WI Union accepts CSA Independence with one condition

Slavery may have been the route cause for the differances between North and South by the 1860's but it was not, at least solely, what the war was fought over.
In what sense? The U.S. didn't enter the war with explicit designs upon abolition, but, as others have said, the South's secession was wholly predicated upon the assumption that Lincoln would emancipate the slaves. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.
 
No sane southern political leader would do that.

What sane southern political leaders were there?
I mean, seceding was not a big show of sanity in the first place.
I concur, however, that the premise is basically impossible.
The whole point of secession was predicated upon the perceived necessity of preserving slavery. Also, a lot of Northern politicians, Lincoln included, saw the preservation of the Union as paramount over the issue of slavery.
Nobody is going to be taken seriously with such a proposal.
 
In what sense? The U.S. didn't enter the war with explicit designs upon abolition, but, as others have said, the South's secession was wholly predicated upon the assumption that Lincoln would emancipate the slaves. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.

Beautifully put.
 

jahenders

Banned
It's a bit like France and Germany fighting to a stalemate and then France saying, "OK, I'll agree that you win, but only if you get rid of the Kaiser."
 
In what sense? The U.S. didn't enter the war with explicit designs upon abolition, but, as others have said, the South's secession was wholly predicated upon the assumption that Lincoln would emancipate the slaves. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.

In the sense that the main motivation in the North for going to war was to stop secession and preserve the Union. In the sense that ending Slavery was not the main cause motivating the Federal forces.
 
In the sense that the main motivation in the North for going to war was to stop secession and preserve the Union. In the sense that ending Slavery was not the main cause motivating the Federal forces.

At first not, but it eventually became the main cause that motivated them.
 

Lateknight

Banned
In the sense that the main motivation in the North for going to war was to stop secession and preserve the Union. In the sense that ending Slavery was not the main cause motivating the Federal forces.

I agree to the union the war wasn't about slavery to the south it was.
 

jahenders

Banned
Arguably true, but the cause was ending slavery IN THE UNION. If the US is forced to let the South go, they probably have little concern about the internal politics of the now-foreign nation formed. They're certainly not to make that a main point of any peace negotiations. They'd be much more interested in boundaries, reparations (giving or receiving), peace treaties, and the exchange of prisoners.

At first not, but it eventually became the main cause that motivated them.
 
Go read the actual document regarding seccession; The North banned slavery via states' rights and the South saw the Federal government allowing this to be a violation of its own authority, and their paranoia erupted when Lincoln became president because his ideology matched the north rather than the south, even though he didn't care about slavery. If anyone in the Confederacy cared about States' rights, it was the soliders, but absolutely none of the signatories or politicians involved gave a shit about anything but profit.

In an alternative universe where the Confederacy conquers the entirety of otl USA there are no states rights, only CSA ideology. The idea they cared at all about states rights is silly if you know their history. They dominated the Federal government early on and consistently forced their ideology upon other states via Federal law when it suited their benefit, they cared exclusively about their way of life which included slavery.

Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery, he wanted unity and had 0 intention of getting rid of slavery because it would have divided the country. He only got rid of it as a tactic of war, and the proof is in the fact that the states that had slaves AND didnt rebel weren't forced to outlaw it. If you believe states rights had anything at all to do with the civil war, you have plenty of reason to; it was used as propaganda to get Southerners who wouldn't fight for slavery to fight for the southern rebellion, and it's been used by modern politicians to support modern ideologies, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the south seceding. The South thought it was a right to own people, not that states had rights themselves.
 
Go read the actual document regarding seccession; The North banned slavery via states' rights and the South saw the Federal government allowing this to be a violation of its own authority, and their paranoia erupted when Lincoln became president because his ideology matched the north rather than the south, even though he didn't care about slavery. If anyone in the Confederacy cared about States' rights, it was the soliders, but absolutely none of the signatories or politicians involved gave a shit about anything but profit.

In an alternative universe where the Confederacy conquers the entirety of otl USA there are no states rights, only CSA ideology. The idea they cared at all about states rights is silly if you know their history. They dominated the Federal government early on and consistently forced their ideology upon other states via Federal law when it suited their benefit, they cared exclusively about their way of life which included slavery.

Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery, he wanted unity and had 0 intention of getting rid of slavery because it would have divided the country. He only got rid of it as a tactic of war, and the proof is in the fact that the states that had slaves AND didnt rebel weren't forced to outlaw it. If you believe states rights had anything at all to do with the civil war, you have plenty of reason to; it was used as propaganda to get Southerners who wouldn't fight for slavery to fight for the southern rebellion, and it's been used by modern politicians to support modern ideologies, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the south seceding. The South thought it was a right to own people, not that states had rights themselves.


Gross exaggeration as he made many anti-slavery speeches before the war. The South didn't secede over slavery solely out of paranoia.

What he did was put Union before slavery but part of that was political. If he didn't care less about slavery he could have backed a Federal Slave Code which would have brought back the South. He was completely unwilling to allow slavery to go into the territories . In any case from a sheer logical viewpoint Union HAD to go before slavery as there were only three logical outcomes 1) Union with slavery in which case at least you preserve the Union 2) Union without slavery which is OTL 3) No Union with slavery which is what would have happened if the South won and is the last possibility as if the South won there was no chance of slavery being outlawed. If the North didn't win, it didn't matter what it thought about slavery.
 
At first not, but it eventually became the main cause that motivated them.

Highly doubt that's true. Ending Slavery became a war aim after the Emancipation Proclaimation but I doubt the averaged Unionist cared more about that then they did about saving their country.
 

jahenders

Banned
A rather inaccurate, if not rabid, explanation of everything.

Lincoln did care about slavery before he was elected -- he spoke and wrote about it. It just wasn't his only issue.

Perhaps true that most of the signatories cared more about their way of life than states' rights, but it's unfair to claim that NONE of them cared about ANYTHING but profit. Some were probably cared deeply about states' rights, just as some of the founding fathers did in their skepticism about federalism.

In the CSA, there were definitely states' rights, though they often fell behind the pressing fact of the war. Those states' rights were why so many local militias were kept home by governors when the CSA government wanted them all in the field.

They (Southern leaders) DID have a strong influence on the constitutional convention, but so did other factions. Every faction fought for their own way of life and the things that were important to their state -- that's as true for Massachusetts as it is for Virginia or South Carolina. That opposition of viewpoints is why getting the constitution written and ratified was so hard and why it contains LOTS of compromises -- the electoral college, the bicameral legislature (with different representation), the 3/5 clause, etc.

Again, Lincoln DID care about slavery, even early on. He just wasn't willing to rip the country apart solely about slavery -- he was willing to let the issue work its way through the 'body politic' and eventually into law or amendment. He cared MORE about union than about slavery because he knew that was an existential issue -- win or the Union ceases to exist. Additionally, he tried to work within the rule of law, even during the war. That being the case he COULDN'T outlaw slavery by presidential order and trying to do so would have caused internal revolt and probably the defection of some Northern border states (MD), etc.

Finally, while some modern politicians do use states rights as an arguing point on today's issues it doesn't follow that it's disingenuous to do so. That pesky ol' Constitution does still reserve certain rights to the states, certain to federal, and all the rest to individuals. Further, much of our system of laws, budgets, etc. is specifically set up with states rights and priorities in view. When the federal government tries to overrule that, it gets messy fast -- Obamacare is a recent example -- forcing 50 states to do roughly the same thing within 50 different sets of laws and policies.

So, yes, states rights are "still a thing" and not just political rhetoric.

Go read the actual document regarding seccession; The North banned slavery via states' rights and the South saw the Federal government allowing this to be a violation of its own authority, and their paranoia erupted when Lincoln became president because his ideology matched the north rather than the south, even though he didn't care about slavery. If anyone in the Confederacy cared about States' rights, it was the soliders, but absolutely none of the signatories or politicians involved gave a shit about anything but profit.

In an alternative universe where the Confederacy conquers the entirety of otl USA there are no states rights, only CSA ideology. The idea they cared at all about states rights is silly if you know their history. They dominated the Federal government early on and consistently forced their ideology upon other states via Federal law when it suited their benefit, they cared exclusively about their way of life which included slavery.

Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery, he wanted unity and had 0 intention of getting rid of slavery because it would have divided the country. He only got rid of it as a tactic of war, and the proof is in the fact that the states that had slaves AND didnt rebel weren't forced to outlaw it. If you believe states rights had anything at all to do with the civil war, you have plenty of reason to; it was used as propaganda to get Southerners who wouldn't fight for slavery to fight for the southern rebellion, and it's been used by modern politicians to support modern ideologies, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the south seceding. The South thought it was a right to own people, not that states had rights themselves.
 
Go read the actual document regarding seccession; The North banned slavery via states' rights and the South saw the Federal government allowing this to be a violation of its own authority, and their paranoia erupted when Lincoln became president because his ideology matched the north rather than the south, even though he didn't care about slavery. If anyone in the Confederacy cared about States' rights, it was the soliders, but absolutely none of the signatories or politicians involved gave a shit about anything but profit.

In an alternative universe where the Confederacy conquers the entirety of otl USA there are no states rights, only CSA ideology. The idea they cared at all about states rights is silly if you know their history. They dominated the Federal government early on and consistently forced their ideology upon other states via Federal law when it suited their benefit, they cared exclusively about their way of life which included slavery.

Abraham Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery, he wanted unity and had 0 intention of getting rid of slavery because it would have divided the country. He only got rid of it as a tactic of war, and the proof is in the fact that the states that had slaves AND didnt rebel weren't forced to outlaw it. If you believe states rights had anything at all to do with the civil war, you have plenty of reason to; it was used as propaganda to get Southerners who wouldn't fight for slavery to fight for the southern rebellion, and it's been used by modern politicians to support modern ideologies, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the south seceding. The South thought it was a right to own people, not that states had rights themselves.

This is an Unnecessarily rabid and grossly inaccurate summation. Lincoln DID care about ending slavery, but he was also elected to an office that forced him to uphold the US Constitution, which in effect protected the right of individual US states to declare it legal for human beings to be property owned by others. Absent the Civil War, the best Lincoln could have done was try to chip around the edges. The South's secession (which was a direct result of their fear that Lincoln's Administration would restrict and eventually eliminate human slavery) provided abolitionists the legal cover they needed to immediately eliminate slavery without any need to compensate slave owners - something that would have been absolutely necessary in a peacetime situation.
 
A rather inaccurate, if not rabid, explanation of everything.

Lincoln did care about slavery before he was elected -- he spoke and wrote about it. It just wasn't his only issue.

Perhaps true that most of the signatories cared more about their way of life than states' rights, but it's unfair to claim that NONE of them cared about ANYTHING but profit. Some were probably cared deeply about states' rights, just as some of the founding fathers did in their skepticism about federalism.

In the CSA, there were definitely states' rights, though they often fell behind the pressing fact of the war. Those states' rights were why so many local militias were kept home by governors when the CSA government wanted them all in the field.

They (Southern leaders) DID have a strong influence on the constitutional convention, but so did other factions. Every faction fought for their own way of life and the things that were important to their state -- that's as true for Massachusetts as it is for Virginia or South Carolina. That opposition of viewpoints is why getting the constitution written and ratified was so hard and why it contains LOTS of compromises -- the electoral college, the bicameral legislature (with different representation), the 3/5 clause, etc.

Again, Lincoln DID care about slavery, even early on. He just wasn't willing to rip the country apart solely about slavery -- he was willing to let the issue work its way through the 'body politic' and eventually into law or amendment. He cared MORE about union than about slavery because he knew that was an existential issue -- win or the Union ceases to exist. Additionally, he tried to work within the rule of law, even during the war. That being the case he COULDN'T outlaw slavery by presidential order and trying to do so would have caused internal revolt and probably the defection of some Northern border states (MD), etc.

Finally, while some modern politicians do use states rights as an arguing point on today's issues it doesn't follow that it's disingenuous to do so. That pesky ol' Constitution does still reserve certain rights to the states, certain to federal, and all the rest to individuals. Further, much of our system of laws, budgets, etc. is specifically set up with states rights and priorities in view. When the federal government tries to overrule that, it gets messy fast -- Obamacare is a recent example -- forcing 50 states to do roughly the same thing within 50 different sets of laws and policies.

So, yes, states rights are "still a thing" and not just political rhetoric.


Agreed, it s more a rant then anything else. Just because Lincoln cared about other things besides slavery , like the Union, doesn't mean he cared nothing about it. He made many pre-war speeches about it. If he cared nothing about it the South never would have seceded.

You are right the fact that MOST didn't give a damn about state's rights doesn't mean all of them didn't. In any case the South was not unified about everything not was slavery the only thing that various Southern politicians cared about. Slavery was one issue out of many.

It was the one that united them but even the most pro-slavery politicians like Rhett and Cobb dealt with other issues. It was their most important issue but there were others that they were concerned about which varied from individual to individual. Rhett, for example, really was a state's rightest and a free trader and spent considerable time and thought on that as well. These were real people not cardboard cutouts.

State's rights were actually fairly unimportant. The reason the governors wanted to keep the militia at home was they were needed to keep slaves under control . They were terrified of slave revolts before and during the entire war.

Agreed, with the EP. Not only would simply outlawing slavery everywhere by decree risk the border states it would be clearly illegal. He was pushing as is with his commander in chief powers. There is a good argument to be made that although it was the right thing to do it was also unconstitutional. The commander in chief powers is about the only way he could do it and it would clearly not apply to areas not in rebellion.

I am not a big supporter of state's rights but to say it is only about racism is grossly unfair. At least two decent arguments can be made for state's rights.
One is that they can be used as "testing grounds" for various policies that can be used by other states or the Federal government if they work or discarded and not tried elsewhere if they don't. Another argument is that in a country the size of the US you need differing policies for different areas. New York is not Arizona and what works in one may not work in the other. There are probably other arguments people can make.
 
Top