Lincoln specifically gave the Confederates the option of coming back in to the Union and keeping their slaves in September of 1862:
It was the fact that "slave states’ no longer had the power to dictate national policy even with their disproportionate representation that caused them to leave, not any specific action or proposed action on the part of Lincoln.
Sorry, double post.
Note also, that territories under the control of the Union army at that time were exempted from the EP.
I agree that the motivation changed over time, but I was only talking about the beginning. Also, Lincoln probably had a desire to recruit any runaway slaves from Southern territory to help his cause.
Lincoln would have known that this option would have held little sway with the Confederate states. Afterall, slavery was perfectly legal at the time of secession, so he wasn’t offering them anything that they didn’t have before.
At the time of the proclamation, the South wasn’t even under Union control, so Lincoln in theory would not have had the power to abolish slavery in those states. So his proclamations were toothless and he knew it.
How does this theory sound: the South was unwilling to return to the Union. Lincoln, knowing this, tried one last time to coax the states back home as a gesture of diplomacy. When, as expected, they refused this, he was able to accomplish two goals at once: 1) reunite the Union by securing a military victory and 2) outlaw slavery in states where popular criticism was the fiercest, without having to make any concessions to the rebels.
I know but you seemed to be arguing that it’s disingenuous to say the North was fighting to end slavery. I think it’s just as misleading to say that the North wasn’t, by limiting the focus to just it’s initial motivation.
Not true, there were significant sections of the CSA under Union control at that time. Per wiki "The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect[2] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).[3] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves[2][3] were freed at once on January 1, 1863…"
So, it freed about 20,000 slaves when it went into effect. Of course, that’s of around 3 million slaves in the CSA total, so it was a fairly small %.
The question that seems to have been missed in the exchanges following this post is “whose goals?”.
Frederick Douglass, Charles Sumner, Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase, and any number of other influential people certainly considered the abolition of slavery a significant goal.
Various U.S. generals actually attempted to implement local emancipations as they began taking control of slave holding regions. General Benjamin Butler gave refuge to three slaves who had escaped conscription building Confederate defensive works and was roundly praised. (Lincoln approved that action as relating to the “contraband of war.”) Then General John Frémont declared martial law on all of Missouri and declared all the slaves, there, free. Lincoln was excoriated in the Abolitionist press when he countermanded Frémont’s actions.
There were any number of groups who viewed the war from radically different perspectives. The Radical Republicans did see it as a war against slavery from the very outset. Moderate Republicans and “loyal” Democrats tended to see it as a war to preserve the Union. Interestingly, the various other Democrats (the “peace Democrats,” the copperheads, and others), did tend to see the war as an attack upon slavery, confirming the old saw that in politics, the extremes are often more in agreement with each other than those in the center are.
Lincoln was always opposed to slavery throughout his entire political career. However, he always considered it to be something that was protected by the Constitution and held that it could only be abolished by the individual states in the way that New England had done so in the 1780s and 1790s. It was only when the many separate pressures of the war–concern over European inteference or recognition of the Confederacy, the manpower that the South’s use of slaves for fortifications and farming freed to participate as Confederate soldiers, the opportunity to employ freed/runaway slaves for the same purposes in the Union army, and, ultimately, the opportunity to enlist freed slaves as soldiers–presented practical arguments for abolition that Lincoln considered issuing the Emancipation and began to consider the ramifications of actually ending slavery (in the secessionist South).
You are likely remembering an excerpt from a letter that Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in August 1862, just one month before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
The most famous excerpt of the letter is as follows:
(I just read those words engraved in stone at the Lincoln Memorial two days ago!)
While Lincoln opposed the institution of slavery his whole life, he did not think he had the constitutional power to abolish it outright throughout the Union. Instead, he justified emancipation on the basis of winning the war and preserving the Union. Emancipation encouraged the exodus of slaves from the South, depriving the South of labor necessary to continue the production of war materiel. Emancipation also made it difficult for foreign nations to continue to support the South.
It has occurred to me that those who discount the states’ rights view may be colored by their conception of the United States today, with its strong central government. I don’t believe the southern states viewed the U.S. the way we do. I think they viewed the U.S. as more like a mutually beneficial club, with a central government empowered to perform a few important tasks that the individual states would have difficulty performing. If they felt that membership in the club wasn’t beneficial, they could leave and form a new club.
A hypothetical to illustrate my point: say Italy decides to abandon the eurozone. Germany, who feels this decision will fatally undermine the euro, declares war on Italy to force them back into the monetary union. Italy in this case felt that they were sovereign enough to make the decision to leave unilaterally. Germany disagreed.
If this actually happened, the world would be aghast; Germany clearly doesn’t have the authority to maintain the monetary union that way. But I think it was an open question (at least to southerners) as to whether the southern states had enough sovereignty to break off from the U.S., and whether the federal government had the authority (or the will) to bring them back into the fold through military force. Slavery was certainly the flashpoint, but I think the sovereignty question was more important, and it’s as simplistic to sum up the U.S. Civil War as being about slavery as it would be to sum up my hypothetical German-Italian war as being about the euro.
Isn’t this like saying the Gulf War wasn’t about Hussein trying to procure Kuwait’s oil, but rather it was because Hussein believed he had a right to invade another country?
Same thing goes for WWII. It wasn’t really about stopping an agressive regime. It was really due to the fact that Hitler felt he had the right to invade Poland.
That said, I understand the point you’re making. But side-stepping the reason why the Confederacy broke away is like overlooking the reason why Hussein invaded Kuwait. That reason matters a lot.
The Gulf War was fought because Saddam invaded Kuwait; his reasons for doing so really didn’t figure in to the decision to force them out. If Saddam had invaded Kuwait because his dog told him to, there still would have been a Gulf War.
The question has been asked, and answered several times already in this thread. What right or sovereignty issue caused a war in the US besides slavery. I’ve never heard of one. Do you have something new to add? As far as I can tell, all other issues of that nature were settled without a war. Can you name a cause unrelated to slavery?
The right of the states to secede.
The US would not have cared if oil wasn’t at stake, though.
Of course not. A vital strategic interest was at stake. But that strategic interest would have been threatened regardless of Saddam’s motives for invading.
Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if it weren’t to get oil, therefore our strategic interest can’t be separated from his motives. We wouldn’t have gone to war with him if he’d invaded, say, Madagascar instead.
And the Confederacy would haven’t had seceded if slavery wasn’t an issue.
And that right caused a war when slavery wasn’t the issue? Come on, if you can’t do better, just give it up. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Any other issues emanated from that. Every argument on this topic ends up this way. Someone says something like ‘Its not a car, its a Chevy’, or ‘Its not a mammal, its a cow’.
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. The U.S. has no vital strategic interest in Madagascar, so they aren’t likely to get involved in a military conflict there no matter who decides to invade it. We did have a vital strategic interest in Kuwait. Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was deemed to hurt this interest, whether Saddam was planning to seize Kuwait’s oil or not.
The Union didn’t wage war against the Confederacy because they had slaves. They went to war because the Confederacy seceded.
Well there was the tariff issue. Southerners were essentially forced to subsidize northern industry. This meant they had to pay a premium for manufactured goods they could otherwise have purchased more cheaply from England.
However, I think the tariff issue was not a genuine casus belli. (Not to say it wasn’t a genuine issue – just that it wasn’t worth going to war for, in the absence of the slavery issue.) In my view, the tariff issue was used as a bugbear by wealthy slaveholders to get non-slaveholders on board with the secession idea.
If the South had seceded because they thought the American flag was ugly and they wanted to have their own flag, would you conclude that the resulting war was because of flags?