re: Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for

One issue that never seems to be addressed in these threads is the division between the North and the South in the REVOLUTIONARY war, The south was somewhat more sympathetic with England and that left a bad taste in Northerners' mouths. This created a distrust that was fueled by the South having a cotton trading partnership with Europe and England. The North, being less dependent on the trade, passed tariffs in 1828 to curtail this trade (Some Northern states had slavery at this time so, obviously, that wasn't the issue). The created even more animosity and led to more economic strain causing the South to become more entrenched in Slavery. The modern equivalent to this would be the State of New York and California voting to raise the base income tax rates of while males in TX, LA, MS, ALA, GA, and FL to pay for road and economic improvements in New York City.

People saying the North fought the South because of slavery while ignoring the other obvious issues that had been building for over half a century are doing nothing but showing their liberal brainwashed education.

The North and the South were never that united in the first place after the founding of the country. It wasn't like everyone was all "buddy buddy" and suddenly they wanna kill each other after the North mentions freeing slaves.

How was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation?

For an obvious example, going WAY back, the debate about making blacks 3/5th of a citizen. This was done, in reality, to weaken the South's power because had the blacks been counted as citizens their votes would have went the direction of their owners. (Which, as an aside, shows that the constitution was "racists" as some people say).

The North pushing tariffs starting in 1828, which some southern states rejected only to have Andrew Jackson deem them traitors and threaten the use of force to uphold the tariffs. The tariffs were upheld and the fight for states rights gained steam.

Also, only 4.8% of southern whites owned one or more slaves. Is someone really going to try and argue that the other 95.2% fought and were willing to die for a right they did not enjoy? What issue really burned up the population? It was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation.

The emancipation proclamation is proof Lincoln did not view slavery as an issue worth splitting up the union. How people miss this amazes me. It Was really an incentive for the rebelling states to rejoin the union by letting them keep their slaves if they rejoined. They did not even with that incentive. I wonder why?

In fact, Lincoln ran against expanded slavery into the territories, not abolishing it altogether.

Quote from Lincoln in his Letter to Horace Greeley:

quote:

---

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

---

If Lincoln had allowed the South to own the federal land in the seceded Confederacy, the actual fighting of the Civil War would not have started. At the end of the day, slavery would have ended without abolishment over time anyway. There were technological advancements that were right around the corner that would have helped the South's economy tremendously. My problem is that the North, knowing this, used Slavery to trump up a war that was really about control of power. There is a reason many blacks stayed in the South: The North didn't want them. Lincoln had it in his mind to deport the slaves. In fact, the Secretary of State of the Confederacy offered to completely abolish slavery in the South as long as the North would allow secession, the North (who still owned slaves btw) REFUSED the offer.

30-40 more years of enslaving 4 million people is ok with you?

600,000 americans killing themselves permanently while causing a rift in the country that, believe it or not, still exists today is better?

What's crazy is that many of the slaves returned to their "owners" after they were freed anyway. So there goes the 30-40 years right there.

---

Here's the magic bullet IMO: When the war started Lincoln and the powers that be in the North were willing to allow slavery if it meant preserving the union. His own words were quoted in this thread. If the South seceded in principle just over Slavery, why didn't the states take up the early offers and rejoin the Union?