Where do people get this nonsense? Lincoln did not free the slaves before secession because he did not have the legal authority. He also did not free them upon secession. He only freed them after
the CSA attacked the USA. Likewise there was no boycott of southern trade until after
the beginning of the war. It was no different than WW 1 or WW 2..
Yes, Lincoln said he wanted the secessionist states to stay in the Union. He also publicly declared that he was willing to abide the continuation of slavery if that was necessary to keep the Union together. The south could have stayed in the Union and
kept slavery. Lincoln and many other northern politicians recognized that regardless of what they personally wanted the states had a constitutional right
to secede. They did not use force to bring them back in. They were actively trying to work out some sort of compromise. Then a bunch of southern hotheads started a war. It was not necessary to start a war. Eventually slavery would have died because it was economically untenable. Eventually, with most of the proslavery staes gone from the Union the remaining abolitionist members would have abolished slavery in the remaining states. England was soon to develope it own sources of cotton in Egypt and elsewhere and the South's profitable quasi-monopoly would have dried up and coming mechanization would have driven the fatal spike through the heart of slavery. All that was needed for slavery to die without a war was for the CSA to keep its hands to itself.
Regardless of the economics and states rights issues there was the issue of HUMAN RIGHTS. Apparently the South felt it had a right to deny human beings the most basic human rights. Why? Because they thought that the State's right to behave in a totally immoral and inhumane manner took precedence over individual human rights. Shades of Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, or North Korea. One of our former Presidents commented that the reason the South has so many churches is not because it is so righteous but because it is so in need of moral guidance. Morality being an unknown in many parts of the South to this day.
Now, Maine did NOT secede from Massachussetts and Massachussetts did not oppose the division. Under the Constitution when a state divides it requires the approval of a majority of both the old state and the newly formed state. If either part of the former stae of Massachussetts objected to the plan it had veto power. The situation when West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War was different in that Virginia did not agree to the secession. After the war West Virginia agreed to pay compensation to Virginia. I believe it was finally payed off last year. In this case Virginia's approval was not needed because at the time Virginia was no longer a part of the USA, it was a part of the CSA, and no longer had any rights or responsibilities under the US Constitution.
Slavery could not be abolished in the USA without a Constitutional amendment. The slave states represented enough votes to block any amendment. They also had enough votes to block the creation of any new states in a manner that would threaten a constitutional change. There was an impasse which neither side could control. The situation could have continued indefinitely, without secession, without war.
TEAMNELSON "Which occurred in 1820, 41 years BEFORE the Civil War began, so yes they were a state at the beginning of the war."
What twisted logic is this? If Maine was a state of the USA when the Civil War began then they were part of the Union cause. Individual states do not exercise a local option when the nation goes to war. When did your
state declare war on Japan? Maine did not secede from Massachussetts
. Massachussetts voluntarily divided itself.
Every state has the right to secede under the Constitution. SC did that. Having established an independent identity no state, foreign or domestic, has the right to attack us without suffering the consequences. THe CSA attacked the USA. The CSA got its ass kicked and paid the price, just like Gaermany and Japan. The difference is that the Germans and Japanese being intelligent and rational people took advantage of the opportunity to effect an "attitude adjustment" while the south engaged in a century long stubborn temper tantrum that resulted in the economic and cultural retardation of southern society. They decided that they would 'rather be right' that be educated, prosperous, and well fed. Ignorant and proud of it. Rednecks forever. Yahoo!!!Quote from: missouri dave on November 18, 2011, 08:03:13 PM
Lincoln himself stated the war was not about slavery but preserving the union. Grant stated that if the war had been about freeing the slaves he would have offered his sword to the other side. The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war. No such thing as a "Civil War" nor was it a "War to Make Men Free". It was "The War for Southern Independence". If the south had won the country today would be much more like our forefathers intended in the constitution
. If the colonists had lost they would be nothing more than rebels hung as traitors. History is just that HIS STORY. The victors story.Yup! If the south had been victorious it would today be more like the forefathers intended. Half the population would be slaves. Most of the rest would be ignorant barefooted sharecroppers.. Oops. If the south had won it would not be just the south that would be that way. It would be the whole country.It was not the way our forfathers "INTENDED". Most of them opposed slavery. It was a compromise of principles that they choked down in order to maintain solidarity during the Revolution because they realized that without unity the cause of independence would be lost. Ironically if we had lost the revolution the British would have abolished slavery long before we did. Also when abolitionism swept through the rest of the world, including Britain, our markets would have dried up. I can see picketers with signs saying BOYCOTT SLAVE COTTON. The fact is the south was on the wrong side. The wrong side politically, the wrong side economically. The wrong side morally and many southerners still have not figured it out yet.