Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Economic issue to the North?
I think the North wanted to abolish slavery because largely the North was moral and righteous, and the South wanted to preserve slavery because its leaders were immoral or amoral and for financial reasons. The pressure brought to bear on the South by the North caused the South to plot secession, and Lincoln's election was the straw that broke the camels back.
I think it was mainly an economic issue with the Southern gentry. Probably the North could not have won the war had the South scorched the earth like the Russians fought Napoleon and the Bolsheviks fought Hitler. I don't think the Southern cause was supported at that kind of grass roots level, which is why the South failed and the North accomplished something quite extraordinary, i.e., permanently subjugate such a huge land mass and millions of people. Consider also that for much of the war Lincoln's political mandate for the war was not strong which is why he nearly lost the second term election to McClellon.
|
I asked the question because I think your assertions may be somewhat obfuscating. We always think of slavery in terms of civil rights. Then, I think it was more about political power and economics. The civil rights component was secondary or even tertiary until nearer the end of the war. Slavery was the issue the set up the battle.
The north was against it, mostly on moral grounds, but was not very interested in dying for it. The South saw they would likely lose their economic viability without slavery and that slavery was going to be lost if they stayed with the North, so they started the war. They couldn't very well say they were fighting to enslave people, so they couched it as states rights, but really those are the rights they had in mind. The North/Lincoln couldn't successfully maintain support for the war (until later, when he played the Emancipation card as a way to muster support relative to his reelection; in fact, the reason he didn't issue the Emancipation proclamation before then was primarily for political reasons, even though he seemed to think all along that the war was about slavery) by saying we are fighting to free slaves, so he couched it as a war on secession.
These characterizations were credited with both causing the war and sustaining it, but most people paying attention knew that, at root, it was all about slavery, as an economic issue for the South but maybe not as just a moral issue for the north, but as perhaps an issue of power.
Either way, who is it that you think disagrees with your basic premise here?