English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

10 answers

The Civil War began as an effort to force those Southern States that had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy to return to the Union, in spite of the fact that under the Constitution, those states had the right to secede if their legislatures voted to do so.

Therefore, the Civil War was in violation of the States rights under the Constitution.

Slavery entered into the equation in order to gain support from the Northern populace and communities that were against slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT extend to those Confederate territories already controlled by the Union Army, ONLY to those states and territories that were still in open rebellion against the Union.

Technically, while the proclamation freed slaves inside the Confederacy, those slaves outside the Confederacy remained slaves until the ratification of the 13th amendment sometime after the conclusion of the war.

2007-12-17 06:43:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Mainly because the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. It was all about states rights. The northern states were afraid of the south becoming more influencial and rich. So they had legislation passed to limit what the southern states could or couldn't do. Completely negating the idea of seperate, yet equal. But this was not about whether the south could or couldn't use slaves. There were MORE slaves per capita in the north, and they were treated more harshly there than in the south.

Lincoln used the idea of the war being about slavery as a smoke screen. When people started questioning the war, and why so many things had gone wrong with it, the excessive costs and high death counts. Lincoln waves this idea that everything was about slavery, so that he could avoid having to answer the real questions of soveriegnty.

The Democrats have made this into a real art form. Every time anyone started asking Clinton the HARD questions, all of a sudden you would see more headlines about racial strife in the papers, anything to dangle out there and take our eyes off of what was really happening.

2007-12-17 05:55:09 · answer #2 · answered by Firedawg6_41 2 · 2 0

He used the Proclamation to punish the states that had seceded. Border states and northern states were not included in the proclamation. Lincoln feared the border states (ones who had slaves but had not seceded) would join the Confederacy if they were threatened with the loss of their slaves so he left them alone. The Proclamation was written nearly a year before it was announced but Lincoln knew that if the North didn't win any battles it was worthless so he announced it just after the union chased Lee back south after the Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam to Northerners) using the opportunity of an almost successful battle to launch the Proclamation set to go into effect the first of the year (1863).

I suppose I should also chime in here with the rest of the Answerers, the War of Northern Aggression (American Civil War to Northerners) was not about slavery.

Dan, the Proclamation was announced on September 22,1862 and went into effect January 1, 1863 or six months BEFORE the Battle of Gettysburg and the Surrender at Vicksburg. This was just after the September 17, 1862 Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam to Northerners).

2007-12-17 05:53:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He wanted to time it so that it would break the spirit of the South. 1963 was a turning point in the war, as the Union won two massively important battles, taking Vicksburg, Mississippi and defeating Lee's army at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania within a day or two of each other. The capture at Vicksburg split the Southern Confederacy in two and gave the Union control of the Mississippi River. By turning Lee back at Gettysburg, the Union would not have to worry about a major invasion into the North for the remainder of the war. By issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in the same year, Lincoln hoped to demoralize the South as much as possible, hoping to bring a swifter end to the costly conflict.

2007-12-17 05:50:08 · answer #4 · answered by Dan in Real Life 6 · 0 1

Because the war was not about slavery, it was about economics. Lincoln's goal was to hold the union together. Slavery was a distant after thought to him.

The south was an agrarian society and the north was becoming industrialized. The south felt oppressed by the north on a many number of things and decided to bolt.

Lincoln was not going to have that on his watch, so there the war began.

2007-12-17 05:53:42 · answer #5 · answered by wcowell2000 6 · 3 0

Because the war was not about slavery, but Lincon saw that after a major victory ( can't remember which battle it was ) that he needed another reason if he was going to keep support with the people long enough to complete the actual goal of simply keeping our country toghether. So he chose Slavery because it was one of the causes who's supporters were very passionate and had large amounts of support in the north.

2007-12-17 05:52:18 · answer #6 · answered by Shalashaska 3 · 1 0

The war was not about slavery. It was about money. Many of the Slave trades were in the north and many northerners gained monetarily from slavery.

2007-12-17 09:19:12 · answer #7 · answered by M 6 · 0 0

Lincoln would of kept slavery if it would helped preserved the Union.

2007-12-17 06:13:11 · answer #8 · answered by Dave M 7 · 3 0

Because the war was not just about slavery.

2007-12-17 05:47:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He was a major pragmatist, if that hasn't been said already.

2007-12-17 07:48:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers