tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post5968000329516789842..comments2023-08-10T07:41:11.827-07:00Comments on Bajillion: Was the civil war was about slavery or states rights?Tommaso Sciortinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13682166317937996902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-2896261809186789672011-04-27T15:58:09.755-07:002011-04-27T15:58:09.755-07:00It could be argued that Lincoln used emancipation ...It could be argued that Lincoln used emancipation as leverage against European intervention. Emancipation came mid-war as the anemic army of the north was floundering campaign after campaign as Lincoln continued shuffling generals. The North was never in any danger of losing the war militarily. They simply out produced and out numbered the south and with the blockade working the only shred of hope the south had was a stalemate. One that could have been expedited with European intervention. Europe did not want to see a more powerful version of the US but it also didn't want to enter another war with it. Lincoln's angle on emancipation could be that he wanted anyone willing to recognize the confederacy to, in part, seemingly endorse slavery which had been far removed from Europe. <br /><br />This certainly could be a political motive with Europe. However it would come at a cost. It was before Gettysburg and Sherman's razing of Atlanta and a month after a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg. Though I guess you could argue that the union was so weak at this point they needed to stave off any European intervention at any cost. Perhaps it was desperation. Lincoln's letters suggest otherwise though.<br /><br />One of the things that drives me crazy about this period is, for all the glory and praise bestowed upon Lincoln, there is no antithetical denouncement of the presidents that preceded him who, for several consecutive terms did little to quell the growing division. Both politically and economically the signs were obvious. If Chamberlain and others can take it on the nose for WWII then certainly Buchanan and the like can bear some blame for their lack of leadership prior to the war.<br /><br />I'm fascinated with this discussion.Seamus McFauthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834446526012158225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-57149073466630952062010-01-14T15:23:52.109-08:002010-01-14T15:23:52.109-08:00The slave states that remained in the Union were M...The slave states that remained in the Union were Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland. West Virginia joined the Union as a slave state later into the war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-40193321522638747942009-11-14T21:34:25.513-08:002009-11-14T21:34:25.513-08:00So glad to find this info. I needed to see more p...So glad to find this info. I needed to see more points of view on this issue!<br />I read that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in Union held Territories and states. But I also thought most of the Union was already free from slavery.<br />Can you tell me how widespread slavery was in the Union?Wyndinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-57461983892651346982008-06-30T22:44:00.000-07:002008-06-30T22:44:00.000-07:00Considering how awful the founders' collective vis...Considering how awful the founders' collective visions and intentions were, I'd say that ought to go down as a mark in Lincoln's favor.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510253316398518908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-18982448360569315932008-06-30T21:13:00.000-07:002008-06-30T21:13:00.000-07:00The entire quote is "If I could save the union wit...The entire quote is "If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do it. If I could save the union by freeing the slaves, I would do that. And if I could save the union by freeing some slaves, and leaving others, I would do that also."<BR/><BR/>And that about sums it up. Let's not also forget that the Emancipation Proclamation <I>only freed slaves in areas wrested from Confederate control subsequent to its enactment</I>. It freed zero slaves in Union-held territories, and it also contained a clause saying that no slaves would be freed in Confederate areas that surrendered peaceably.<BR/><BR/>This suggests two things: Lincoln did not really care about slavery, and neither did most Confederates.<BR/><BR/>The Civil War was about both, and Lincoln was an awful President. He "preserved" the nation by forging it into something far different than the founders intended.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01408213733969902155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-14997520702432408882007-10-13T15:51:00.000-07:002007-10-13T15:51:00.000-07:00On the one hand Lincoln made a big fuss about how ...On the one hand Lincoln made a big fuss about how the preservation of the union should have been sublimated above the slavery issue. the item most quoted by those who make the case that lincoln was amoral on this issue, always partially, is that "if [he] could have saved the union without freeing a single slave," he would have. that's only half the quote though: the rest is that "if [he] could have saved the union by freeing every slave," which he essentially did, he would have done that. the point was the union.<BR/><BR/>although it's also worth remembering that lincoln did a lot of window dressing on this issue and that his election was the event that precipitated the civil war. the south knew what he wanted and represented.<BR/><BR/>he was also probably the best president and arguably the best writer ever to hold the office, even better than jefferson. we share a favorite passage in shakespeare, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com