The North, in general, was anti-slavery. The South was pro-slavery for obvious reasons. Lincoln knew that the country could not remain united unless the issue was resolved one way or another (and I think he didn’t much care either way, his primary focus was in preserving the Union).
Much of the South seceded. Then, the South apparently initiated a war against the North, whereupon the North responded and (eventually) took the South to the woodshed.
My question: Why did there need to be a war at all? Why not co-exist post-succession?
I’m guessing the South knew they couldn’t hack it alone, starting basically from scratch (?).
But the North…why did they need the South? Why didn’t they say “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”?
I am clearly oversimplifying, and I acknowledge that. It just seems that, once the Confederacy existed, why fight?
I’m guessing a big reason was the desire to preserve of The United States of America as a single nation encompassing the width of North America and not just a conglomeration of independent nation states. If the South could secede because they didn’t like how things were going, soon each state would break off to do their own thing.
Then you wouldn’t have a great United States of America as we (or they) know (or knew) it. Just some balkanized mishmash of territories that would soon be squabbling and soon coming under the influence and control of much stronger European empires.
It could have ended peacefully - there were numerous issues to resolve (how much of the national debt did the Confederacy owe the North - what happens to people who want to stay in the United States even though they live in Alabama, etc.), but they could have been settled peacefully - until the Confederates fired on United States property and personnel. That’s the kind of thing that causes war.
Coexistence was NOT possible. The abolitionists and their supporters, a number growing every day, would never stand for it. If war had not started over Ft. Sumpter, it would have started over Kansas, Missouri, Texas or some other flashpoint. The competition for new states in the West would put so much pressure on each government that it would quickly explode. If not 186i, then within the decade. And it would have been even bloodier.
I suspect this was less important then than we would think today. They didn’t speak of us as a single nation as much then. At that time, people would say “The United States are doing such and such” or “The United States are like this and that”, in the plural. Perhaps it was more like the European Union is today.
The obvious answer is that the United States went to war in 1861 for the same reason we went to war in 1941; we were attacked.
Another resemblance between those two attacks was that we were attacked by a significantly weaker country. Both the CSA and Japan made a poor decision to start a war. And in both cases, the military imbalance was known at the time.
But let’s put that aside. If the CSA hadn’t declared war against the United States, the United States would have eventually declared war against the Confederates. There was no potential for peaceful co-existence. Lincoln and his administration were firmly opposed to recognizing the secession and the majority of Americans supported them in this.
As far as Lincoln was concerned the only two alternatives were whether the southern states could be persuaded into rejoining the United States peacefully or whether they would have to be brought back in by military force.
No, I feel this idea is mostly post-war mythologizing. Part of the “Lost Cause” argument. The things people were saying in 1860 show that the majority believed the United States was a single country.
Nobody was asking the abolitionists for their opinion. Lincoln and his administration were very clear that they were not pushing for abolition. They repeatedly assured slave owners that they would not make any attempt to interfere with slavery in any state which wished to maintain it.
What Lincoln would not agree to was slave-owners’ demands to support the expansion of slavery into the territories and into free states.
You ignore public pressure at your peril. Lincoln was well aware of the growing call for abolition even though he was personally not pushing for it. Politicians will say anything now. What they will do later is anyone’s game.
Abolition was still very much a minority position in 1860. The movement didn’t really take off until the war started. Then hostility towards the Confederates because of the war led to hostility towards slavery.
There were also quite a few people in the south who did not support secession and considered themselves citizens of the United States, and many men in this category flocked to fight for the union. The Federal government was unwilling to let so many US citizens be disenfranchised.
For you the point I am about to make will seem a nitpick, but for some others it will perhaps be seen as a serious point of contention, which is why I feel compelled make it: one does not “declare war” on a bunch of insurrectionists. One puts down the insurrection. As Lincoln did in time. As you later note, we have these “Lost Cause” mythologists to contend with, many of whom I fear still need to be reminded that there never was a sovereign nation known as the Confederate States of America, only a bunch of rebels claiming to have formed one, and putting forth their generally less well-off and no less misguided “compatriots” as lambs to the slaughter in an effort to make their white supremacist fantasies a reality.
Other way around: the Union might have tolerated a slaver nation at its border - but the South could not survive with a free nation to its north, allowing free publication of abolitionist literature, nearby safety for escaped slaves (the North hated the laws that forced them to cooperate with Southern slave-catchers - and if the North and South are separate nations, what authority does the South have over who is allowed to enter the North).
Good guess, but I think it’s a complex enough issue that you are going to have difficulty getting purely factual answers. Let’s move this to IMHO so that folks can give their views and opinions as well.
But this was WHY it was so important to Lincoln and the Union to oppose southern secession. There were significant differences among the states, but set the precedent that states can walk away and the American project is over. The North-South divide wasn’t the only cleavage among the states. New England had different economic interests from the Midwest. California and Oregon were a continent away. Give in to the South walking away from the Union, and there’s no stopping the next secession.
What you’d end up with is a continent full of squabbling independent states who would be easy prey for the European powers.
It sure is. Which would be why the UK rightly did not declare war on its colonies in a state of rebellion, but rather sent troops to suppress the rebellion and restore order. They failed. Which is why there is a sovereign nation known today as the United States of America.
If the secessionist states had wanted equal recognition, they should have fought harder/smarter. And perhaps for a more worthy/sympathetic cause than white supremacy and the preservation of slavery. Something that might have brought them allies from Europe.
One of the reasons that the Gettysburg’s Address is highly regarded is because Lincoln was able to explain so succinctly why there was a war. A nation that allowed dissenters to break off would not endure, and the great experiment of democracy would fail.