Black Confederates

[MagisterCultuum]

Lincoln did not intend to free the slaves, but he did seek to restrict the spread of slavery in the territories. Southerners feared that this was so that the nation would eventually be overwhelmingly opposed to slavery and would abolish slavery in their children's or grandchildren's generation. Lincoln singed a proposed 13th amendment (which is rather odd, as presidents don't have the authority to veto proposed amendments and signing them doesn't mean anything) guaranteeing that the federal government could never abolish slavery where it already existed. This did not however appease the south.

Slavery was probably the largest reason the south wanted to secede, but not the only one. They also strongly disliked the high protective tariffs that Republicans supported. They had differences on foreign policy too. Many southerners wanted to conquer territory from Mexico (the Confederacy is sometimes said to have planned to eventually conquer everything down to the tip of South America), and did not like being led by a man who came to fame by denouncing the last war with Mexico as unjust. They also knew that Lincoln favored a stronger central government which they believed had already usurped too much power from the states. Ironically, their rebellion lead to all their fears coming true lie they could not have otherwise.

Even though slavery was not the only cause of the rebellion, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens (who had opposed secession) declared that the Confederacy was founded on the "great truth" that the black man was naturally inferior to the white man whom he naturally ought serve.

 

[Sharwood]

Oops, it was the top 10% owned 50% of the slaves. Still, the majority who fought weren't slave owners.

True enough.

Lincoln said he had no interest in freeing the slaves. The war was about Southerner's right to succeed from the Union. Slavery was just the moral cause the North (you know, the winners write the history books), propagandized afterwards.

Lincoln was an abolitionist, but was primarily concerned with preserving the Union. He publically stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave he would, and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing ALL slaves he would (and eventually did). Personally he was against the institution.

The war was about the Southerners' right to secede (please get it right, succeed is a completely different bloody word, it means a completely different thing), but the primary reason for their attempt to exercise said right - really the only reason, as the others were related to slavery - was slavery. So saying the war was about slavery is also correct.

And your last sentence is completely mistaken. Advocates of abolition often argued more from an economic viewpoint - free labour was better than slave labour - than any moral views. Many abolitionists had slaves of their own, paradoxically, particularly house slaves.

Also, I think you'll find that the South was more than capable of writing its own history afterwards, and that history is not just written by the victors, but also by the innocent bystanders, impartial observers, etc. Are all of them wrong? not to mention professional historians, whose job it is to sift through propaganda to find the truth? Please, you're smarter than that.

The South and North were to different countries. One was an agrarian nation while the other was industrialized.

Bull. The North was able to industrialise due to the economic wealth of the South. The two were inextricably linked. Cotton, tobacco and sugar from the South were sold to European, especially British markets. That capital was then used to buy farm machinery and household goods which were primarily manufactured in the North, not to mention considerable private investment. This capital was in turn used by Northern businessman to foster emerging industries. It would be the equivalent of saying the Ruhr is a different country from Schleswig-Holstein, or Sydney separate from my hometown of Goulburn, just a few hours away.

 

[caketastydelish]

And you you know what else is amazing?

That... there were white soldiers that fought for the north! I know that sounds incredible, so I'll give you some links for proof.

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-why-the-irish-fought-for-the-union.htm

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/63rdInf/63rdInfMain.htm

Here is a pic of a white union soldier for even more proof...

 

[Antilogic]

It was already a war before Lincoln was inaugurated. Buchanan was the one who dispatched the Star of the West to resupply Ft. Sumter.

Correct. Part of the problem is that people see dates in February and assume that in 1861 the President was inaugurated at the same time of the year he is in 2009. Thus, February is Lincoln's watch. However, Lincoln's inauguration was actually in March, not January.