Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (119730)	12/27/2000 5:19:51 PM
From: WTSherman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<What was the North's interest in fighting against the institution of slavery? If Lincoln later writes that he is only interested in saving the Union, why not drop the issue?< Well, that's a simple question and a multi-part answer. To understand the whole question you have to go back to the main issue of the 1820-50's, which was the EXPANSION of slavery. Numerous battles were fought over admitting new states which had or didn't have slavery. Various compromises were arrived at to keep the cracks plastered, but, the issue wouldn't go away. Opposition in the north(and in areas of the south like western Virginia, eastern Tenn, western N.C., etc.) was from two different sources. There was a moral opposition(the abolitionist) and there was an economic opposition(free labor movement). The abolitionist opposed slavery because it was wrong, they didn't believe in compromise. Much of this was religious in origin. The free labor movement opposed the expansion of slavery because they felt that working men could not compete in slave states for a living wage. There was also a political element. Slaves partially counted towards a state's population for purposes of determining how many congressional seats were apportioned to each state. At the same time, slaves could not vote. While these forces existed in the North and parts of the South, there was also widespread racism in both areas. Thus, while Lincoln personally opposed slavery, he understood that there was not sufficient support to do more than try to stop its expansion. He did not campaign on a promise to eliminate slavery. At the outset of the war, Lincoln(and everyone else, but, abolitionists) were really focused on "union". It was only later on(after Antietam) that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It is interesting to note that that document only referred to slaves in territories that were currently in rebellion against the U.S. government. Thus, it did not effect the border states(which had not seceded) nor did it effect areas under U.S. control. Lincoln issued it because he felt that he needed to give the Union cause a moral imperative that was lacking. He also did it to try to weaken the states in rebellion. Many in the north opposed it because they didn't want to fight for slaves. So, the north's interest in eliminating slavery came first from a moral imperative that some people had, second from a free labor perspective that wanted it contained and thirdly from a military perspective, in that Lincoln thought it would weaken the south. The people who think that slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war just don't understand the history of the issue and how it had gradually, but, continually divided north from south over a period of 40 years. I don't know if you read the Anderson article, but, it was truly bad history. Another interesting note was that there was a secession movement in South Carolina dating back to the 1820's. Back then and all the way through the war the issue underneath everything was slavery. The "states rights" stuff was nothing more than a cover for slavery. It was the "right" of each state to determine whether it would or would not have slavery that was the only right that mattered. The battle over slavery in Kansas in the 1850's ignited feelings on both sides and set up the final break.