How much Was The Civil War About The Emancipation Of Slaves?

[SlickWilly]

Inevitably the South must give these humans freedom any way! Also how can the army that faught a civil war to do this eventually massacered native Americans!

[Know Nothing]

Originally Posted by SlickWilly

Inevitably the South must give these humans freedom any way!

The southern slave states broke away because they feared the North would free slaves. Slavery would be perpetual if the Confederacy wins independence.

[MAlexMatt]

Originally Posted by Know Nothing

The southern slave states broke away because they feared the North would free slaves. Slavery would be perpetual if the Confederacy wins independence.

They weren't so much worried about the North pursuing abolition, as they were about the North pursuing national policies contrary to the slave-based model of political economy the slave states were dependent on. Lincoln himself said he had no interest in freeing slaves. The South was just worried that they'd be forced indirectly by circumstance (rather than directly by law) to adopt the free labor model of the North if tariff walls jumped upwards and other pro-Northern industrialist policies started to win out consistently in the Federal government.

It was kind of a roundabout fear, as it were.

Still rooted in slavery, of course, but the new perspective more accurately models the motives of Northern politicians.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

They weren't so much worried about the North pursuing abolition, as they were about the North pursuing national policies contrary to the slave-based model of political economy the slave states were dependent on. Lincoln himself said he had no interest in freeing slaves. The South was just worried that they'd be forced indirectly by circumstance (rather than directly by law) to adopt the free labor model of the North if tariff walls jumped upwards and other pro-Northern industrialist policies started to win out consistently in the Federal government.

It was kind of a roundabout fear, as it were.

Still rooted in slavery, of course, but the new perspective more accurately models the motives of Northern politicians.

More accurately they thought that the Republicans would gain control of the Senate after one Free State after another got in and with a Republican POUS and House abolition would eventually come. Maybe not in their lifetime but in their children's lifetime. After that "Black Barbarians" who can't be controlled unless enslaved would run riot raping their wives and daughters and pillaging the countryside.

[Nytram01]

Undoubtedly the Southern States were growing increasingly worried about the abolitionist movement in the north and this, coupled with a lose of power in Congress meant that they feared their long established economic system, they thing that had made many of them very wealthy, would cease to exist. So secession was, in many way, a product of this.

However the North did not go to war with the intent of freeing the Slave nor was abolition a war aim. The North went to war with the intent of crushing the rebellion and the aim of preserving the Union. The morale implications of Slavery did not play on the widespread consciences of the Northern people, nor did the desire to end that institution, many Northerners couldn't have cared less about the subject, the main, unifying goal of the North was simply to keep the United States together.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

Undoubtedly the Southern States were growing increasingly worried about the abolitionist movement in the north and this, coupled with a lose of power in Congress meant that they feared their long established economic system, they thing that had made many of them very wealthy, would cease to exist. So secession was, in many way, a product of this.

However the North did not go to war with the intent of freeing the Slave nor was abolition a war aim. The North went to war with the intent of crushing the rebellion and the aim of preserving the Union. The morale implications of Slavery did not play on the widespread consciences of the Northern people, nor did the desire to end that institution, many Northerners couldn't have cared less about the subject, the main, unifying goal of the North was simply to keep the United States together.

This is of course true. However, Free Soilers were growing in power and it isn't that far a step from Free Soiler to Abolitionist. They were worried if it wasn't stopped then that within their children's lifetime it would come and then newly Free Blacks would rape and pillage the countryside as they though Blacks were naturally savage animals that need the "civilizing effect of slavery" to keep them under control. They may have been complete bigots but that doesn't mean they didn't love their children and didn't worry what might happen to them when they were gone.

[Zmflavius]

My personal opinion is that to be honest, most people who wanted to retain the south didn't give two shits about slaves, but that slavery was still a major cause of the ACW. There was, of course, the fact that the South feared that the North would free their slaves, but I recall that there was a great deal of anger over Lincoln's election, despite failing to carry even a single southern state (which, frankly, probably has to do with forcibly disenfranchising a third of your none-too-big population base), which could be viewed as symptomatic of a larger problem of the South simply being too backwards, the result of being an agricultural state within a rising industrial power.

[Johnrankins]

They didn't think so. Southerners thought they could keep slavery indefinitely Jefferson Davis said so, Robert E Lee said so, Alexander Stephans said so who else do you want? Bedford Forrest flat out said "If we aren't fighting for slavery what are we fighting for?". BTW they contributed to slaughtering Native Americans as much as Northerners.

[Snake Featherston]

It was always about emancipation, or more precisely the fear that, having shown that breaking the Democratic Party deliberately could indeed lead to a Northern sectional party winning the electoral college on a platform of limiting the spread of slavery into the Western territories in general and Kansas in particular, this would transform in the near future into full-scale abolition of slavery. However this fear on the part of the South by no means led to such policies on the part of the Lincoln Administration, which was drawn into this by the contingent nature of the war, chiefly in slaves themselves forcing their emancipation on an unwilling Union government. It was not Lincoln that freed the slaves, it was the slaves that freed themselves. This unpalatable fact got neglected by both sides.

In the event the shift to emancipation as a war policy gave the late Civil War an extremely convoluted kaleidoscopes of politics, while nothing at all guarantees the CSA "has" to free slaves in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by SlickWilly

Also how can the army that faught a civil war to do this eventually massacered native Americans!

It can do that very easily. Once a nation is armed and already been bloodied by war it is easier to adopt it as a course of action to consider against enemies, real or perceived. Just think of Clauswitz's great quote regarding war and politics.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

It can do that very easily. Once a nation is armed and already been bloodied by war it is easier to adopt it as a course of action to consider against enemies, real or perceived. Just think of Clauswitz's great quote regarding war and politics.

Both Northerners and Southerners did so BEFORE THE WAR. How do you think the US got all that land in the first place? That is what happened in those days. If you wanted some land and the natives were too weak to protect it you kicked them out and took over. Whites weren't the only ones to do this, Asians, Africans and Native Americans all did this as well.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

It can do that very easily. Once a nation is armed and already been bloodied by war it is easier to adopt it as a course of action to consider against enemies, real or perceived. Just think of Clauswitz's great quote regarding war and politics.

Well, given that the American Revolutionary War was a stab in the back to loyal indigenous allies of the British Empire......

[Baron Bizarre]

"Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir."

- The Simpsons, Episode 3F20: "Much Apu About Nothing"

[ChucK Y]

I wonder whether "preserving the Union" was a stand-in for slavery for some people. There was not widespread enough support for abolition to make it the public rationale for the war, so I can see some abolitionists using preserving the Union as the issue in public, leaving slavery as the unmentioned elephant in the room. Consider that in a month after the start of the war, "John Brown's Body" became a popular marching song. This seems a spontaneous expression of slavery as a major issue. I think that soldiers in particular were more likely to have slavery as their main issue, than the general population.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by ChucK Y

I wonder whether "preserving the Union" was a stand-in for slavery for some people. There was not widespread enough support for abolition to make it the public rationale for the war, so I can see some abolitionists using preserving the Union as the issue in public, leaving slavery as the unmentioned elephant in the room. Consider that in a month after the start of the war, "John Brown's Body" became a popular marching song. This seems a spontaneous expression of slavery as a major issue. I think that soldiers in particular were more likely to have slavery as their main issue, than the general population.

Particularly in the New England states where abolishinism was strong. Less so in the more racist southern midwest states not taking about border slave states like KY and Md.