Abraham Lincoln said 'If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it!.' but wasn't it the freeing of the slaves that made the south mad in the first place!?!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>History> Abraham Lincoln question?Question: Abraham Lincoln question!? Abraham Lincoln said 'If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it!.' but wasn't it the freeing of the slaves that made the south mad in the first place!?!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: No, what made the South mad was the idea that the President of the U!.S!. could pass a law freeing all the slaves in all the states!. The South seceded because they wanted " states rights ", meaning each state should vote separately on the slave issue and others!. The slaves weren't officially set free until the war was over a year old!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The Southern states were much more affluent and self-supporting than the Northern states!. Thus, the Southern states wished to form their own nation!. Slavery was a big issue to the South, but it was not the central issue in the Civil War; the Southern states just wanted autonomy!. Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation to dissuade Britain from aiding the Southern states, as Britain enjoyed an economical relationship with the South!. However, since Britain had condemned the institution of slavery several years earlier, once Lincoln made it an issue, the British withdrew their support of the South!.Www@QuestionHome@Com The Slavery question was certainly the lightening bolt issue, the principal "sound bite" with substance of the time!. There were, however, many other causes for the division between north and south!. The economies were different and becoming more so each day!. The north was more "industrialized", the south more agrarian!. The money producing crops were different!. The north was becoming more urban, the south remained primarily agricultural!. There were two different ways of life on many, many different fronts!. All of this being so, Lincoln's comment can be understood as expressing his principle desire---the maintaining of the Union, even at the cost of preserving the inhumane practice of slavery!. If you read Lincoln's speeches during the relevant period right before the break, he says different things in the south than he did in the north!. He could get away with that in those days because there was no mass media, internet, etc!. Lincoln was first and foremost a politician who, besides being dedicated to himself like most of that ilk, was also far more dedicated to maintaining the integrity of this new political experiment---The United States---than he was to abolishing slavery!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Slavery was an issue ancillary to the primary causes of the American War of the 1860s!. The issue was the nature of the relationship of the States to the federal government!. The Founders and most States stood on the position that the States were (and are) sovereign!. This position is based on the fact that the colonies (come States) were separate and individual and from at least the time of the Declaration of independence were sovereign!. This was emphasized in the relationship of the States in the creation of the Articles of confederation and then defined specifically in the Treaty of Peace [1783] with Great Britain where each State is identified and defined as free, independent and sovereign!. This latter State sovereign position has never been withdrawn!. State Sovereignty was additionally identified when the States, each singly and independently ceded from the Articles of Confederation to ratify Constitution of the United States and in so doing join the Union!. This is significant because the Articles of Confederation was a document signed “in perpetuity”!. Other indications of the Sovereign nature of the States (as well as their power to secede) can be found in the Debates concerning the ratification of the Constitution of the United States (as well as the debates ratifying the 10 Articles of the Bill of Rights) and in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions!. Such understanding was also evident in the Hartford Convention when some of the North Eastern States proposed to secede from the Union in the 1830s!. Those States which seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy did so primarily due to concern over the increasing intrusive power of the federal government in its ever expanding extra-constitutional acts!. President Lincoln represented a perspective of government that ran counter to that of the Founders!. He took the position that the States were created by the federal government through the Constitution!. In fact the opposite was the truth!. This can be further evidenced in the differences between the written Constitution of the Union and that of the Confederacy!. While there were many similarities, in the Confederate Constitution the power was left to the States and their Sovereignty recognized as a fact!. In the Slavery issue this became very apparent, while the Union Constitution retained the option of slavery (until the 13th Amendment in 1865) the Confederate Constitution on addressed that issue by forbidding the importation of slaves into the Confederate territories!. Whether an individual State had slavery or not within its borders was left as the business of the individual State!. The federal government of the Union never freed slaves until 1865 and never gave them rights until 1868 and that wasn't make legal by the court until 1869!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No, he didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation till the Civil War had gone on for some time!. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected, and his party (Republican) was opposed to extending slavery into US territories!. http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Emancipatio!.!.!. http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/American_Ci!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com There were several reasons why the South seceded!. See below!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |