My understanding is that Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Sumter and made it clear to the southern government that the ship was not belligerent, but the southern hotheads were all too ready to start a fight.
The south were all in favor of state’s rights–until they weren’t. The fugitive slave act was a thorn in the side of the north. But the main issue was whether the new western states would be free or slave and the union was determined they would be free.
I often wonder what would have happened had the south not started fighting. Lincoln didn’t seem to be anxious to start fighting. Would the north have eventually accepted a de facto separation? What would have happened to the western states? What would have happened to slavery in the border states?
However, do remember the North elected Abe Lincoln upon his promise to stop the spread of slavery into other states and territories. So, slavery was a issue in the North, but by no means #1.
Many were unfortunately victims of the draft or seeking a better alternative to it. Others were seeking to make a quick buck without knowing the consequences that awaited them.
Please elaborate.
I’ve wondered about Texas. Texas fought a war to leave Mexico and became a country. They asked to join the USA, and must have thought that if they willingly joined only sixteen years ago, they could willingly depart. “Sorry this didn’t work out, guys. See you later.”
I’m not Hari_Seldon, but I think the Confederate States were against non-slave states from keeping escaped slaves free. So, they wanted to override those non-slave states’ laws. Something like that – I’m not all up on the details.
I dont think people in the south ever believed their would be such a massive war that would take 4 years. The Confederacy was almost as big as Europe. How could the north conquer such a big area? How could the North blockade the entire southern coast with so few ships? North America had not seen anything like it since the revolution and the British were able to move their troops via the ocean. Really if it had not been for the railroads I’m not sure the Union could have taken the South.
As said before alot of the south was but yes, states like Virginia were part of the original 13. I’m not sure how you would classify Tennessee and Kentucky.
And I agree that a Confederate victory would have meant more states splitting off. Confederate states also had trouble getting along.
Really if you look at early 19th century American politics alot was over states rights. For example the federal government made a treaty with the Cherokees in Georgia that they could have their own land but Georgia wanted it so the government had to move the Cherokees to Oklahoma.
First off, I want to once again establish a point I’ve made in other threads. The two sides in the war were not the North and the South. It was the United States and the Confederate States. The Confederates left the United States and declared war on the United States. During that war, Confederate soldiers were killing American soldiers. When you see somebody cheering for the Confederate side, they’re cheering against the American side.
Now for the reasons why the United States fought the war.
As I noted above, the Confederates declared war on the United States. We fought against the Confederates in 1861 for the same reason we fought against Japan in 1941. We were attacked and we defended ourselves.
The Confederate states had illegally seceded from the United States. The United States wanted to bring them back into the United States. We had a moral obligation to all of the American citizens living in the southern states.
Slavery was morally wrong. This wasn’t universally recognized at the start of the war. But the knowledge grew and spread to more people as the war continued. Most people in free states didn’t have much direct experience with slavery before the war, so it was easy to put it out of their minds. But as the war continued, people saw slavery directly and realized how terrible it was. So the cause of ending slavery gained popularity and became a goal of the war.
Slavery was a divisive political issue. Slave owners kept wanting the national government to support slavery and expand slavery. As long as slavery existed it was going to cause problems. So people decided to end slavery in order to end the problems it caused.
The South was absolutely not in favor of states rights. Besides the aforementioned Fugitive Slave Act, they were the ones who pushed for Dred Scott ruling to invalidate Northern state laws that freed slaves within their borders. If you have any doubts about how much the Confederacy was about states rights, read their constitution
Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was established by the United States constitution. It is therefore very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-“states’ rights” country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away — the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to trade freely with each other, and, of course, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders.
States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system — the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach (some) federally-appointed officials, and the power to distribute “bills of credit.”
People at the time could be racist and still oppose slavery as a moral wrong. Just because you think a group of people is inherently inferior to you, that doesn’t mean that you also have to believe that they should held in bondage.
You should also check out this line-by-line comparison of the permanent Confederate Constitution and the United States Constitution–already posted by @Strassia in that post you’re replying to–as it’s a very useful page for this sort of thing. The final Confederate Constitution was very similar to the U.S. Constitution. There were a few non-slavery-related differences; several places where the Confederate Constitution was either more explicit than the U.S. Constitution in protecting slavery (the language of the two constitutions concerning the Fugitive Slave clause), or had entirely new provisions protecting slavery; and nothing at all about any right of states to secede.
Indeed.