Was the War Fought Over Slavery

[BorderRuffian]

BorderRuffian,

And yet, there it is, Lincoln has to explain his primary concern, the preservation of the Union, yet slavery keeps coming back to haunt him and all others involved in the war.

Skip on up to his 2nd inagural speech.  See what he says about slavery then.

Unionblue

The war didn't start after the 2nd inaugural speech.

===

And so you claim the cause of the war changed after it started?
Isn't this what you accuse the 'lost cause mythology' of?

[unionblue]

Borderruffian,

No, I am not claiming the cause of the war changed after it started.

There's no way I could claim that, not with all the history and evidence provided by Southerners themselves.

There is no way I could cover up the historical fact that slavery was a source of political and social contention between the North and the South for decades up until the start of the Civil War.

There is no way I could ignore the historical paper trail left by those who seceded and why they did so.

Try as you and I might, slavery keeps coming back into the debate, and it will not go away, not because of any effort or claims on my part, but because of recorded history that refuses to be ignored.

As for what was the self-interest of the North, I always find it amazing that there are those who can claim for the South that they seceded for far nobler reasons of States Rights, Liberty, self-determination, but in no way can we ascribe similar noble motives to the hundreds of thousands of Union volunteers who fought and died during that time.

No, they must be money-grubbing capitalists or greedy products of merchantile classes, invaders, etc.  Not a man among them could be considered fighting for their beliefs or reasons to prevent an illegal rebellion or to prevent the rendering of a nation due to the dislike of a fair election carrying into office a candidate not acceptable to a minority.  Heavens no!

Unionblue

[M Anthony Young]

The problem for those currently of a Southern disposition,it seems to me,is this.Whatever you believe to be the causes of the ACW and wherever you place slavery among those causes,whatever you believe to be the motivation of the largely non-slaveholding Confederate armies,the fact is that slavery was on their side,it was in their corner.It was the elephant[or perhaps more appropriately] the snarling,snapping rottweiler in their living room.Despite the peerless martial prowess of their armies,their unquestionable courage and endurance,the agressive elan of their best commanders,their sterling successes,despite the sacrifice and deprivation suffered over 4 long years both on the field of battle and domestically,despite all this the right of one human being to enslave another would be preserved if,heaven forbid,they had emerged triumphant.Slavery's haunting spectre in the Conferate camp repesents a monumental stain on an otherwise hugely heroic escutcheon.For most modern day Conferates this grim dichotomy must, deep down, be very hard to bear.
Micky.

[unionblue]

M Anthony Young,

Your post is pretty much a summation of my own views and that of another man of the time.

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and so valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause thought was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

General Grant on General Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

"I would not have the anniversaries of our victories celebrated, nor those of our defeats made fast days and spent in humiliation and prayer; but I would like to see truthful history written.  Such history will do full credit to the courage, endurance and soldierly ability of the American citizen, no matter what section of the country he hailed from or in what ranks he fought...For the present, and so long as there are living witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will not be consoled for the loss of a cause they believed to be holy.  As time passes, people, even of the South will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for of justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man."

U.S. Grant

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[M Anthony Young]

Unionblue,

Being of similar mind to yourself and Ulysses S Grant puts me in exalted company indeed!I have seen several posts on different threads notably from Johan Steele,an inveterate Yankee if ever there was one,proclaiming that the institution of slavery was a National, not just a Southern, shame, that there is plenty of blame to go round and I agree wholeheartedly with him.In Civil War terms,however,slavery resides quite clearly in one camp and not the other.That,whatever your sectional disposition,is a naked,incontestable fact.

Micky.

[unionblue]

M Anthony Young,

Yes, it does seem to be a bit driven by where one resides, I suppose, and yet I see some posters from the North and some from the South not fit into such 'sectional dispositions.'

But, be that as it may, slavery should not be swept under a rug and ignored as a cause of the war and yet there are those who seem to do their utmost to ignore or diminish this historical fact.

IMHO,
Unionblue

[ole]

Micky:

AROOOOOO!

Much has been said about slavery being the villain. Bottom line, it was. But the war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over secession (which was rooted in the need to protect the institution). And even then it might not have been fought had the flag not been attacked.

Those of us who frequent these boards and can't pass up a book on the CW to save our souls, generally agree that Lincoln would have had to do something to collect the revenues. That's spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution. Maybe the navy assisting the collection off those few southern ports in actual operation? But he'd never have gotten so many volunteers if Sumter had not been attacked.

There were very loud voices insisting on abolition. They were given about the same attention that the tree-huggers and anti-war protesters get today. Some listened. Some spoke up. But most just needed to get back to the field or the factory. And then there was the slap.

Given that Davis needed to make that slap -- there were those getting ready to get off the fence and back to business -- it was the slap heard round the world. Nobody. But nobody, takes that kind of insult. I'd expect Poland to mobilize against Russia with such an insult. I'd expect Ireland to invade England .... (oh, wait. that's been done) I'd figure Belgium would attempt to bomb France. Lichtenstein to to attack someone. (Fiji, maybe? or Guam?) Wars begin with less provocation than that. And Davis knew it.

I get weary (did UnionBlue say that?) of hearing the poor, poor, pitiful me argument. Lincoln tricked poor stupid Jeff Davis into firing on the U.S. Flag. The Confederacy only wanted to return to the spirit of the original Constitution which didn't recognize that black's (or browns or reds or yellows) might also have been included in the "pursuit of happiness" part. "Endowed by our creator." All God's children are white.

But. I ramble. I repeat, Micky, AROOOOOO!

ole

[M Anthony Young]

Ole,
"I'd expect Ireland to invade England......[oh,wait,that's already been done]"  I assume you mean socially rather than militarily-the way we invaded America and practically every other nation on earth.There isn't,or hasn't been, enough of us to invade in the conventional sense.If there had been,God only knows!As always Ole it's great to hear from you.You,and that delectable Southern Belle,Catherine Hopley[a noted recent absentee] are my favourite posters on the site.
Micky.