Civil war was not about slavery

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by sandpit

There's no disputing there were more slaves in the South than the North, but what's ridiculous is your census numbers. Being a lifelong Kentuckian who knows the history of my state, I know there were plenty of slaves in my non-Confederate state. So here are some numbers for you from civilwar.net:

Kentucky: 225,483 slaves
and a few more non-Southern states...
Maryland: 87,189
Missouri: 114,931
Nebraska: 15

Congrats, you got Delaware and Kansas correct.

And to make sure, my family had NOTHING to do with that 15.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

Simply put, I don't believe many of those statements of why this or that. To me the evidence is crystal clear.

Just like I believe that Lincoln wrote The Emancipation Proclamation when he did -- so that he could increase the size of the Union Army. Not because he chose that moment to the right thing for the slaves.

It was always about the money. The southern economy was off the charts amazing because they did not have to pay for labor. There was no way they were going to give up that incredible advantage without a fight.

The south attacked Fort Sumter when they did because they believed Congress was about to "free the slaves" and destroy that advantaged economy that they had. Turns out they were wrong. There was still great opposition in Congress to ending slavery when the attack occurred.

Seems that Texas seized upon the opportunity to make their own points known.

Lincoln had strategic and tactical reasons for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but not "so that he could increase the size of the Union Army," which was merely a side benefit. It freed no slaves in Unionist border states, nor in Southern states that were under U.S. military control. It affected only those states in which he had no power at the time to enforce it.

His strategic reason for the Proclamation was to influence British public opinion and keep England from recognizing the Confederate States of America (and entering the war). It took him two years into the war to issue it, out of fear that his own troops would rebel and desert the Union Army if he made it a war to end slavery. (As Lincoln told Sen. Charles Sumner, who was pressing him on emancipation early on, "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise.") After early Confederate victories in major battles, Lincoln heeded the advice of his Secretary of State to wait until a significant Union victory to issue it, which he did, immediately following the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam). His first draft of it, by the way, called for gradual emancipation and compensation to slave owners.

His tactical reason for the Proclamation was to deprive the South of the manpower necessary to sustain the war effort, in both domestic food production and on the military front, where the Confederate armies used slaves for manual labor building fortifications, roads, etc, in order to free white soldiers to fight.

You are correct that there was opposition in Congress to abolishing slavery. Even after all the seceding states' delegations had departed D.C., the Corwin Amendment (ironically, it would have been the 13th) easily passed both houses of a now exclusively-Northern Congress -- with Lincoln's approval. It would have permanently prohibited Congress from interfering with the institution of slavery where it then existed. The outbreak of war rendered it moot before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

Mule

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Mulerider

Lincoln had strategic and tactical reasons for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but not "so that he could increase the size of the Union Army," which was merely a side benefit. It freed no slaves in Unionist border states, nor in Southern states that were under U.S. military control. It affected only those states in which he had no power at the time to enforce it.

His strategic reason for the Proclamation was to influence British public opinion and keep England from recognizing the Confederate States of America (and entering the war). It took him two years into the war to issue it, out of fear that his own troops would rebel and desert the Union Army if he made it a war to end slavery. (As Lincoln told Sen. Charles Sumner, who was pressing him on emancipation early on, "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise.") After early Confederate victories in major battles, Lincoln heeded the advice of his Secretary of State to wait until a significant Union victory to issue it, which he did, immediately following the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam). His first draft of it, by the way, called for gradual emancipation and compensation to slave owners.

His tactical reason for the Proclamation was to deprive the South of the manpower necessary to sustain the war effort, in both domestic food production and on the military front, where the Confederate armies used slaves for manual labor building fortifications, roads, etc, in order to free white soldiers to fight.

You are correct that there was opposition in Congress to abolishing slavery. Even after all the seceding states' delegations had departed D.C., the Corwin Amendment (ironically, it would have been the 13th) easily passed both houses of a now exclusively-Northern Congress -- with Lincoln's approval. It would have permanently prohibited Congress from interfering with the institution of slavery where it then existed. The outbreak of war rendered it moot before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

Mule

I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.

Fantastic stuff.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.

What part of it was wrong? Without checking the details, nothing stood out to me as a major error.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I absolutely love people that want to recreate history from over 200 years, like THEY were in the room, and like they 100% know what happened.

Fantastic stuff.

It is what it is. Civil War history is fascinating because it is the first "modern" war, and well documented both politically and militarily. Thus, I'm always amazed by some Southerners' argument that the war was about states' rights, not slavery. I'm a card-carrying member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, but there is no doubt what the war was about, and that is slavery. Without the perceived threat to slavery, secession wouldn't have occurred.

That said, I'm equally amazed at the tone of moral superiority used against Southerners regarding slavery and racism. The North had the luxury of the moral high ground only because it could never quite make slavery profitable. As in most things, money talks. If cotton was a cold-weather crop (you know, like turnips), then the roles of the two sides could easily have been reversed.

Mule

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Clocker

What part of it was wrong? Without checking the details, nothing stood out to me as a major error.

Beat me to it. I looked around a little, seems in line with what I learned in the 8th grade (we did a whole semester on the civil war) and matched a few things I found doing a google search.

I had relatives on both sides. A couple were brothers. I had one relative that fought the first half of the war on the North side and the 2nd half on the South. I can imagine attitudes and opinions may have swung wildly for a few years.