Battle of Appomattox: Understanding General Lee's Surrender

General Lee invaded the North twice !

“Robert E. Lee firmly believed that for the Confederacy to survive he needed to win a major victory on Northern soil. He was to get two chances to put this theory to the test, and each case he was to loose his battle.”

“All in all, Lee took 50,000 men into Maryland on 4 September, crossing the Potomac about thirty miles west of Washington.

On 7 September Lee’s army stopped at Frederick, north of its crossing point. There Lee hoped to recruit secessionist Marylanders, but the secessionist areas of the state were further east and south. The first part of Lee’s plan to fail was his hope for reinforcements from Maryland.

The same day saw McClellan lead an 85,000 Union army out of the Washington defences to face Lee. Another 72,000 men were left behind to defend Washington. This was a serious mistake, not because McClellan’s army was too small, but because he had convinced himself that Lee had 100,000 men, and so he was outnumbered!

Lee’s original plan had been to march north through Maryland into Pennsylvania, but he now allowed his entire campaign to be derailed by the small Federal garrison at Harpers Ferry, to his west on the Potomac. On 10 September Lee’s army left Frederick, and headed west. Lee now took a massive gamble, splitting his army into five segments. Three were to concentrate against Harper’s Ferry, while two guarded the routes east and north. Lee was confident that he could capture Harpers Ferry and reunite the army before McClellan got anywhere near, or possibly even before he realised that Lee had split his forces.

This was improbable to say the least. McClellan was receiving a great deal of accurate intelligence about Lee’s movements now he was in Maryland, but on 13 September he received a stroke of luck that should have allowed him to role up Lee’s entire army. A copy of Lee’s Special Order 191, detailing his plan for the attack on Harpers Ferry, was found by two Union solders. Worse, the copy was written in handwriting that was recognised as belonging to Lee’s assistant adjutant-general. The order was genuine, and McClellan accepted it as such.

Even with this information, McClellan still proved incapable of moving quickly. On 14 September he managed to force his way through the mountain passes north of Harpers Ferry, but then halted again. Harpers Ferry did not fall to the Confederates until the following day, 15 September. On that same day, Lee decided to move his part of the army, some 15,000 men, south to Sharpsburg, with Antietam Creek running south to north just to his east. The first Federal units reached the east bank of the creek at noon on the same day.

This was McClellan’s great chance. The bulk of his army was no more than half a days march away. On 15 September he could have attacked Lee’s 15,000-20,000 men with most of his 80,000. The following day part of the Harpers Ferry force reached Lee, but even at the end of the day he only had 25,000 men. Still McClellan did not attack.

Finally, on 17 September McClellan attacked. The resulting Battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg saw a series of determined but uncoordinated Union attacks that came close to breaking Lee’s line on several occasions. On each occasion, McClellan failed to support the attack, and convinced that he was still outnumbered never used his reserves. Antietam saw the highest casualty figures of any single days fighting in the entire war. Lee lost 2,700 dead, 9,024 wounded and 2,000 missing out of a total force of 40,000. Union losses were 2,108 killed, 9,549 wound and 753 missing out, similar total numbers out of a much larger army.

McClellan was given yet another chance on 18 September. Lee remained in his lines all day, with his forces down to at most 30,000 men. McClellan had nearly that many fresh soldiers who had taken no part in the fighting on the previous day, but was still convinced that Lee had massive reserves, and did not attack. Finally, during the evening of 18 September Lee withdrew across the Potomac back into Virginia.

Antietam was McClellan’s last great chance to defeat Lee. On 7 November he was finally replaced as commander of the Army of the Potomac. He persisted in claiming Antietam as a military masterpiece. Although it was far from that, it did have long reaching effects. For some time Lincoln had been waiting for a victory before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Antietem was enough of a victory. The Proclamation helped change the nature of the war, giving the Union cause a great moral advantage. Antietam also discouraged any thoughts the British government might have had about recognising the Confederacy. Lee’s gamble had failed.”

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_civil_war05_invading_north.html

So you always argue with yourself?

“I argue with fools, morons and ignorants all the time”

The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands.

Most of the slaves got there overland, as did most of the free white settlers -- and often by foot. Others came down the Mississippi on flatboats or steamboats. In the last years before the war, some got there by railroad.

As for the slaves who were transported by ship, there were Southern slave trading firms in Baltimore, Richmond, Alexandria, Norfolk, Charleston and elsewhere that were rich enough to own ships and did.

Franklin and Armfield of Alexandria owned four ships, the United States, the Tribune, the Uncas, and the Isaac Franklin, and sent a ship of slaves to New Orleans twice a month. In the 1830s they were sending an average of 1200 enslaved people a year by ship to the Gulf ports, as well as other slaves by land routes, and were responsible for most of the slave sales in Natchez.

"Slave North" appears to take at face value Southern claims that the North controlled coastal shipping and assumed that Southerners didn't play a role in shipping between Southern cities.

But that's not true. Some Northerners were involved, but it would be a mistake to conclude that they had the largest share of responsibility in the domestic slave trade.

It was a war between democrats and republicans. not North and South.

So try again.

Not really, no. Your contention was that slavery was an afterthought. That it didn't enter into the equation until long after the rebellion began. In fact it was the reason for the rebellion and withouth it the South wouldn't have launched their war. --------------- Your reading comprehension is lacking. My contention is that the Civil War was about State's Rights. And you confuse the institution of slavery with the individual slave. The South went to war about State's Rights and to preserve the institution of slavery. Freeing of the slave not slavery was the afterthought in this war. Lincoln sided with the Abolitionist and some say he was. However, his stance was to keep the status quo rather than rock the boat. The slaves freed in DC was not something Lincoln brought forward, meaning he didn't actively campaign for it. It was brought forward by a Senator in Congress and then passed almost 1 year into Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln gets the credit because he signed the Bill into law. Here is a quote from Lincoln in his first Inauguration Address on March 4, 1861 (remember I stated the the institution of slavery not slavery itself. If you are confused on this aspect, think of agriculture as an institution but the farmer who participates in that industry. When speaking of the institution of slavery, this is about all aspects of slavery not just the slave himself) "I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. And more than this, they have placed in the platform for my acceptance and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: 'Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to to its own judgement exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." Lincoln goes on to question slavery as it stands in the Constitution, but not only of the African slave, "Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in several States?" Lincoln in the above quote is referring to the clause of the Constitution in which he states in his speech "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the law thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." Lincoln was all about the rule of law and enforcing said law. Lincoln hated slavery, he believed it was protected by the Constitution. Seven states had already announced their secession at the time of his inauguration. The Rule of Law is one of his largest traits as President as he studied law before becoming President. Here he is talking to the fact that African slaves made it North could be free and he stating no because of the US Constitution this was not true. An African slave who was found in the North could be taken back to their owner because of the Constitution. Remember the Underground Railroad? During Lincoln's campaign and his entrance into becoming President, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the African slave. This is one of the biggest misnomers about President Lincoln. Lincoln was more about the rule of law than the freeing of slaves. Then there is the famous letter to the influential editor, Horace Greeley, of the New York Times on August 22, 1862: "As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you [Horace Greeley] say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln." Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim. As to States' rights, most do not know President Lincoln was elected without a single Southern Electoral vote (A reason why Electoral College is so important? Since then the demoncraps have been trying to get rid of it). I actually addressed one aspect of States' rights through the Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 and the battle that ensued. Without going further into detail, I should have addressed it more. The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 was to address the Western Expansion of the United States. Those proponents of Slavery wished to take slavery West. The Federal Government, through the Act of 1854, left it up to the people of the territory when the territory became a state. The Battle that ensued along the Missouri border was about those who wanted slaves in Kansas and those who did not. People were killed on each side and is debated as the "unofficial" start of the Civil War a few years later. President Lincoln while against slavery as an Abolitionist and a true Republican (not the repubes we have in office today) did not take this task lightly. It is documented that he came to the decision to free the slaves only during the Civil War. He saw the blood being spilt to keep the United States together and that was one of his major focuses. However, he could not justify himself with God that the blood spilt in the name of our Forefathers when they wrote that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...". And it was Madison that explained years after Constitutional Convention that this clause in the Declaration of Independence would eventually lead to freedom of the slaves and its ending of slavery. This is why the words "slave" and "n-gro" do not appear anywhere in the Declaration nor the Constitution. So the freeing of the slaves was a decision by Lincoln during the war about issues dealing with slavery. Slavery was a major issue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as Madison stated there was more to the slavery issue than was recorded and it remained a pervasive and persistent issue leading up to the Civil War in 1861. The issue was at the forefront of the expansion West and it was the issue of the South wanting to assert itself over the federal government and it was an economical issue of the day. The New York Times founder was an Abolitionist and father to the Republican party but was removed from the NYT when he took a hard stance against Southern states during the time of Reconstruction. At the time President Lincoln is said to have stated that the Southern states had never left the Union. The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery in its many forms and Lincoln came to the conclusion that it was unjust for the Declaration to state all men were created equal and spill the blood of many fine Americans without freeing them in the end. The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war. In fact the Civil War issue of slavery was not based on morals but rather of an economic nature and I have always maintained that. Everything in this God-given world boils down to the issue of money as it states in the Bible, it is the root of Evil. (The word all does not appear in that statement. IF you disagree go look it up). Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863. President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion. August 30 1861 - - General John C. Frémont issued a military proclamation declaring slaves of disloyal owners free in the state of Missouri (Fremont's Proclamation) September 11, 1861 - Due to fear of alienating “Southern friends,” Lincoln ordered General Frémont to modify his emancipation decree in order to conform to US law, which held that only slaves who were themselves acting in armed rebellion could be confiscated and emancipated. Frémont refused Lincoln’s orders and was dismissed from his post. DECEMBER 1, 1861 - President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware for compensated emancipation of slaves. Lincoln felt that compensated emancipation would be acceptable to most voters and would result in gradual emancipation throughout the country. However, his proposal was narrowly defeated in Delaware. JUNE 19, 1862 -President Lincoln signed a law barring slavery in all current and future federal territories. By this act, Congress and President Lincoln rejected the notion of popular sovereignty and repudiated the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Like I said I could quote Lincoln all day disputing the fact that freeing the slaves was an after thought and not the main focus of the Civil War. It became the focus after September 1862. The focus was to preserve the Union.

- Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Perhaps it's due to your lack of paragraphs and breaks in your text?

My contention is that the Civil War was about State's Rights.

What triggered my initial disagreement was your claim in your reply 46 that "Again the Civil War was over States’ Rights not slavery...It was an after thought to the Civil War, meaning it didn’t even occur to politicians until at least a year and a half into the war to free the slaves." That is patently false because Southern politicians made it clear from the very first days of the Southern rebellion that they were motivated by defending their institution of slavery.

Not quite correct. The slaves in Galveston freed on “Junteenth” were probably the last slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The last slaves in the United States (in Kentucky and Delaware) were not freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified on Dec 6, 1865

Before you chide me on the wall of text (something that the computer did) I edited that post into a more readable form.

----------------------

You [DoodleDawg] wrote:

Not really, no. Your contention was that slavery was an afterthought. That it didn't enter into the equation until long after the rebellion began. In fact it was the reason for the rebellion and withouth it the South wouldn't have launched their war.

---------------

Your reading comprehension is lacking. My contention is that the Civil War was about State's Rights. And you confuse the institution of slavery (economic) with the individual slave (mopral).

The South went to war about State's Rights and to preserve the institution of slavery. Freeing of the slave not slavery was the afterthought in this war. Lincoln sided with the Abolitionist and some say he was. However, his stance was to keep the status quo rather than rock the boat. The slaves freed in DC was not something Lincoln brought forward, meaning he didn't actively campaign for it. It was brought forward by a Senator in Congress and then passed almost 1 year into Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln gets the credit because he signed the Bill into law. Here is a quote from Lincoln in his first Inauguration Address on March 4, 1861 (remember I stated the the institution of slavery not slavery itself. If you are confused on this aspect, think of agriculture as an institution but the farmer who participates in that industry. When speaking of the institution of slavery, this is about all aspects of slavery not just the slave himself)

"I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them. And more than this, they have placed in the platform for my acceptance and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: 'Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to to its own judgement exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Lincoln goes on to question slavery as it stands in the Constitution, but not only of the African slave,

"Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in several States?"

Lincoln in the above quote is referring to the clause of the Constitution in which he states in his speech

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the law thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Lincoln was all about the rule of law and enforcing said law. Lincoln hated slavery, he believed it was protected by the Constitution. Seven states had already announced their secession at the time of his inauguration. The Rule of Law is one of his largest traits as President as he studied law before becoming President.

Here he is talking to the fact that African slaves made it North could be free and he stating no because of the US Constitution this was not true. An African slave who was found in the North could be taken back to their owner because of the Constitution. Remember the Underground Railroad? During Lincoln's campaign and his entrance into becoming President, Lincoln had no intention of freeing the African slave. This is one of the biggest misnomers about President Lincoln. Lincoln was more about the rule of law than the freeing of slaves.

Then there is the famous letter to the influential editor, Horace Greeley, of the New York Times on August 22, 1862:

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you [Horace Greeley] say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln."

Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union.

With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim. As to States' rights, most do not know President Lincoln was elected without a single Southern Electoral vote (A reason why Electoral College is so important? Since then the demoncraps have been trying to get rid of it). I actually addressed one aspect of States' rights through the Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 and the battle that ensued. Without going further into detail, I should have addressed it more. The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 was to address the Western Expansion of the United States. Those proponents of Slavery wished to take slavery West. The Federal Government, through the Act of 1854, left it up to the people of the territory when the territory became a state. The Battle that ensued along the Missouri border was about those who wanted slaves in Kansas and those who did not. People were killed on each side and is debated as the "unofficial" start of the Civil War a few years later.

President Lincoln while against slavery as an Abolitionist and a true Republican (not the repubes we have in office today) did not take this task lightly. It is documented that he came to the decision to free the slaves only during the Civil War. He saw the blood being spilt to keep the United States together and that was one of his major focuses. However, he could not justify himself with God that the blood spilt in the name of our Forefathers when they wrote that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...". And it was Madison that explained years after Constitutional Convention that this clause in the Declaration of Independence would eventually lead to freedom of the slaves and its ending of slavery. This is why the words "slave" and "n-gro" do not appear anywhere in the Declaration nor the Constitution.

So the freeing of the slaves was a decision by Lincoln during the war about issues dealing with slavery. Slavery was a major issue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as Madison stated there was more to the slavery issue than was recorded and it remained a pervasive and persistent issue leading up to the Civil War in 1861.

The issue was at the forefront of the expansion West and it was the issue of the South wanting to assert itself over the federal government (STate's rights) and it was an economical issue of the day. The New York Times founder was an Abolitionist and father to the Republican party but was removed from the NYT when he took a hard stance against Southern states during the time of Reconstruction. At the time President Lincoln is said to have stated that the Southern states had never left the Union.

The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery in its many forms and Lincoln came to the conclusion that it was unjust for the Declaration to state all men were created equal and spill the blood of many fine Americans without freeing them in the end. The Emancipation Proclamation changed the focus of the war. In fact the Civil War issue of slavery was not based on morals but rather of an economic nature and I have always maintained that.

Everything in this God-given world boils down to the issue of money as it states in the Bible, it is the root of Evil. (The word all does not appear in that statement. IF you disagree go look it up).

Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd, 1862. It stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then Proclamation would go into effect.

When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863. President Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy. Being careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the Emancipation Proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion.

August 30 1861 - - General John C. Frémont issued a military proclamation declaring slaves of disloyal owners free in the state of Missouri (Fremont's Proclamation)

September 11, 1861 - Due to fear of alienating “Southern friends,” Lincoln ordered General Frémont to modify his emancipation decree in order to conform to US law, which held that only slaves who were themselves acting in armed rebellion could be confiscated and emancipated. Frémont refused Lincoln’s orders and was dismissed from his post.

DECEMBER 1, 1861 - President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware for compensated emancipation of slaves. Lincoln felt that compensated emancipation would be acceptable to most voters and would result in gradual emancipation throughout the country. However, his proposal was narrowly defeated in Delaware.

JUNE 19, 1862 -President Lincoln signed a law barring slavery in all current and future federal territories. By this act, Congress and President Lincoln rejected the notion of popular sovereignty and repudiated the 1857 Dred Scott decision.

Like I said I could quote Lincoln all day disputing the fact that freeing the slaves was an after thought and not the main focus of the Civil War. It became the focus after September 1862. The focus was to preserve the Union.

Like I said I could quote Lincoln all day disputing the fact that freeing the slaves was an after thought and not the main focus of the Civil War.

I'm sure you could. But your claim still was "Again the Civil War was over States’ Rights not slavery...It was an after thought to the Civil War, meaning it didn’t even occur to politicians until at least a year and a half into the war to free the slaves." It certainly wasn't an after thought to the Southern leaders. It was their primary reason for their rebellion from day one and not something they thought about a year and a half into the rebellion. So it what you meant to say was that it was an afterthought to Northern politicians then that would be more understandable if not entirely accurate.

Nope. The slaves in the Confederate states were freed 1-1-63 by the Emancipation proclamation.

Dude….paragraphs please.

By decree but not by fact.

The decree was only effective where there were Republican bayonets.

The democrats retook Galveston on that very day, so the slaves in Galveston were not freed until Republican bayonets returned on Jun 19th

What are you talking about? The mid-19th century Republicans were strong federalist, pro-banking, and pro Cronie-Capitalism. The 19th century democrats tended to be state-rights, support of the common man (unless you were black). The Republicans of that time were hated by the south, and extremely popular in the northeast.

Issues have changed since those times, and the parties have evolved, or to some degree flipped their platforms along with their regions of supporters.

The Democrat party formed in opposition to the Missouri compromise (1820).
- That compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
- It also prohibited slavery in the new Louisiana Purchase territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north

democrats “...objected to any bill that imposed federal restrictions on slavery and believed that it was a state issue, as settled by the Constitution.”

It took them a long time, but eventually they managed to pass the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854.

That allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to VOTE on if they would be free or slave states.

That ushered in a very violent period in Kansas as both sides sought to gain power to win the issue for the State - and thus for the country by swinging the balance of power.

The Republican party formed in 1854 in direct opposition to Douglas (a top democrat) Kansas-Nebraska act.

That was the root issue in the contention between the two political parties from 1854 to 1860.

In 1860, sitting Vice President John C. Breckenridge split the democrat party into two factions. Douglas led the original rump party. Breckenridge took the splitters.

Had the party remained together and campaigned together, perhaps they could have retained the House and the Presidency.

Imagine how history would have been different had the democrats chosen to remain?

They still controlled the Senate by one vote 30D-29R-1No Nothing. So they should have been able to ‘stone-wall’ most changes for four years. Plus they controlled the Judiciary.

The Republican rise was meteoric. In the House

............Dem..Rep..Whig..KnowNothing
1852-1853...150....0....68.....0...
1854-1855....83...13....54....51...
1856-1857...132...90.....0....14...
1858-1859....83...113....4....14...
1860-1861....44...106....0.....0...(31 Unionist)

You can’t even be bothered to list the TOP issue for the Republicans?

The issue that caused their (redacted) FORMATION !!!

SHAME ON YOU.

That just proves that the Republicans were willing to bend over backwards to the corrupt, toxic slave owning democrats to preserve the Union.

Don't try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. The Republicans offered the South continuous protection for slavery. It was an *AMENDMENT* to the US Constitution guaranteeing slavery indefinitely.

Therefore, you cannot come along after the fact and pretend that slavery had a d@mn thing to do with why the Northern states attacked the South.

Trying to make it about slavery is deliberate deceit. If it were about slavery, they never would have offered the deal. They offered the deal, the deal was rejected, therefore it was never about slavery.

The Democrats refused and initiated a bloody civil war to maintain their right to keep and spread slavery.

They already *HAD* the right to keep slavery, and the *REPUBLICANS* were offering them even *MORE* protection for the right to keep slavery!

As long as they stayed in the Union, they would have *ALWAYS* had the right to keep slavery. But you and others like you are trying to make us believe that the North went to war to take that right away from them, (they did not) and that they went to war because the North was trying to take that right away from them. (they did not)

The truth is the North was falling all over themselves to reassure the South that they would *NEVER* threaten slavery.

And as for expansion, it was economically impossible to "expand" slavery. There is no place in the territories at that time where it would have been possible to set up cotton plantations, and slaves were too valuable in the cotton industry to waste on lesser paying tasks.

There would never have been any "expansion", and "expansion" has also now been proven to be a lie.

Democrats have always been democrats. Support for “states rights” only extended as far as their immediate desires. Far from being underdogs the democrats ruled the roost politically for most of the nation’s beginning.

As for supporting the “common man” almost every society has its class-consciousness but the Southern Slavocracy went a step further with a virtual caste system. Chances of breaking through the stratified layers were extraordinarily poor.

No, the parties didn’t “trade places” or any of that nonsense.

What does Maryland, whose leaders decided not to secede, have to do with the confederate states that did?

In this very sentence you allude that the war was about leaving, and not about slavery. Bravo. You proved my point that the war was not about slavery.

Again, if the Northern reason for invading was slavery, they would have started in Maryland. Their reason for invading was not slavery, therefore the war was not about slavery.

They were the “drug runners” of their time! But slaves instead of drugs.

And the Southerners bought every last one of them.

So the drug dealers are better people than the drug users?

Didn't see that one coming from you.

I would think the dealers were worse.