re: If the civil war was about slavery, why’d they keep slaves in the North?

Tell me if you agree.
I've always felt three things doomed the South from the beginning.
1. Lack of a Constitution giving a single powerful leadership structure. Great in peace time not so much in total war.
2. The Souths belief in King Cotton. Many don't realize the South burned millions of bails, and embargoed it's very own customers overseas to force recognition.
3. Started the war before ready. The hot heads from my home State of South Carolina. The North was not ready either so there was time. Time for unified rail, shipping and arms among many pre war construction projects. Time to cultivate foreign recognition.

Interesting bit of history is that the 5 civilized tribes in Indian Territory were not required to free their slaves until 1866. Although they had all formally supported the Confederacy, they still had their rights as separate nations.

Since the Civil War started the US population had increased 10-fold! I wonder how many people now in the US have any ancestral connection to that war.

Since nuance died a long, long time ago, any discussion about this will devolve/already has devolved into silliness.

However, for the record, I stand by my analogy (or metaphor, if you like), the American Civil did not have "slavery" as its engine. The engine was an entire range of differences between North and South that extended to cultural, linguistic, vocational, ethnicity, "nativism", industry, philosophical/psychological even. The differences were stark even at the founding and the two broad regions continued to diverge.

However, the "fuel" for that engine was slavery. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

Wasn't it Jeff Davis who told commanders to defend ever inch of the Souths borders?

quote:

---

Are you saying the South went to war for slavery?
correct.
quote:
Because saying "The Civil War was about slavery for the South" is incorrect.
no. It is a popular cope among Southerners to reason themselves out, as we now see slavery as evil.But at the time the overwhelming majority of the economies of the South were inextricable from slavery.

Were there other reasons? Absolutely.

But there is a reason why the seceding states did so in the order of reliance on slave labor (heavy slave states, slave states, lower slave/border states). And also, every state that issued a proclamation giving reasons, listed slavery as the reason. I can provide you a litany of source documents confirming this.

Now if you want to argue that not every confederate fighting in the war fought for slavery, that is obviously true. But wars aren't created by soldiers, but by politicians and aristocrats.

---

Are you positing that the North went to war to free the slaves?

You can make an argument the South, or some States, seceded for slavery, but the war was about money and political power, not slavery.

Secession =/= war. Those are 2 different events. There was no war from Buchanan when the States seceded. Not until Lincoln was determined to collect the money was there war.

quote:

---

And also, every state that issued a proclamation giving reasons, listed slavery as the reason

---

Post Louisiana's declaration of secession.

How my Dad used to teach the Civil War at Broadmoor High:

Democrats wanted to control black people, Republicans said "no"

quote:

---

opposing values.

---

Owning slaves values?
or Lynching values?

Another point to note was even Lincoln's own letters said he didn't care about slavery.

It is simple revisionist history.

quote:

---

Owning slaves values?
or Lynching values?

---

That's an uneducated statement.

What slave owner wanted to hang something he had paid so much for?