BusterAg said:

---

reineraggie09 said:

---

pinche gringo said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?

---

Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…

---

Underneath the Lincoln Memorial is a gift shop/restroom. On the wall is a speech from Lincoln. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." It wasn't about Slavery.

---

To Lincoln, saving the unity of the Republic was more important than the issue of slavery. That is not in question.

But, the motivations of the Southern States to succeed had everything to do about slavery. The South wanted to succeed because of slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the republic, regardless of why the South wanted to succeed.

Saying the war had nothing to do with slavery is incorrect.

---

It had everything to do with determining their own economies, of which - at the time - slavery was a vital part of. Industrial Revolution and machinery in agriculture would eventually eliminate slavery on this own. Folks point out that the Brits ended slavery before the US across its realm. But that is a paper distinction. In actuality, slavery continued in those colonies until the mid 20th century. It just wasn't referred to as such.

4 said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

I think that people forget this important point:

Lincoln was the first president ever elected without a single electoral vote from the South.

For the South, that was all the evidence they needed that the North was now fully in control of US politics going forward and was going to force abolition on them sooner or later and likely sooner than later.

---

He also suspended parts of the constitution he didn't like, great president.

---

Lincoln also didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and he said so.

The reason he issued the emancipation proclamation was because France was about to enter the war on the side of the south, and he knew if he made the war appear to be about slavery, France couldn't do it politically.

---

He did care about slavery.

Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery. But he also thought the best path forward was shipping all the freed slaves back to Africa.

If only....

The desire to have more slave states was only to preserve slavery in the current slave states.

It is just logical that if there are 30 abolition states and 15 slave states, then slavery throughout the nation was going to go away. That would be enough to amend the constitution, if required, to end slavery.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

And the South seceded because of slavery.

---

The South seceded because of slavery.

Lincoln started the Civil war to preserve the nation, not to end slavery.

It really is that simple.

Fireman said:

---

The Union army fired the first shots to initiate the First Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) on July 21, 1861. Union artillerist Peter Conover Hains fired a 30-pounder Parrott rifle toward the Confederate lines near the Stone Bridge around 5:30 a.m. to begin the engagement, acting on orders to initiate the battle.

Maybe because they were under attack.

---

this has to be a troll job right??

right?!!

flown-the-coop said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the United States did not even outlaw slavery in UNION states!

Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee were allowed to keep slaves for much of the war.

Maryland had slaves until nearly 1865!

---

People hate when you point out the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebellion states. Which literally had no effect in the view of the Confederacy since they had already seceded from that government.

---

Huh? They absolutely knew it had an effect and it did. It was a wartime measure that essentially crushed the possibility of foreign support for the confederacy. It also increased support amonst the public in the north. It had a major effect on the war.

people often forget that the emancipation proclamation only applied to slaves in states in rebellion. oddly it did not apply to slaves in New Orleans s and 13 surrounding parishes, as they were under union control when it was issued.

So it was potentially effective as war time propaganda but legally it had no effect. I can live with that.

But let's just be clear it did not have the effect of freeing any slaves.

Quote:

---

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War.
It declared that all persons held as slaves within the states (and parts of states) still in rebellion against the United States "are, and henceforward shall be free." This applied to areas under Confederate control, covering more than 3.5 million enslaved people (out of about 4 million total in the U.S. at the time).

Key things it did:
It changed the legal status of enslaved people in the rebellious Confederate states from enslaved to free under U.S. law. However, since those areas were not under Union control, enforcement depended on Union military advancesfreedom became reality as federal troops moved in and slaves escaped to Union lines.

It did not immediately free any slaves on the day it was issued in most places (estimates suggest 20,00075,000 were freed right away in Union-held Confederate areas), and it did not end slavery nationwide.

It excluded the loyal border slave states (like Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) and certain Union-controlled parts of Confederate states (e.g., parts of Virginia and Louisiana), leaving slavery intact there.

It authorized the enlistment of formerly enslaved Black men into the Union Army and Navy. This was hugely significantabout 200,000 African Americans eventually served in Union forces, bolstering the Union's manpower and allowing freed people to help secure their own liberation.

---

I do find it rich that Lincoln was so in favor of freeing the slaves that he let union run sugar plantations and tobacco fields keep their slaves.

See above. Sugar and industry had to be kept running in the south for the Union to get their foothold. And that meant keeping slavery intact.

If Lincoln was such an abolitionist, he would have freed all slaves. But he didn't.

BusterAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

And the South seceded because of slavery.

---

The South seceded because of slavery.

Lincoln started the Civil war to preserve the nation, not to end slavery.

It really is that simple.

---

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. The southern states in rebellion started the war by firing the first shots.

flown-the-coop said:

---

See above. Sugar and industry had to be kept running in the south for the Union to get their foothold. And that meant keeping slavery intact.

If Lincoln was such an abolitionist, he would have freed all slaves. But he didn't.

---

Or Lincoln was a keen political pragmatist that understood the mood of the country and worked towards the ending of slavery.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

See above. Sugar and industry had to be kept running in the south for the Union to get their foothold. And that meant keeping slavery intact.

If Lincoln was such an abolitionist, he would have freed all slaves. But he didn't.

---

Or Lincoln was a keen political pragmatist that understood the mood of the country and worked towards the ending of slavery.

---

No, he liked money and power just like any other politician.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

And the South seceded because of slavery.

---

The South seceded because of slavery.

Lincoln started the Civil war to preserve the nation, not to end slavery.

It really is that simple.

---

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. The southern states in rebellion started the war by firing the first shots.

---

Technicality. Just because the South fired the first shots doesn't mean that Lincoln didn't cause the war to happen.

Lincoln made it very clear that secession was illegal, and promised to use force to uphold federal law.

If Lincoln had let the South secede peacefully, there would have been no civil war.

Slavery played a part in the economic divide between the industrial Northern States and the agricultural Southern States. The Southern leaders were not afraid that Lincoln's election would lead to abolition of slavery, but they knew it would impact the chance of expanding slavery in the West, thus threatening political power in Congress. The following was the imminent threat of Lincoln's election. 1860 MORRILL TARIFF:
In response to the slow recovery of northern states from the Financial Crisis of 1857 caused by the sinking of the S.S. Central America carrying 30,000 pounds of gold destined for northern banks, and the failure of Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company (Ohio Life), In May 1860, Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Act proposed by Republican Congressmen Justin Morrill (Former Whig). It raised the average tariff from 15% to 37%, with increases to 48% within 3 years on imported trade goods. Only one southern representative voted for the Tariff. With U.S. Tariff Review burdens already falling disproportionately on the southern states, accounting for ~87% of the total BEFORE the Morrill Tariff! Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the northern states at the expense of the south. The tariff was the twelfth of the seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, and Lincoln promised (if elected) to sign the Morrill Tariff Act into law and use military force to collect it as part of his agreement to defect from the Whig Party to the new Republican Party. Southern States began secession discussions and proceedings in anticipation of these tariffs.
27 September 1860, Republican Leader Thaddeus Stevens, sponsor of the Morrill Tariff, told a New York City audience that "the Tariff would impoverish the southern and western states, but that was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers." Northern Republicans and Whigs cheered, Southern leaders were indignant and called for nullification and/or Secession. It was the twelfth of the seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party (Unconstitutional federal redistribution of wealth)

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

See above. Sugar and industry had to be kept running in the south for the Union to get their foothold. And that meant keeping slavery intact.

If Lincoln was such an abolitionist, he would have freed all slaves. But he didn't.

---

Or Lincoln was a keen political pragmatist that understood the mood of the country and worked towards the ending of slavery.

---

No, he liked money and power just like any other politician.

---

You bought the single room log cabin beginnings. But he quickly rose to prominence as a lawyer and politician in Illinois then married very well, sort of like John Kerry / John McCain well, and off to the political races.

Much of public history is carefully crafted narratives. It's okay to not worship Lincoln but understand he probably did good by keeping the Country together. Probably.

It was the economics of slavery, correct.

But its oft use to beat southerners over the head (and to be honest Americans in general) as if it was about freedoms of servitude. It was not.

Want proof? How many years did it take to bring former slaves fully into the fold of America?

Slavery as an economic necessity for the South led to the civil war. The North was becoming less reliant and had moved most of their slaves indoors and began calling them "the help". To this day, most Yankees and all democrats believe the minority class only exists to serve their political and power hungry interests.

flown-the-coop said:

---

See above. Sugar and industry had to be kept running in the south for the Union to get their foothold. And that meant keeping slavery intact.

If Lincoln was such an abolitionist, he would have freed all slaves. But he didn't.

---

Lincoln did not believe that the Constitution gave him the right to free slaves that were held by states that remained part of the Union.

However, he decided to apply the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress (which declared certain materials used by the Confederacy to be "contraband," subject to seizure by Union forces) to slaves held by the Confederacy.

Lincoln essentially declared that slaves were being used by the Confederacy to fight the war, and were therefore subject to confiscation. Upon "confiscating" them, they were set free. Lincoln extended this idea to slaves still held in the South.

Setting them "free" is a poorly understood concept / distinction.

Essentially it just confiscated property and disrupted the economies of the southern states. But its did little to change the circumstances of these newly freed slaves.

Feel free to read the articles.

But you've got a narrative that you'll stick to, so it would probably be a waste of your time.

Correct. It was a symbolic act.

But as we all know, that symbolic act, with little practical effect, changed the meaning of the war.

The war was no longer about preserving the Union: it became a moral crusade to free the slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation ennobled the war and made it impossible for England and France to join in on the side of the Confederacy.

It most certainly had a legal effect and a social one. Legally the Federal forces did not have send slaves back to their masters as they had done in numerous incidents before the EP. Socially the slaves began freeing themselves and heading for the Federal armies, so it certainly affected the events that followed its issuance, legally and socially.

Former slaves who worked the plantations after the coming of the Federal armies were not compelled to work for their former masters they could leave if they wanted to. The former masters were required to pay any workers that stayed a wage, slavery was over once the Federal armies arrived after Jan. 1, 1863.

very well stated

the Confederate Government first in MS and then in Richmond seriously planned to invade Mexico to take over more land for the spread of slavery.

OldArmy71 said:

---

Correct. It was a symbolic act.

But as we all know, that symbolic act, with little practical effect, changed the meaning of the war.

The war was no longer about preserving the Union: it became a moral crusade to free the slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation ennobled the war and made it impossible for England and France to join in on the side of the Confederacy.

---

I think one of the major reasons the Emancipation Proclamation was set out

was exactly to keep England and France out of providing support and troops for the Confederacy

flown-the-coop said:

---

It was the economics of slavery, correct.

But its oft use to beat southerners over the head (and to be honest Americans in general) as if it was about freedoms of servitude. It was not.

Want proof? How many years did it take to bring former slaves fully into the fold of America?

Slavery as an economic necessity for the South led to the civil war. The North was becoming less reliant and had moved most of their slaves indoors and began calling them "the help". To this day, most Yankees and all democrats believe the minority class only exists to serve their political and power hungry interests.

---

This.

The primary driver was political and economic, of which slavery was a key component in the southern state's economies (generally speaking). But it was also a function of a growing divide between the industrialized north that had largely abandoned the agrarian economic role and moved towards the industrial revolution. They had a mass influx of immigrants that provided dirt cheap labor (essentially their form of slavery, but that's a different story) and the social divide between the two was significant.

There is also a reason that Lincoln never wanted nor allowed the issue of secession to flow through the legal system. Because he knew that he was on the short end from that perspective.

Like most of the crap we see today, underlying issues of who/what/why are largely overshadowed by whatever issue makes the biggest waves. Slavery was a social issue that was used - very effectively - by northern politicians to demonize the south up to and especially during the conflict.

Slavery was a dying institution, even during the 1860's. The advance of industrial mechanized equipment would have eventually phased it out naturally within 20-30 years of the war. But the mantra of the north fought the war to free the slaves that we were all taught in elementary school is simply not true. The north fought the war because they needed the tax revenu from the south to function, not for some altruistic enlightened reason. Most of the north wanted blacks hell and gone from them. The south fought the war because they wanted to continue doing things the way they wanted to do things and saw the writing on the wall that in a very short period of time they would have little to no political power in DC.

95% of the southerners that fought in the war didn't own slaves and didn't fight to keep slaves. They fought because their loyalties were to their states first. Because at that time the country was still THESE United States. It wasn't until after the war that the term THE United States really was born. The war ended the notion that the states were individual states that voluntarily joined the union. It was the launching pad to the expansion of the fed and the diminishment of states rights and states powers, which is why we have the tumor of a federal government we have today and the states are largely impotent when it comes to much of anything.

OldArmy71 said:

---

Correct. It was a symbolic act.

But as we all know, that symbolic act, with little practical effect, changed the meaning of the war.

The war was no longer about preserving the Union: it became a moral crusade to free the slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation ennobled the war and made it impossible for England and France to join in on the side of the Confederacy.

---

England and France had their own priorities and worries at the time and slavery was just a peace of that. England feared any assistance to the South would put it again at odds with a Union army who had chased them out of the States twice. They also had Canada to consider.

The Frenchies thought they would try their hand in Mexico during this time and again limiting their ability to get involved.

Those factors combined with both a stockpiling of cotton in the decade prior and the Brits deciding they needed additional sources of cotton made the economic cause of supporting the Confederate states less of an issue.

My point was more about people tend to make it a moral issue of Union vs Confederacy with the north being pro fweedumb! And the south being labeled as enslavers of Africans.

Something something War of Northern Aggression....

flown-the-coop said:

---

Setting them "free" is a poorly understood concept / distinction.

Essentially it just confiscated property and disrupted the economies of the southern states. But its did little to change the circumstances of these newly freed slaves.

---

Yeah. The northern abolishionists were high in zealotry but low in having any actual plans for what to do with 4 million slaves after freeing them.

They could have invited the newly-freed slaves to come live with them in the oh-so-morally-superior North. They could have paid for one-way ship fare to Liberia. They could have given out 40 acres and a mule somewhere on the Western frontier. They could have seized Southern plantations and redistributed the land to the freedmen.

Instead, they chose the path of least resistance and left Black people where they were. To work for their former masters doing the same menial agricultural labor, though getting paid for it. To use Black people as politically pawns against White Southerners -- which is still the case to this day despite the parties' geographic bases having switched.

TBF, the Yankees did establish the Freedmen's Bureau to assist with the freedmen's material and educational needs, but they gave up on it after only 7 years.

exactly. his own quote was "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it,".

he even offered a "compensated emanicpation" where he proposed compensating states for slaves for eventual emancipation.

ironically, his respect for the union and its integrity is also what lead to some situations where he wanted to act, but didn't because he felt it was a violation of the boundaries of government.

LMCane said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Correct. It was a symbolic act.

But as we all know, that symbolic act, with little practical effect, changed the meaning of the war.

The war was no longer about preserving the Union: it became a moral crusade to free the slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation ennobled the war and made it impossible for England and France to join in on the side of the Confederacy.

---

I think one of the major reasons the Emancipation Proclamation was set out

was exactly to keep England and France out of providing support and troops for the Confederacy

---

True and the other primary reason was that Lincoln hoped to incite a slave revolt and create another front for the Confederates in the war, thus causing terror and deaths of many thousands of Southern people of all races. He got the first goal, failed in the second while inventing a myth that the war was fought to free slaves when it was all about subjugation of a sovereign nation.

agrams said:

---

exactly. his own quote was "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it,".

he even offered a "compensated emanicpation" where he proposed compensating states for slaves for eventual emancipation.

ironically, his respect for the union and its integrity is also what lead to some situations where he wanted to act, but didn't because he felt it was a violation of the boundaries of government.

---

Slave bounties of $300 were routinely paid to Unionist slave owners in order to make more cannon fodder for the Union Army. The black soldiers received no bounty money. This is how much Lincoln respected the U.S. Constitution and the "boundaries of government. The Lincoln administration suspended the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, "Writ of Habeas Corpus", arrested members of the MD Legislature, closed~250 newspapers in Union states, and arrested their publishers. He would eventually have 38,000 citizens arrested minus warrants for merely opposing his administration.

flown-the-coop said:

---

It was the economics of slavery, correct.

But its oft use to beat southerners over the head (and to be honest Americans in general) as if it was about freedoms of servitude. It was not.

Want proof? How many years did it take to bring former slaves fully into the fold of America?

Slavery as an economic necessity for the South led to the civil war. The North was becoming less reliant and had moved most of their slaves indoors and began calling them "the help". To this day, most Yankees and all democrats believe the minority class only exists to serve their political and power hungry interests.

---

No, it was the morality and economics of slavery. The Southerners were clearly of the belief that slavery was the natural way of the world and that slavery was a moral imperative. I'd recommend looking at the Articles of Secession and "CSA Vice President" Alex Stephen's Cornerstone Speech.

Quote:

---

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaverysubordination to the superior raceis his natural and normal condition."-Alex S.

---

Quote:

---

"The prevailing ideas entertained by Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong."-Alex S.

---

Quote:

---

"This stone which was rejected by the first builders is become the chief stone of the corner… Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws." Alex S.

---

Quote:

---

"That the African race… were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race… and that in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights." Texas Articles

---

Quote:

---

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States… were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity."-Texas Articles

---

Quote:

---

"They have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery."-South Carolina Articles

---

Quote:

---

"They have endeavored to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common territory of the Union… and have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery."-Mississippi Articles

---