. Secondly, neither the United States nor any other nation recognized the soverignty of the Confederacy. The South did of course, but they were the only ones. So it is a false analogy to equate Fort Sumter with Russia building a fort in the United States. Once more, Lincoln informed South Carolina he would only resupply the fort with provisions; not men, not ammunition, not armaments without prior notice or in case the fort was attacked.
Now I understand why Lincoln went to war: The right of the union to preserve itself was paramount over the rights of the people and his unparalleled morality and staunch opposition to the institution of slavery. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861 This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
