Replies

Lincoln aloud the border states Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky and later West Virginia to continue to own slaves as an enticement to stay in the Union. The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up.

So what did this say to the individual soldier in Gray about the importance of slavery to President Lincoln?

Nonetheless, the rough correlation was pretty clear. Areas where there were more slaves and slaveowners tended to be for secession and the Confederacy. Those where slaveowners and slaves were fewer were more likely to be for the union.

I'd venture to say that it would have been a rare battle where the number of slaveowners in union ranks approached the number in rebel gray.

But by 1863, the handwriting was on the wall. If you were a slaveowner who cast his lot with the union, you probably had a good understanding that you weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and that your own actions would likely lead to slavery's end.

You may be making one of those "they weren't so pure" arguments. But "purity" isn't the point here. If we are supposed to respect those who fought for the Confederate cause because of their bravery or integrity, why demean other Southerners who may have owned slaves but fought, in the larger picture, against slave power?

actually, as per usual, "x" you have NO CLUE as to the TRUTH.

lincoln, the TYRANT, hated & feared ALL "persons of colour", as well as Jews, Roman Catholics, Quakers, "muddy-coloured people" (mixed-bloods like ME!) & anyone else who was NOT a white A/S Protestant.

lincoln was a stone RACIST, by the standards of the 18th,19th,20th & every other century.

only DUMB-bunnies, REVISIONISTS & the "terminally ignorant" believe the NONSENSE that you post.

don't you get tired of FReepers laughing AT you???

free dixie,sw

pardon me, "x", but your IGNORANCE is showing.

MANY slave-owners in the NORTH & in the SOUTH received WRITTEN GUARANTEES from the DAMNyankee high command (issued in the name of the US government and/or the War Department)that IF they would support/collaborate with the union army that they could KEEP their slaves PERMANENTLY.

sadly for YOU, several people over the years have posted copies of such GUARANTEES! (note to all: so much for "irrevocable guarantees" from the federal government!!!)

further, lincoln, the shyster lawyer & cheap/scheming politician, offered to get a Constitutional Amendment passed which would make slavery PERMANENT, if the southern states would return to the union!

the TRUTH is that neither lincoln (nor hardly anyone else, for that matter in 1861) CARED about slavery or "the plight of the slaves". period. end of story.

free dixie,sw

Nonetheless, the rough correlation was pretty clear. Areas where there were more slaves and slaveowners tended to be for secession and the Confederacy.

More importantly, though: the Civil war didn't happen in a vacuum. There were as series of serious "sectional" controversies that had sprung up from the very beginning. And they were about ... you guessed it ... slavery.

Whether or not the Civil War was about slavery, I think it's beyond dispute that it occurred because of slavery. It's difficult to see how any other issue could have led to fighting.