THIS former Ohioan, whose great-grandfather served with the 80th Ohio Volunteer Infantry in Tennessee, Mississippi and even came through Georgia with Sherman, has come to believe that the wrong side won that sad and deadly internecine conflict (which, BTW, was NOT about slavery). The outcome only served to entrench a bloated and tyrannical federal government on ALL the citizens here — black and white — and damaged the Constitution in ways that are only now becoming manifest. My wife’s great-grandfather also served in the Union Army.
(Anyone interested in knowing just WHAT it was about can visit http://reformed-theology.org/realaudio/ and scroll down to the 4 part series beginning with “The Causes of the War for Southern Independence.”)
Having said that, I find it incredibly interesting that many of the former slaves who went north eventually crossed over into Canada. If the North was so anxious to see these folks “freed,” why did they shuttle them off to Canada? I doubt that slave bounty hunters were safely active in those northern border states.
More liberal hypocrisy?
“which, BTW, was NOT about slavery”
Then exactly what was it about?
I too, have at least two great, great, great, great, great grandfathers who served with the Union during the Civil War. It was a father and son. One served in the 12th Indiana (only existed for one year) and the other served in the 60th Indiana for three years.
I agree that some very bad things happened on the Federal level because of the Civil War, but I don’t blame them on Lincoln. Had the Southern states not pushed for secession, the war probably would not have occured. It certainly would have been painful economically for the South, but ultimately they would have come through a post-slavery world.
I don’t mean to be contentious, but I don’t think it is accurate to say that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was the most contentious issue of the day, not the only issue, but the most volatle one. Lincoln said several times in his debates with Douglas, and some of his campaign speeches as well, that although he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, he did not believe that a president could interfere where it already existed. He would have no legal recourse for doing so. But, as I said, he was very much against slavery extending into the new states that would be formed out of the territories in the west. He clearly stated that his primary reason for opposing slavery in the new states was that he believed slavery to be morally wrong. That doesn’t mean that he believed blacks and whites were intellectually or socially equal - only that everyone had a right to enjoy the fruits of his/her own labor.
Lincoln was also against secession as advocated by many Southern political leaders because he saw it as a direct threat to the existence of the country. How could a country long exist if it provided the means for its own extinction? These were among his questions regarding secession.
As has been pointed out by others, it was the immediate threat of secession that Lincoln ultimately went to war with the southern rebel leaders. He saw those leaders as traitors to the country because their actions would lead to the destruction of the United States if secession were permitted to stand.
Therefore, slavery was the aggravating issue that led to secession by the South. They did not want slavery to be limited to where it already existed. They wanted it to spread to some of the new states so that they would not lose their voting block in Congress and thus continue to protect their way of life. I certainly understand their dislike of Lincoln and why they would not support him for president, but I believe some of the Southern leaders hide behind the “states rights” issue and attempt to avert people’s attention away from slavery. Nathan Bedford Forrest said the war was for and completely about the insitution and promotion of slavery. He said that anyone who denied that was lying and trying to fool themselves and others.