Discussion..what do you think?

Question

The rights of slaves and the right to own them were the driving forces behind the war, however, economics played a large part. The Southern states believed that the North reaped all the benefits of the cotton trade while they went further into debt and believed that secession from the Union was their only hope for economic survival. To solve the secession crises a compromise was developed by Senator John J. Crittenden, allowing slavery to continue where it was established, however Lincoln denied the compromise with the instinct that his decision would start a civil war. In the early years of the war Lincoln did not consider slavery the issue, but keeping the border slave states part of the Union.

Answer 1

I find it interesting that some people blame Lincoln for the Civil War and act as though he was some power hungry mad man passing all sorts of laws to increase his power and strangle the south.  The reality is that many states had seceded before Lincoln even took office and he was only in office a little over a month when the war began.  The Civil War had roots going back to the revolution and would have happened eventually with or without Lincoln as president, we as a nation are fortunate that Lincoln had the foresight to know that the union needed to be preserved.  

It's highly unlikely that this country would have survived as two separate nations and it's even less likely that the Confederacy would have survived since some states were talking about seceding from that during the war.  Without the country whole it would have been ripe for the picking for some of the European countries.

Answer 2

Your last pt.about Lincoln is dead-on.  The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in all but said border states that remained with the union, therefore Lincoln prioritized unity over slavery.

Answer 3

The war had nothing to do with slavery. For proof of this, look at the amendment to the constitution that upheld slavery, which was inserted during the civil war - that is, without the Southern states at all. As you say, Lincoln did take slavery as an issue at the start of the war, so why would he start a war?

The war, much like the US' independence, was about taxation. Lincoln wanted more central power, and sought to tax states more, the South, always the more ardent supporters of a federated system, said bugger off, and used their constitutional right to sede from the union. (Lincoln was big on power, he used state police to smash printing presses critical of him).

Lincoln would not allow this, and launched an illegal war to keep them within the union, and centralise power in Washington. Slavery became an issue later when the North realised they could use it as leverage over the South.

Answer 4

If I may play with this - editing or rewriting what you have written as a suggestion - - - -

(by the way - the people in slavery had no rights)

The rights of Southern slave owners to their property was the driving force behind the war.  Economics played a large part. The wealthy slave owners of the Southern states held an economic asset worth approximately $3 billion 1860 dollars - - the value of their four million slaves.   Southern slave owners believed that secession from the Union was their only hope to avoid losing their valuable property.  In the early years of the war Lincoln allowed continuation of slavery in the border slave states to keep them part of the Union.

Your sentence -"To solve the secession crises a compromise was developed by Senator John J. Crittenden allowing slavery to continue where it was established; however Lincoln denied the compromise with the instinct that his decision would start a civil war" - I disagree.  Lincoln would have made almost any concession to slave owners to avert the Civil War.

Look at Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

From Lincoln's own words - "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

The primary goal in Lincoln's view was to maintain the Union and limit the further SPREAD of slavery.  Southerners saw this limitation as a threat to their way of life.

Added note - Last fall I took a history course (grad school level) at a Southern university regarding the Civil War.  Scholars North and South now realize that the American Civil War was about Slavery, Slavery, and Slavery.  Those who argue that it was about States' Rights are also correct - it was about the rights of people in the South to continue SLAVERY.  There is no question about it in educated circles.  The Southern government  was dominated by the wealthy landowners who were also SLAVE owners.  They did not want to give up their property OR release four million understandably resentful "black" people into their own societies.  The remarkable part is that the wealthy slave owners convinced a million young men - most of whom did not own slaves - to fight extremely well in defense of property they did not own themselves.

Answer 5

As above-it was states rights v federal rights; a federal government bent on centralising power was resisted by the states that favoured decentralised, localised political power.

Slavery was just a side issue, John Brown was an embarrassment to everybody.