Replies

jeffersondem: "Freeing the slaves was an afterthought, scabbed-on because it was a strategic necessity to accomplish what was in the economic and political best self-interest of Union states.
I figured it was something like that.
I was just seeking your confirmation because so many deny it happened that way."

No, hardly an "afterthought".
It was there from the beginning -- indeed, before the beginning:

The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.
In 1856 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters announced that if anti-slavery Republican John C. Fremont was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.
Fremont was defeated and there were no anti-slavery actions from Washington during Doughfaced Buchanan's administration.
In 1860 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters again announced that if anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.
He was and they did, over slavery.
In early 1861 many Unionists understood that civil war could lead to abolition of slavery.
In spring of 1861 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters provoked, started & declared war against the United States, over the surrender of Fort Sumter, not slavery.
But slavery then immediately reared its head in the form of "Contraband of War" and Congress's August 1861 Confiscation Act.
As the war progressed, slavery became a bigger & bigger issue, leading to a second Confiscation Act in 1862, compensated emancipation in Washington, DC, Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, enlistment of ~200 colored Union regiments and the 1864 13th Amendment.

So slavery was never a mere "afterthought", but rather was at the forefront of many American minds, North & South, from the beginning, indeed, before the beginning.

“No, hardly an “afterthought”.It was there from the beginning — indeed, before the beginning:The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party — anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.In 1856 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters announced that if anti-slavery Republican John C. Fremont was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.Fremont was defeated and there were no anti-slavery actions from Washington during Doughfaced Buchanan's administration.In 1860 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters again announced that if anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president, they would declare secession from the United States.He was and they did, over slavery.In early 1861 many Unionists understood that civil war could lead to abolition of slavery.In spring of 1861 Southern Democrat Fire Eaters provoked, started & declared war against the United States, over the surrender of Fort Sumter, not slavery.But slavery then immediately reared its head in the form of “Contraband of War” and Congress's August 1861 Confiscation Act.As the war progressed, slavery became a bigger & bigger issue, leading to a second Confiscation Act in 1862, compensated emancipation in Washington, DC, Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, enlistment of ~200 colored Union regiments and the 1864 13th Amendment. So slavery was never a mere “afterthought”, but rather was at the forefront of many American minds, North & South, from the beginning, indeed, before the beginning. And freed the slaves, not as an “afterthought”, but as the definition of what it means to be Republican. Sadly, Liz Cheney seems determined to switch parties to the Democrats who fought our bloodiest war over the “States Rights” to keep slavery lawful.”Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck’s General Orders, No. 3.” — Department of Missouri”1. It has been represented that important information respecting the numbers and condition of our forces is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves who are admitted within our lines.In order to remedy this evil it is directed that no such person be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp or of any forces on the march and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom.” So contrary to orders from the now removed Gen. John Fremont, Halleck orders that no fugitive slaves be admitted into Union lines. And there's that word, yet again: “slaves”. For a war which our Lost Causers tell us was not “all about slavery”, that word does seem to pop up regularly. He [Jefferson Davis] condemned the successful Union naval assault on Port Royal, South Carolina, as designed “to pillage” and, most frightening, “to incite a servile insurrection in our midst.” So... even Jefferson Davis, in November 1861, can admit Civil War has something to do with slavery.”

I see you are re-stacking the same wood; the pile does look bigger this time until you notice there are huge holes in it.

If the ole rail splitter, side splitter, nation splitter was here he would tell you to add some seasoned, straight-grained arguments. Something with some heft; some BTUs.

Your soggy, punky offering has been eat-up by termites. There is simply not enough oxygen to get it lit off.

Now the sawyer cries, “Rest!” I recommend you pause for breath.

The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery is what killed off the old Whigs.

Some of the GOP leaders had the strangest way of expressing and demonstrating their heartfelt abolitionism.

GOP Senate candidate Lincoln in an address at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 (CW 2:407; 408-09):

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races....
A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together... Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization... The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

GOP Presidential candidate Lincoln an address at New York City, February 27, 1860 (CW 3:541):

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.''
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

GOP President-elect Lincoln to Duff Green, December 28, 1860 (CW 4:162):

I declare that the maintainance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection, and endurance of our political fabric depends—and I denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes.

GOP President Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 (CW 4:262-63):

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.
I do but quote from one of those speeches when 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 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 its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.''

Spoken like a true abolitionist.

And then there was General Grant. It is notorious that during the war, his wife Julia Dent Grant, visited him on multiple occasions, accompanied by one of her slaves, demonstrating abolitionism.