Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jul 25, 1861: Congress passes Crittenden-Johnson Resolution
http://www.history.com/ ^ | 7/25/2012 | Staff

Posted on 07/25/2012 9:50:49 AM PDT by BO Stinkss

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last
What? I was taught that the War of Northern Agression was initiated to free the slaves?
1 posted on 07/25/2012 9:50:54 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
> “What? I was taught that the War of Northern Agression was initiated to free the slaves?”

What? I was taught that it was the war of Southern Aggression.

2 posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:20 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

Slavery was a major cause of the war.

However, abolition did not become a major reason to conduct the war until the Emancipation Proclamation.

There you go!


3 posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:40 AM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

The Union did not engage in the war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the Union. But they would not have needed to fight to preserve the Union, if the seceding states hadn’t left to over their desire to preserve slavery. This is why slavery is said to be the root cause of the war. Meanwhile, it’s useful to note that, while the goal was preserve the Union, it was clearly understood that conflict over slavery led to secession. Indeed, this is exactly why the Corwin amendment was recommended in the first place - to assure the secessionists that slavery was not threatened, and thus, avoid disunion and war.


4 posted on 07/25/2012 10:01:04 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
(1) The aggressor in a conflict is the side that fires first.

The side that fired first was not the Union.

(2) It was clear from the very beginning that the Union's chief motivation in responding to that Southern-initiated aggression was to preserve the Union.

The Confederacy was fighting a war for the expansion of slave territory, the Union was fighting for the Union.

5 posted on 07/25/2012 10:02:24 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

People on opposite sides in wars often have different motives and views of the war. For example, Hitler believed that he was waging war primarily against the Jews, not Britain, the US, and USSR.

The preservation of slavery was clearly the motive for secession. Many Unionists, however, were not much or at all against slavery and were only interested in preserving the Union. If the Civil War had ended within a year or two, it is very possible that slavery might have been preserved for some time.


6 posted on 07/25/2012 10:03:29 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

When the South wouldn’t roll over and play dead and the Irish conscripts were running low, Lincoln “emancipated” the blacks to fill the ranks and throw at the Army of Northern Virginia.


7 posted on 07/25/2012 10:03:29 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Confederacy was fighting a war for the expansion of slave territory, the Union was fighting for the Union.

The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

8 posted on 07/25/2012 10:07:20 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

The Norther industrialists were against expansion of slavery, because slaves did not buy much in the way of Northern factory products.

9 posted on 07/25/2012 10:11:20 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: central_va
When the South wouldn’t roll over and play dead and the Irish conscripts were running low

Lincoln never expected the Confederate interests to "roll over and play dead" - he expected a fierce fight, unlike some Northern journalists.

The Union armies had many Irish volunteers and not very many Irish conscripts - as the draft riots proved, conscription was not a very reliable source of manpower.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued largely to prevent the United Kingdom from assisting the Confederacy.

The first experimental black regiments were not even formed in the Union until months after the Proclamation, and they did not add significant manpower to the Union forces.

10 posted on 07/25/2012 10:13:41 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The unionists were against expansion of slavery in the territories for racist reasons, to "keep it pure for free whites".

If that was the case, such an opinion was not publicly expressed by very many voices in the North.

Your statement is more invented propaganda than historical fact.

11 posted on 07/25/2012 10:16:44 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

That makes no sense, How can slavery be a cause of the war if it as not at issue until long after the war started?

From the southern perspective the war was about preserving their freshly declared independence.

From the northern perspective as this act clearly demonstrates the war was about forcing the south under a corrupt union it no longer consented to.

Where is the slavery issue when the first shots are fired?


12 posted on 07/25/2012 10:19:50 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Face it, Mr. Lincoln’s war was very unpopular throughout the conflict until the fall of Atlanta. Then things flipped, the war became somewhat popular in the North and the once wildly popular war became decidedly unpopular below the Mason-Dixon.


13 posted on 07/25/2012 10:19:50 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Also, on the manpower question, one of Lincoln's most bitter criticisms of McClellan's performance at Antietam was that he left almost 25,000 Union soldiers (a third of his force) in reserve - in other words, the Union had armies standing around that were not even being used.
14 posted on 07/25/2012 10:22:11 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Lincoln and his party were billed as “the only white man’s party in the country.”


15 posted on 07/25/2012 10:22:48 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Lee invaded MD with an infantry brigade still in Harper’s Ferry, several hours march away from the front. That wasn’t to swift either.


16 posted on 07/25/2012 10:27:30 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Face it, Mr. Lincoln’s war was very unpopular throughout the conflict until the fall of Atlanta.

It was initially popular, became unpopular in 1862 and its popularity was renewed after the double victories of Gettysburg/Vicksburg.

McClellan's electoral defeat demonstrates that Lincoln had popular backing before Atlanta fell.

the once wildly popular war became decidedly unpopular below the Mason-Dixon

The war became quite unpopular in the South earlier than Atlanta's fall - as evidenced by the bread riots in Richmond and elsewhere months before Gettysburg. Northern Alabama and North Carolina/Northern Georgia basically quit sending new troops to the Confederate armies in the fall of 1862.

17 posted on 07/25/2012 10:29:54 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Oh, and the Confederacy fell back on conscription before the Union did.


18 posted on 07/25/2012 10:32:00 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Which begs the question: by whom, where, and when?


19 posted on 07/25/2012 10:33:10 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In hindsight that was unwise, but it underlines Lincoln's problem with McClellan - Lee took a bold risk to try and win a decisive victory.

McClellan had all the men and materiel and advantage he needed to encircle and crush the ANV - but he lacked the nerve that made Lee such a brilliant captain.

20 posted on 07/25/2012 10:36:06 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson