Re: Was that the real cause?

Further irrefutable proof that Grant did indeed own slaves...

http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

...

...

Irrelevant (also false, as other posters have shown).

The question was:

When did Union war policy come to include
the removal of the existing state governments
in the "Confederate" states, and therefore
the recreation of loyal state governments,
i.e. Reconstruction?

The motives of Union men for fighting to
suppress the Confederacy have no bearing
at all on that question.

The only possible reason for this comment
is a squid-like effort to foul the waters.

General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them
until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about
freeing the slaves.

April 15, 1861.

At that date, the state governments in the
Confederacy (and all officials in them)
became accomplices in a violent rebellion
against the United States.

The policy of the United States of the United
States was to abolish the "Confederate
government" and restore the authority of the
United States in those states where the state
government had claimed to have abolished it.

Had those state governments withdrawn this
claim, dissolved the "Confederacy", and made
submission to the United States before
4/15/1861, it is probable that these
governments would have been permitted to
continue in operation, on the principle
of "no harm, no foul".

After 4/15/1861, the abolition of the
Confederacy required the overthrow of the
secessionist regimes in the "Confederate
states"; the officers of these governments
having acted in support of a rebellion now
made actual, they were all criminals.

There was not much serious thinking ahead
to after the victory in the Union at this
time, but IMO there was no question that
after the rebellion was put down, the
state governments would have to be
'reconstructed'.

For instance, the loyal legislators of
Virginia, meeting in 1861, declared all
the state offices vacated and chose
replacements - "Reconstruction" in the
midst of the war.

In Missouri, similar actions were taken
against secessionist governor Claiborne
Jackson and his associates.

I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am
wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about
"regime change", aka reconstruction?

scott s.

----------------------

A little more intellectual rigor is required.

First, the secession of the lower south was driven by the protection of
slavery.  They perceived the incoming Lincoln administration to be a
direct threat to slavery and that's why they seceded.  State rights was
merely the ideological sleight of hand they used to try to claim their
illegal act was legal.

The upper south let it be known that they were awaiting a peaceful
resolution of the crisis, and in the event it could not be peacefully
resolved, they would side with the slave states.  In other words,
protection of slavery, while not as strong a motivator for the upper
south as for the lower south, still motivated the upper south.

Knowing this, Jefferson Davis started the war by ordering the firing on
Fort Sumter, attempting to get the upper south and the border states
into the confederacy.  He was successful in getting the upper south to
join the confederacy but unsuccessful in getting the border states.

To decide what the war was fought for, we have to remember there were
two sides, and the two sides didn't fight for the same thing.

The confederacy fought to achieve its independence in order to protect
slavery.  For the confederacy, then, the war was fought ultimately to
protect slavery.

The Federals initially fought solely to preserve the Union.  As the war
continued, though, they began to realize that there would never be a
true peace as long as slavery was maintained.  After the Final
Emancipation Proclamation was released, the Union began to fight
against slavery as well, and by 1864 destruction of slavery became a
Union war objective.  So for the Federals, initially the war for them
was only about preserving the Union.  Eventually, though, it became
about preserving the Union and destroying slavery.

--------------------------------
The country was less than 200 years old, but slavery had existed for
over 200 years on the continent if we go back prior to the formation of
the United States.

In the 85 years prior to the start of the war that the United States
existed, no president had come into office on an antislavery platform
pledging to halt the expansion of slavery.  No president had been
elected from an antislavery party.  No president had been deemed a
threat to the existence of slavery.  Lincoln was the first.

 Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a

-------------------------
I assume you mean a slave ship.

That is an irrelevant point, since the legal slave trade was ended in
1807, and the vast majority of slave ships were European anyway.

 So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children

-------------------------
In the United States it would be the people who bought them and kept
them in bondage.

----------------------------
Factually incorrect.  It was very sound economically to keep slaves.
Slavery was a very profitable venture and was a growing concern in the
south.  There was a labor shortage and slaves were in such high demand
that slave prices were at an all-time high on the eve of the war.  They
would not have given up slavery voluntarily.

Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union?  Were

---------------------------
Depends on what part of the war you're looking at.  See the above.

----------------------------
What about it?

It wouldn't have worked because very few African Americans wanted to
leave, and Lincoln's colonization plan was strictly voluntary.  Lincoln
eventually realized this and by June of 1864 had dropped the idea.

Regards,
Cash

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?  Or is either of the answers correct?
   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.  So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children
being in bondage?
   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?  Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union?  Were
they really fighting to free those in bondage?
   What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different
country, would it have worked?  What do you think?

Nate