You said — “Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.”
Well, the war started because of secession of states from the Union (which, actually and technically, should have been allowed, although it would have definitely destroyed the U.S. as we know it now). These states left the Union as a result of “state’s rights” issues, and not primarily because of slavery.
There are still state’s rights issues today and some think that the Federal Government has encroached way too much on states rights issues. Some have been affirmed for the states (against the Federal Government) by the Supreme Court, but it’s still a viable issue, even today. There are state’s rights issue with the Federal Government encroaching way too much upon the sovereignty of the individual states of the United States. The Federal Government (thanks to the “liberals” have enforced their agendas by means of taking away “state’s rights issues” from the states and transferring them over to the Federal Government where they can control things *centrally*.
So, in the Civil War, slavery was a secondary issue, and the South was going to end slavery anyway, but it wasn’t on the same timetable as some others wanted. Slavery would have ended soon, too, with automation and mechanization, since the economy would have shifted to machines instead of slavery for much of their work. And there were also people in the South who wanted to end slavery. Everyone knew that its time was limited and would be over soon.
As far as the Civil War being primarily for ending slavery, that’s very far from the truth. The war that Lincoln launched had nothing to do with that. His *primary purpose* was to preserve the Union and not allow those states to leave (although, as I said, they did have the right to do so...). Lincoln took a *military position* to force those states to stay in the Union, even though they had the right to leave.
Now, I’m not saying that we aren’t better off — in regards to the “Union” with everyone staying as part of the Union, but our “states rights issues” suffered as a result of Lincoln, even though he preserved the Union.
However, the North (the people of the North) did not want a prolonged war and they would have given up on Lincoln’s idea, soon — and he knew it. In order to shift gears, somewhat and as a matter of military strategy, Lincoln decided to give slaves freedom, as the Emancipation Proclamation declares. It’s looked upon as a fine and noble document — but at the same time, one must realize that it was *an instrument of war* and had a military objective, which was to gain support by a certain segment of people in the South and also to disrupt the economy of the South as much as possible.
I would say that a significant part of the North did not care if the South left and if they took all their slaves with them. Their attitude would be “let them leave and let them have their slaves...”
BUT, it was Lincoln’s war and it was something that he struggled to maintain, *primarily* for the purpose of *maintaining the Union* and not so much because of slavery. The slavery issue became a means to an end (the “end” being “winning the war”).
So, neither side really held a good “high ground” on the issue, from each side’s behavior and reasoning.
In fact, today, I see that the (so-called) “North” is probably more prejudiced against blacks and them being integrated fully into society than is true in the “South”. I’ve seen this for a long time. Many in the South do quite well living together with blacks, fully integrated and functioning in the South, while in the North, people seem to “spout off platitudes” about inequality of blacks, until blacks come into *their* neighborhoods... LOL... (it’s very true..., in the North). People in the North also seem to be afraid of blacks, more so than people in the South are. It’s a curious thing.
I did ride on those segregated busses (in the South) and grew up “knowing” where I was supposed to sit — and wondered about it. I laugh at a time when I was a kid and decided I was going to sit in the back of the bus (because I thought it was weird that we each sat in different parts of the bus). Well..., when I went back there, I sure got a lot of dirty looks from the blacks, back there..., like “what are you doing back here? The blacks definitely did not want me in “their territory”.
And likewise, the blacks didn’t sit in the front of the bus, either, getting equally dirty looks from whites and the bus driver telling them to go to the back of the bus...
However, into the future, when that changed, it was no problem. I didn’t have a problem and a lot of others didn’t have a problem. There were people that did have a problem with it, just like we have others that don’t abide by the right thing to do, today, either.
So, regardless of what you think the Civil War was about, it wasn’t about slavery — but rather — it was about *preserving the Union*. The slavery issue because a means to an end for winning the war, a simple “tool of war” — more or less..., just like the U.S. uses the Shia population of Iraq against the Sunni population, in order to further progress the U.S. aims and goals in the war.
It’s only in “retrospect” that we (of today) make the slavery issue to be more of a romantic ideal for the Civil War, which it wasn’t.
LINCOLN DID NOT START THE WAR TO END SLAVERY. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He would have kept slavery if it would have preserved the Union. Both R.E. Lee and Jefferson Davis both thought slavery would simply die out on its own in time. Lee fought for the south because he fought for Virginia. He fought for the rights of his state. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. Try reading some of the books on this. I was looking at one in the book store just the other day and it was covering this subject in detail. Lincoln did not want the USA to break up into two countries, maybe three if the western US did something even different.
A great post, Star Traveler.
I would only add that the original “United States”
was in fact dissolved by the secession of the southern states.
Lincoln’s War effectively created, by force of arms,
a new “United States” that was wholly unlike the original.
All the talk about Lincoln “preserving the union” was and is hogwash.
After the events set in motion by the secession of South Carolina it was too late,
at that point, trying to preserve the union was like trying to unhatch an egg.
The union crafted by the “Founding Fathers” was dissolved in 1860.
Those who left that union were then forced to join Lincoln’s new union.
- - -
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are Free and Independent States,
and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
- - -
Kentucky, Maryland, and probably Missouri would have joined the Confederacy, forcing the United States to move its capital (The District of Columbia) to a new centralized location (most likely on the Great Lakes, somewhere near Chicago). The old capital of the United States may have become the new capital of the Confederate States of America (after all the infrastructure was already built). It is also very possible that the Confederacy would have aggressively expanded into Latin America.
So the border between the two countries would be Chesapeake Bay north to the Maryland / Pennsylvania border then west along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River north to the Missouri / Iowa border west to the Kansas border, south to the Kansas / Oklahoma border then west to somewhere in Arizona then south to the Mexican border. Oklahoma and New Mexico would have been easily brought into the CSA while portions of Maryland and Virginia on the eastern side of Chesapeake Bay would probably have been easily conquered by the United States. There would have constant border skirmishes between the two countries over the unclaimed lands - probably lasting until after World War I.