States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[ConHog]

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway.

[Kathianne]

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway.

and the Emancipation Proclamation changed that.

[fj1200]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

State militias are legal and the illegal actions of street gangs are already illegal. Next.

[logroller]

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway.

i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

[ConHog]

and the Emancipation Proclamation changed that.

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.

You can bet that had the South gotten into a position to be able to forge any kind of end to war other than an unconditional surrender that Lincoln would have put slavery back on the table to get the Union back together.

[Kathianne]

i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

He said something to the effect that the country would not stand being 1/2 free and 1/2 slave. Part of the reason for coming out against expansion of slavery into the territories. 'A country cannot be divided against itself.'

[ConHog]

i believe he also said all slave or none. Ill double check, it was a couple years before he was elected.
From the state perspective it was about self-governance, with slavery the impetus. From the union perspective it was about settling disputes (over slavery) between states. Slavery was the lynchpin issue.

No disputing that slavery brought the issues to the forefront.

And you are incorrect about Lincoln, in 1860 the Republican platform was no expansion of slavery but no interference with those states where it already existed. And he followed that.

The actual problems didn't occur until Southern states realized that that policy meant that as the Union grew more non slave states would be added and eventually have the votes in Congress to outlaw slavery. So they wanted some of the new states to be able to have slavery as well to try to stop this.

That is what actually brought on the start of the war, there was never any threat of taking away southern slaves.

Well, not until later of course .

[Kathianne]

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.

You can bet that had the South gotten into a position to be able to forge any kind of end to war other than an unconditional surrender that Lincoln would have put slavery back on the table to get the Union back together.

Wrong, the Emancipation Proclamation garnered a focus on abolition, until that point most thought them extremists. That, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," gaining more readers; the stories of the underground railroad in the North to Canada, etc., All of these were bring abolition to the forefront. The meme changed around 1863.

[Thunderknuckles]

No it didn't.

For the North the aim of the war was still to preserve the union, Freeing any slaves encountered along the way simply became an ancillary goal.

The fact that the South's Agriculture business accounted for about 40% of GDP at the time surely played a role in wanting to preserve the union as well.

[ConHog]

He said something to the effect that the country would not stand being 1/2 free and 1/2 slave. Part of the reason for coming out against expansion of slavery into the territories. 'A country cannot be divided against itself.'

Yes, he gave that speech in 1858, but as a Presidential candidate in 1860 he changed his position to that of the Republican Party which was simply no expansion of slavery.

[ConHog]

The fact that the South's Agriculture business accounted for about 40% of GDP at the time surely played a role in wanting to preserve the union as well.

I don't know that I would dispute that one bit. I think that there various reasons Lincoln was willing to do many things, including ignoring his own moral objections to slavery, in order to preserve the Union.

[Kathianne]

No disputing that slavery brought the issues to the forefront.

And you are incorrect about Lincoln, in 1860 the Republican platform was no expansion of slavery but no interference with those states where it already existed. And he followed that.

The actual problems didn't occur until Southern states realized that that policy meant that as the Union grew more non slave states would be added and eventually have the votes in Congress to outlaw slavery. So they wanted some of the new states to be able to have slavery as well to try to stop this.

That is what actually brought on the start of the war, there was never any threat of taking away southern slaves.

Well, not until later of course .

Hmm, I really thought the Southern realization that with no Southern votes, Lincoln was still going to be elected. The 'peculiar institution' and the counting of population for elections, in Article 1, Section 2 had come home to roost. (Changed by 14th amendment during Reconstruction.)

[ConHog]

Wrong, the Emancipation Proclamation garnered a focus on abolition, until that point most thought them extremists. That, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," gaining more readers; the stories of the underground railroad in the North to Canada, etc., All of these were bring abolition to the forefront. The meme changed around 1863.

It certainly did, and certainly as President Lincoln could have ignored that and pushed through an agreement of surrender which included the preservation of slavery.

Now , the question of whether that would have lasted and if the 13th would have been passed if that had been the case is an interesting one. Personally I believe the country was heading in that direction either way; but the fact that Lincoln above all else wanted an end to the war is a historical fact.

[ConHog]

Hmm, I really thought the Southern realization that with no Southern votes, Lincoln was still going to be elected. The 'peculiar institution' and the counting of population for elections, in Article 1, Section 2 had come home to roost. (Changed by 14th amendment during Reconstruction.)

I'm missing your point here. Southern States didn't vote against Lincoln because of his policy of no expansion of slavery which meant that there equality in Congress as group would slowly be eroded.

They were NOT against him because he advocated abolishing slavery altogether, because in 1860 he certainly did not. Or more correctly he did not publicly. Privately he did abhor slavery, or so history tells us.

[Kathianne]

It certainly did, and certainly as President Lincoln could have ignored that and pushed through an agreement of surrender which included the preservation of slavery.

Now , the question of whether that would have lasted and if the 13th would have been passed if that had been the case is an interesting one. Personally I believe the country was heading in that direction either way; but the fact that Lincoln above all else wanted an end to the war is a historical fact.

By 1863 slavery was done, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was put the focus on why the bloody was was going to go on. It was also clear that your 'possible solution' was never possible, the Confederacy wasn't about to join the Union again, 'with slavery.' They'd already been faced with no political solution to the federal government regarding the election of Lincoln. No, the Confederacy had to be defeated.