> Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then > again many say that it was fought over States Rights. My question is, what > do you think is the correct answer? Per the words of the slave south the only state's right at hazard was the right to own and treat as property other human beings. It was the slave south's desire to protect slavery from what it imagined as a threat from an incoming "Black Republican" administration that brought secession, and it was secession/rebellion that brought the north to fight to preserve the Union.
snip
> I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 > years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. But the Confederate flag flew over slavery every day that the Confederacy existed.
> So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? The slave south cleaved to slavery and argued to expand slavery long after the north and the rest of the western world gave it up.
> However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? When did the slave south start to recognize that slavery was no longer an economic benefit? Who in the slave south said so? How about the fact that slavery was the only way that white southerners could see as a means of social control of blacks?
> Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Yep.
> Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? Starting with the Confiscation Acts and going through the Emancipation Proclaimation freeing slaves was a war measure designed to weaken the Confederacy. A total end to slavery had always been a war aim for some in the north, and it became a war aim for nearly all.
> What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? No, which is part of the reason why Lincoln abandoned it.
|