Why was it so important to stop the South from seceding?

Question

The amount of carnage it cost must have been estimated beforehand. What was so important to pay such a price? I understand the importance of emancipation, but I've been told the real reasons behind the war had little to do with slavery and more to do with economics. And, that the slavery issue was thrown in to enlist a little help for the North from the slaves.

These are great answers. I can't decide which is best.

Answer 1

First -- you say,
"The amount of carnage it cost must have been estimated beforehand. "

Well, sort of. But NEITHER side had any idea it would be such a long, bloody affair. They actually expected to win a few strategic victories, take the other's capital and resolve the whole matter. (That's why folks came out in their carriages from Washington to witness the First Battle of Bull Run. They had NO idea.)

By the way, if was not just because each side thought the other would not stick things out that led to such carnage. The fact is the very NATURE of war had been changing as the weapons used had changed (greater range, accuracy, deadliness) so that war in the 1860s was MUCH costlier in human terms than the previous wars the nation had fought. And no one knew THAT at the start of the war.

As for what "you've been told" about the war having little to do with slavery. Sorry, that's a popular line, but it simply isn't so. If you read the political speeches and threats from Southern "fire-eaters" in the 1850s, the official statements of the reasons for secession of states like South Carolina and Alabama, and the speeches of emissaries (of S.C. etc) to other slave states, urging them to secede, you cannot miss the point -- they did it to protect slavery.

Now it is true that the NORTH did not enter the fight with the goal of ending slavery, but that's not the whole point. The key is that KEEPING slavery WAS the main reason of those who pushed the South to secede -- and they stated it VERY clearly. (Only later, mostly AFTER the War, did they adopt the "it wasn't about slavery" line.) And beyond that, had there been NO slavery, none of the other sectional tensions would have been so difficult to resolve.

Sure economics was an important factor -- but for the South the economics WAS the economics of slavery, since their economy was BUILT on the institution, and slaves constituted more than a third of their wealth! (In other words, the war was not fought over slavery in the ABSTRACT --over the IDEA of slavery all by itself-- but the concrete institution that shaped and supported one section's whole way of life.)

That leads to your last point. Again, it is true that the North did not specifically target slavery during the first year of the war, but that could not last long. And that does not mean they didn't understand slavery as a central issue, even CAUSE of the whole thing. By the end of 1861 (8 months after Fort Sumer) Lincoln was working to convince border Union states to emancipate their slaves (with financial help from the federal government), and hoped if that worked to convince Confederate border states to do the same ... so perhaps short-circuiting the war.

The reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation were complex -- you've only mentioned one, and understated it. The liberation of slaves (including by encouraging them to flee) would and did severely hamper the Southern war effort and could and did gain MANY useful troops (nearly 200,000) for the Union army. And, as suggested above, it began to destroy the institution Lincoln, and increasingly much of the North, understood as the cause of the conflict... and so, a thing that NEEDED to be done away with for a final resolution of the conflict.

(A brand new book by Chandra Manning actually examines thousands of letters and regimental newspaper articles by soldiers, North and South, to show how THEY came to understand that slavery was *What This Cruel War Was Over*)

Again, on the reasonS for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation -- check out the following helpful summary by historian Stephen Oates:

"We now know that Lincoln issued his proclamation for a combination of reasons: to clarify the status of the fugitive slaves, to solve the Union's manpower woes, to keep Great Britain out of the conflict, to maim and cripple the Confederacy by destroying its labor force, to remove the very thing that had caused the war, and to break the chains of several million oppressed human beings and right America at last with her own ideals."
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=3&subjectID=1
______________

Others have stated reasons why the North DID regard it as very important not to let the South just walk away (undermining the Union AND setting a horrible precedent that, whenever you dislike an election result you split or threaten to, so blackmailing the rest to get your own way). But when you add to that the Northern (AND Southern) perspectives described above, perhaps esp.their NOT knowing how great the cost would end up being, their decision is far more understandable.

Answer 2

It is still a mystery. Should the United States of America be as big as it is and contain the bulk of the American Southeast? Could not America endure without the bulk of Virginia, the Carolina s, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Missisippi, Lousianna and Texas? Sure it would have been hard to explain to the grandkids why four of the original thirteen colonies secceeded but were they needd.
Most likely no. A majority of Americans in 1860 were sick of the Southern demand that Slavery be accepted even respected as a 'honorable institution.' Call it an issue of States rights. Bring in the issue of the tarriff. Conjure up all sorts of conspiracy stories as to the Industrial North holding down the Agrigcultural South.
LET THEM GO.
Abraham Lincoln said "NO," and it can be argued pushed America into a War to Preserve the Union.
On one level - - - why? The South had botched the entire issue of economic developement since the year 1800 and would do so long after 1865. Left alone they would likely have become a backwater nation. In fact over time states scuh as Virginia might have outlawed Slavery and then asked America for readmittance. Perhaps 'Good Riddance' would have been best.
As so many argue slavery would have eventually 'died out.' South Africa ended Apartheid by the 1980 s or so. So if one truly feels that it would have been o-k for slavery to have lingered on in Southeast America into the 80s then it was not important to keep the South from Secceeding.

Peace................... //////////===============


PS The Slaves were not enlisted for the North in an effort to triumph over the Noble South.....

A CLARIFICATION // the North was an Agrigcultural and Industrial Powerhouse - - - the North did not NEED the South - - - the South on its own failed to develope its agrigcultural and mineral resources as well as an aversion to industry. The American GRAIN BELT was then in Upper State New York, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa - - - the North made the processing of Cattle & Pork an Industry and encourage farmers & cattlemen to prosper while the Plantation Aristocracy of the South relied on credit for future cotton & tobacco & rice crops and kept ****** from growing food crops such as grains & potatos, among other items.

Answer 3

Well, no, the slavery issue was thrown in to keep any European powers from helping the South, since they had all outlawed slavery years before and would not want to appear to be supporting it.

This is a good question and in all the rhetoric around this War of Northern Aggression this point is seldom debated, nor discussed. It wasn't important, nor to me legally defensible, since the territories voted to become states they should have had the option of seceding; I think.

I guess it's kind of like joining the Mafia; no one is allowed to resign.

Lincoln and his cronies were power hungry, anal retentive, politicians, and all of the North, for years before the war, seemed to feel a need to punish the South, with or without slavery.

It had mostly to do with economics and the fact that farmers and merchants of the South might choose to conduct trade with other countries, rather than their Northern brethren, if the price was better. The North always appeared to want to treat the South like a poor colony, there for ridicule and exploitation.

Answer 4

The North was the industrial part of the nation. The South had the natural resources and farmlands. This was prior to the real development of the grain belt of Kansas, Nebraska, etc.
You make a very good point. What would N. America be like with 5 or 6 different nations rather than three?

Answer 5

Beginning in 1815, the South began to pull away from the North because it felt that the Constitution really wasn't serving its needs. They wanted greater stability, as the fear of a slave uprising was becoming greater and greater. Lincoln said that any sort of secession wasn't possible because the right to secede from the Union was not in the Constitution. The war really broke out when the rebels fired on Fort Sumter and Lincoln raised an army of militiamen in response. Both sides felt betrayed by the other.

The North was fighting to preserve the union, the South to gain freedom. It was vital that the union was preserved because they wanted to prove to England, whom they had just left themselves, that the American colonies could work and could be a strong, stable entity.

The issue of slavery was merely a battle tactic to end the war earlier. The Northerners attacked the institution of slavery in order to keep down Southern morale. They found loopholes which enabled them to confiscate any slaves that had been stolen from them. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 which stated that slaves were free wherever the US did not hold power. This directly meant the South since they did not consider themselves a part of the US. He simply wanted to end the war by attacking the most profitable institution in the south.

Answer 6

Youve already gotten some great answers and I dont want to be redundant, so Im only adding two points:

1. The North threatened to secede many times before the South did it. The South always gave in for the betterment of the entire country instead of holding out and ignoring the needs of the other region.

2. Lincoln (who failed to win a single electoral vote in the south) knew before the election that his presidency would lead to the south seceding-he chose to ignore that and run anyway. He chose to be the straw the broke the camel's back, so he could not allow them to stay separated when he would go down in history as the final reason for it.

Answer 7

at the time, the north was very dependent on the south's agricultural and cotton trade success. the north needed the south to be successful to fuel its economy. the south also had many major ports that were the connection to trading with europe.
if the south was lost then the north would lose a major source of natural resources and and great amount of their work force.

Answer 8

look, slavery replaced into as incorrect because it might desire to it, downright evil. each race replaced right into a slave at one ingredient in historic previous. yet in fact that no longer in basic terms did the southern states no longer vote for Lincoln, he wasn't even on the pollfor them to vote for him. THEY could no longer in the event that they had to. that would desire to be a wakeup call which you haven't any longer any say on your government. Brings no taxation with out representation to recommendations. Slavery is evil, however the concern does not rely in case you do not have a say on your very own government. that's why we observed the electoral college, so as that a majority vote would desire to nonetheless lose out to the purposes of the rustic as an entire.

Answer 9

The end result of the War Of Northern Agression was the kiss of death for state's rights. The federal government ruled supreme.

Answer 10

Precedent, plain and simply precedent. If the CSA could break off whenever they wanted than the Fed would become fatally weakened and the US would be in constant danger of being dissolved.