fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 4:34 AM arasan: there is a very compelling argument for the idea that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary motivation for the South to secede and rebel. It can be found at http://www.undergroundrailroad.com/history/sch%5Fslavery.html 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 6:48 AM This is a very interesting question and a very difficult one. I believe that Abolition played a major role in the war due to the fact that the south really needed the "MANPOWER" to continue making a profit and at the sametime maintain a lifestyle. If the ECONOMICS of the NORTH depended on SLAVERY at the TIME, i would hate to imagine what this country would be like because sure there were alot of NORTHERNERS who helped the slaves but the question to ask is "Did those "NORTHERNERS consider the people they were helping EQUAL or TOTALLY HUMAN for that matter"? Please do not be fooled by the North's response to slavery. I respect the SOUTH for having take a stand and defended it to the last man whereas, in the North i would have been fighting right alongside a NORTHERNER only to have him tell me after the war, i could not live next to him, my children were not welcomed to the same school his kids went to, i definitely did not have a say in POLITICS because in his eyes i was not a full HUMAN BEING and so on. The landscape and makeup of the NORTH at the time and still today was INDUSTRIAL and this was by design by GOD to aid us in our struggle. GOD is the only person i trust whole heartedly about any event because i know that HE did not and never does have an alterior motive except to see HIS children do the right thing. SLAVERY meant alot of MONEY for the SOUTHERNER and the INDUSTRIALIZATION of the north translated into alot of MONEY for the NORTHERNER and eventually the rest of AMERICA. Consider the point at which slaves were dropped off in this country. It was in the south, what would it be like if most slaves were dropped off in the NORTH? Would we be migrating SOUTH? I certainly believe we would have. SLAVERY was a buisness and a means of trying to dehumanize a people at any cost, so as to maintain a LIFESTYLE but THEY forgot that GOD was watching. These are my personal beliefs based on my readings and inferences. If i have offended anyone by expressing myself, it was not intentional and please accept my sincere apology. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No MassCass Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:13 AM I believe there were many reasons for the war, but the extent of abolition has been dominated in our thoughts because it was a great plight during the times preceeding, during and after the war. I wish I knew more specifics for you, and would think that in further studying Abe Lincolns rise into presidential office, the onset of issues towards the first battle, and the issues leading up to and after the defeat of the Confederacy would have to be studied in depth to get a true and non biased, knowledgeable answer to this, since I am not a historian, I will not get into that as I would be only telling you my views many years later. Good Luck with your question & welcome to Abuzz! 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No frew Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:34 AM The question is complex because there were several interrelated factors at play before the war began. It is hard to argue that southerners, most of whom were not slave owners, would go to war to protect the "property" of the few privileged members of their society that did own slaves. In fact, most southerners did not consider themselves to be members of a "United States." Their primary allegiance was to their own "country," their state. In the minds of most of the southerners who went to war, they were protecting their own sovereignty; they were repelling foreigners who were invading their country. Repelling foreigners who were attempting to dictate policy to them in a number of areas, including slavery. Much of the political friction between the north and south came from the question of slavery, but what compelled the north to quell secession, despite the fact that history clearly shows that the southern states did have the right to secede in a strictly legal sense, was not to end slavery but to maintain the integrity of the United States, a matter that was obviously more in the interest of the north than the south. Lincoln made it very clear that ending slavery was not the issue when the north first invaded the south, and he would have continued slavery in the south if that had avoided a war. In the first two years of the war, the north foundered. It was only when Lincoln decided to make ending slavery an official purpose of the war with the emancipation proclamation (which did not end slavery that still existed in some parts of the north) that the people of the north felt that they had a moral cause, and from there went on to victory. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No MassCass Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:38 AM frew...I would guess you would be somewhat of Historian, just the way I would like to see the answers spelled out...thank you from me...it is very interesting, all that you have to say. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:43 AM frew: I think the immorality of slavery was clear to northerners long before the Civil War. The abolitionist movement grew out of the Transcendentalist movement in New England. That movement gave birth to prison reform; reforms in mental health care; and the movement for womens' rights and universal suffrage. The states' rights issue / secession must have followed the abolition issue. Think of Dred Scott, and later Plessy vs. Ferguson. These cases revolved around the humanity (or lack of same) of the slave. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Tom500sl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:49 AM frew: Yours is the best answer I have read on any abuzz question in many moons. Let's pose the question to ourselves. How many of us would go to war and a high probability of death for something the richest 3% of our state's population had? Certainly not me. Clearly the 97% who fought had higher goals than the preservation of slavery. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:52 AM frew: the idea that the north fought the Civil War to maintain the integrity of the union, and the ssouth was fighting for states' rights, is under serious attack. One of those arguments is found at the site I mentioned in my post above. Check it out. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Tom500sl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:01 AM One other note; Slaves were not freed until AFTER the war ended (13th amendment, 12/18/1865). If the war was about slavery, why didn't congress end it before or during the war? Are you aware that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to some states? Here is a note from Abe's website; "On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control." So, was this done out of compassion for slaves? or was it a ploy to create a slave rebellion among the rebels and help defeat the rebel army? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:06 AM Tom500sl: How can you possibly fathom the mind of the 19th century southerner? Assuming you are correct, and only 3% of southerners were slaveholders (and I doubt it); nearly everyone else's livelihood depended on that institution: shippers, general merchants, textile dealers and workers, sharecroppers, gin operators, etc. Also, why would you assume that the fact that you might die in a war would stop you from fighting in it? You are applying a Viet Nam mentality to a 19th Century society. Finally, what "higher goal" might there be than the preservation of your economic and cultural system? Economics isn't everything now, and it was even less important then. What was extremely important then, and to some extent is today, was the class structure. It has always been (and still is) important for the southern man to "know his place. " Obviously, the upside is to have some one to look down on. Take away slavery, involuntary servitude, indentured servants, and sharecroppers, and all poor people become the same. To prevent THAT from happening was worth fighting for. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:11 AM Tom500sl: the fact that Congress did not end slavery during the war could have been because 1) they didn't have the votes; 2) they didn't want to so antagonize the south as to make reconciliation impossible; or 3) or, maybe they had other things to do like manage the war. In any case, the fact that they did not outlaw slavery during the war, does not mean slavery was not an issue in the war. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No frew Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:46 AM fdisalle: I don't question that the issue of slavery was an important root cause of the civil war, and something that was in the hearts and minds of a lot of people in the north, but if the question is about what the aims of the war according the the northern leadership were at the start, abolition was not one of them, and Lincoln specifically denied that ending slavery was a purpose of the war. That became a purpose two years later, and it was a stroke of genius as well as moral courage for Lincoln to sign the emancipation proclamation. As a result, the people of the north embraced it as their cause thereafter, and it made fighting the war seem worthwhile. Fighting the war did not seem worthwhile in the minds of a lot of northerners before that, especially in light of their luck on the battlefield up to that point. Moreover, defending slavery was not what primarily what was on the minds of most people fighting in the south. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:55 AM As i said earlier, this is an excellent and a very difficult question but after reading the threads and some of them are very informative, i am even more of the opinion that SLAVERY had more than 50% to do with the war. If less than 3% of SOUTHERNERS had slaves, why the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT? What percentage of the U.S.A. looked at a Black Man as his or her equal at the time? You can look at the mind set in America today and if you dig deep into your soul and you can say that a Black Man has the same Rights and the Playing Field is LEVELED TODAY as it was "THEN" then i guess SLAVERY played a minor role in THE AMERICAN CIVIL W AR and i am moving to SCARSDALE NEW YORK because i can afford it and my neighbours do not CARE that i am BLACK. Lincoln could care less about SLAVES and their well being. Europeans and people throughout the world saw the only use for BLACK PEOPLE was as SLAVES and THEY wanted to keep it that way. Ask Trentt Lott if you do not believe me. To those who feel as if i am being unfair to Mr. Lott, i admire him as a person but i despise his politics. Back then, there was no such thing as "Political Correctness" thus people said exactly what they thought especially since BLAC K PEOPLE did not have a voice so i am sure if someone from the past could speak to us about this now, they would probably say something like this "Well now SLAVERY has been very good to us and besides it ain't like they are human, so that damn Lincoln had better stop pandering to those @#$ least we put him in his place". 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Miberz Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 9:22 AM Slavery was a big issue in the war. With the 3/5 law southern whites were starting to get unfair representation in the Congress. The slave couldn't vote but he counted as 3/5 of a person. The wealthy southeren slave owners knew this and wanted to expand slavery into the west. Bleeding Kansas was the real beginning of the Civil War. As for the legality of succession that was and is very debateable. The big problem was succession would have stopped the creation of the continental nation, the dream of the Founders. By splitting apart North America would have been easily manipulated by the European powers. Some northerners were also appalled by what they saw as an attempt by some whites in the south to recreate a British style manor system based on inherited wealth in North America. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 9:27 AM frew: Lincoln was a cosummate politician; and may (I repeat, may) have chosen not to antagonize whatever pro-slavery forces were still in the Union. It is believed that the idea behind the Emancipation Proclamation was to turn slaves against their masters in the south. But, as to whether slavery or states' rights was the determining factor in the North's fighting, rather than letting southern states secede, that argument has not been settled. I believe that a continuing stream of European immigrants to the north made slavery unnecessary; but what is lesser known is that planting sugar and rice, in the so-called " deep south" required skilled workers, not just muscle. Effective embargoes had slowed down the importation of slave. Slaveholding, in other words, was a complex, and interdependent business, that was not going to "go down easy." People whose livelihoods depended on it (as I mentioned above) might have made up any number of reasons for being involved, but at the root of the matter was a fear that slavery might be abolished. And, by the way, this is not the same as saying that the North entered the war to "free the slaves." But it may have been more 'politically correct' in those days to downplay the role of slavery as a reason for fighting. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Tom500sl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 9:31 AM Jt296: Some good points. You ask "What percentage of the U.S.A. looked at a Black Man as his or her equal at the time?" I would guess a very small percent of Americans and Europeans too. But "looking at someone as equal" and slavery are two very different issues. One involves an opinion, the other actions. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No frew Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 9:34 AM fdisalle: I'm aware of the historical interpretations to which you refer. However, the record is not that old, and the history of what various groups were saying about the issues of the day is pretty clear. The historiography typified by the reference you make does a lot of reading between the lines and speculation that is contradicted by the facts of what people actually did and said. We have a large number of letters from southern soldiers to their families and friends that make it quite clear what it was that they thought they were fighting for. The essay by Horton you reference makes mention of this in a rather odd way: "=Although McPherson found that most Confederate soldiers wrote little about slavery, he argued that the defense of slavery was a major part of their motivation.= After a close analysis of hundreds of letters he concluded that virtually all southern soldiers "took slavery for granted as part of the southern way of life for which they fought and did not feel compelled to discuss. " Say what? They didn't talk about slavery as being a primary motivation, but it was still must have been a primary motivation, something McPherson determines on "close examination." Close examination indeed. McPherson does a lot of ugly huffing and puffing to avoid the plain facts, which anyone who reads those letters has no difficulty recognizing. This sort of twisted logic and selective use of facts and history typifies the whole essay. Horton picks and chooses among a vast record of newspaper accounts and speeches of the day to find those particular quotes that support his thesis, and ignores anything to the contrary. That is not to say that preservation of the economic status quo wasn't what was primarily on the minds of a lot of southern leaders, but Horton paints with too broad a brush when he condemns all southern people for being motivated primarily to defend slavery. His argument belies the hatred of white people that has become so common among African American academics. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No arasan Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 10:15 AM Thanks for the response. Further to the discussion, is it true that anyone applying for US citizenship must answer a number of questions on US history. One of them is to give the reason for the cause of the civil war. Is it true that the official answer is "the abolition of slavery"? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 10:15 AM Tom500sl your point is sincerely appreciated but if people sinerely respected their fellow man as an equal, throughout the entire history of our world, i believe SLAVERY would not have occurred anywhere in the world. Ethnic cleansing would not exist and SLAVERY would not have been an issue period throughout the world not just in the American Civil War. In the Bahamas, we have a tendancy to treat Haitians badly because they come in search of a better life and we are ALL BLACK PEOPLE but we are quick to critize the U.S.A. if they send Haitians back to Haiti. Well before Bahamians can critize anybody about the way they treat Haitians, we must first look ourselves in the eye and correct our own behavior. If Bahamians look at Haitians as their equal and respect them as such, we will not treat them as "second class citizens despite their being from a different country". Power, Money, Prestige and Superiority can lead us to do terrible things and i pray God we find a way to live as God truly intended which is as BROTHERS. I am an American and i should not be denied my rights as an American because i look different. I love living in New York because it is so diverse. I have learned so much from my Asian, Hispanic, West Indian, Jewish and European counter parts and i will not trade this experience for anything in the world because i know that it will get better the more we have discussions and questions like THIS. CHEERS TO EVERYONE HERE. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 10:21 AM Arasan i took that test and the answer is "THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY". 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 12:58 PM Sample questions and answers, including questions about the Civil War, but not what was its cause, can be found at http://www.jcvisa.com/nat_g.htm 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 2:19 PM the abolitionist movement in the main did not possess the political power in the american congress during the lincoln presidency to force the north into armed conflict with the south on principle. abolitionist leaders in the congress like charles sumner were *reactive* as opposed to proactive with regard to militia actions in the western territories. preservation of the union was the primary official motive of getting into war. but already guerrila fighting had begun precisely over the matter of slavery in the western territories. john brown was the spearhead of the militant abolitionists, but he had great problems influencing the rest. in brown's thinking, a war was inevitable and he was bent on escalating the conflict, on the terms of equality under god, a far more radical position than that officilly stated (early or late) on emancipation. so if you would like to believe that *the* moral motivation for the federalists was the negro question, then you would have to show john brown as the leader of that movement. clearly, brown had no federal sponsors. i think the crux of this question can be answered by evaluating the positions in the congress of the matters of the two revolutionaries most militantly opposed to the general oppression of the african. and those two are nat turner and john brown. in the end i think you will find that the north was NOT escalating the wars started by those two, but fighting their own war for separate purposes. lincoln defended the principle of human rights for the african, but that fell far short of civil rights. one could argue that some segment of the african population in the south enjoyed human rights prior to the war. it's rather like newt gingrich attacking bill clinton on the question of marital fidelity. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 2:52 PM as for the motivations of individual soldiers, i would echo miberz' direction and look at the guerrilla fighters who were involved in violent conflict before the war. now project something backwards and that is the fact that during its height, the kkk claimed many millions of members. but the origins of the klan and its methods of terror are found in the person of william quantrill. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Kansas/quantril.html why, before there was even a declared civil war, would men who did not own slaves, who in fact were very poor, go on raids to terrorize the 'free soilers'? this is part of the complex psychology of white supremacy and the southern culture. it is not as simple as defending slaves you have, but defending the honor of slave holders and that way of life. (which essentially guaranteed even the poorest most illiterate whites of always having someone they can kick around) 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Tom500sl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 3:54 PM boohab, I think you are on dangerous ground when you link with supremacy with southern culture. They are unrelated. White (or any other race) supremacy exists in all cultures. It just happened that the 19th century southern economy depended on cheap labor and slavery existed to be used. In other times and places, a similar relationship existed with abused, cheap and sometimes child labor (northeastern USA factories in the 1880 - 1910 era, for example.) Most of these are driven by MONEY. jt296 raises an interesting issue ragarding northerners opposition to slavery. Was it moral, or economic? After all, freed southern slaves would make very cheap labor for their factories. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 4:30 PM the general northern sentiment was that of compromise. but the abolitionists opposition to slavery was moral, that was the point. i don't recall there being any southern abolitionists. i wouldn't take this opportunity, tom, to argue that all supremacies are equal and equally distributed. it's a losing proposition and beside the point. read both of these: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 6:07 PM boohab: your focus on Quantrell and James Brown may reperesent a twentieth century mindset that dictates that resorting to violence is the ultimate commitment, and thus entitles one to 'leadership' "credentials." The whole New England abolitionist movement with its ties to England (in which Charles Sumner was a major player) was setting the political stage for the end of slavery. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 7:11 PM oh come now disalle. should i also expect you to discount the revolutionary army and the heroics of george washington with regards to commitment to american freedom and the militancy of leadership? that's not 'modern'. i think that the historians at the pbs site have a compelling point when they cite the significance of henry clay's compromises in the face of expanding slave terrirory. the passage of the fugitive slave act and the dred scott decision were both violent affronts to the safety of africans, and anyone who was personally involved in the underground railroad, as john brown was, understood that freedom for africans entailed armed conflict. the abolitionist movement was setting the political stage in varying degrees. only a few of them were completely right, period. john brown was one of them, not simply because he fought, but simply because he thought seriously at length and came to the right conclusion about the depth of commitment it would require to bring about equality. you know disalle, whenever someone accuses me of using 'modern standards' to judge historical actions, i suspect that they are using modern politics to spin my point into marginality. but i don't buy that argument, and i'll tell you why. because i never hear such arguments defending flat earthers or the people who defied copernicus' vision of the solar system. all the others were simply wrong, wrong, wrong. moreover, faced with the single, simple truth, they remained wrong. it makes no sense to defend or minimize their errors in retrospect. i simply do not believe that folk were too naive to comprehend, with as much understanding as we can teach kids in junior high school, that all of their futzing on the issue of full equality for the african was morally corrupt. the issues were plain, and the proper case had been plainly made everywhere. i give all those people full responsibility for their actions and inactions. nothing 'modern' about that. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:04 PM I thought you were making a point that since few, if any people, followed the lead of people like Brown or Quantrell, this indicated a lack of commitment to abolition. I felt that the idea that people would see as a leader someone who was willing to use violence was a 60's idea. The Founding Fathers' ideas and their cause were not popular because they were commited to military action. In fact, the idea of taking up arms aagainst the crown probably kept some colonials fromparticipating in the revolution. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 8:18 PM yes i did kinda mean that, but only to the extent that they (abolitionists) were not committed to the point of drawing the union into war against raiders like quantrill. maybe a (heh) modern analogy would be proper. some folks in congress wanted to go to war against iraq immediately. others wanted to 'support the troops' once they were committed to battle. i believe that most abolitionists were of the second variety. perhaps no less principled, but certainly not as committed. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No SchtdyGirl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 10:45 PM I thought it was because of States Rights. South Carolina didn't want anyone telling them what they could do or not do. then during the war, Lincoln freed the slaves. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No rustybucket55 Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 11:09 PM jt296 You state some things that are fairly accurate but others have not one thing to do with the question. You had beter believe that if it hadn't been for the white northern people slavery would have existed a hell of a lot longer! To be against slaverey is not to say that one wants to let you move in with them! Or let your children marry theirs. Who cares if they thought you were not their EQUAL or SUB HUMAN or not? They were most certainly against the treatment and the institution of slavery! You are trying to belittle the fact that you got your freedom by having it fought for you by the white man! It wasen't God that died in all those battles! Of the men of the SOUTH that died, very damned few ever owned a slave! Of the men of the North, it was the sustaining of the union they were fighting for. It was the slavery issue that prompted the South to cecede! I am against slavery today. We still have it only in another form! And color has nothing to do with it! I am glad you are free and don't know a thing about slavery! But don't confuse the issue! You are feeling sorry for yourself because you are black! Ain't my fault! I still don't want you living in my house or sleeping in my bed! Now forget the pitty party!! 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No SchtdyGirl Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 11:26 PM I was surprized to find out recently the England outlawed before we did "A Respectable Trade" (a great PBS special) 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sat, Aug 26, 2000 11:34 PM if the civil war hadn't been fought or if the north hadn't been as abolitionist as it was, then africans would have kept heading north to canada. the underground railroad would have kept right on. the other possibility would be that there would be a number of largely black states in the west - new mexico, arizona and nevada perhaps. instead the north won, and reconstruction began. blacks stayed in the south until the rise of the klan and jim crow in 1915. then they moved north by the millions. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 2:30 AM boohab: my Amer Hist professor (Summer '93; I was 47) used to say that the massive waves of immigration at the end of the 19th, and beginning of 20th Centuries, would have ended slavery, because southern landowners would have attracted day laborers down there to save money. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Tom500sl Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 6:06 AM boohab, I took this from your referenced site - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html "The northerners, however, were not all abolitionists as Atchison claimed. In fact, abolitionists were in the minority. Most of the Free State settlers were part of a movement called Free Soil, which demanded free territory for free white people. They hated slavery, but not out of concern for the slaves themselves. They hated it because plantations took over the land and prevented white working people from having their own homesteads. They hated it because it brought large numbers of black people wherever it went. The Free Staters voted 1,287 to 453 to outlaw black people, slave or free, from Kansas. Their territory would be white." I still think economics played a larger part than morality. Your thoughts ??? 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 8:43 AM i am starting to believe that it was the control of the west which was the prime factor in the civil war. the litmus issue was slave or free as if those were the two parties of congress. i've never really followed this part of history very closely. my primary concern, as i've ranted to disalle, was to find a thread back through american history which took the same principled position on equality for the african. and mostly i've spent time debunking lincoln on that score, as well as illustrating the differences between douglass and garrison. also john brown and sojourner truth are touchpoints. (actually the more i reflect, the more i realize i've talked about this period - still i don't like to get bogged down on the subject of slavery) so i look at the abolitionists as a loud minority a few of which do truly have their heads on straight re: equality. they can't force the issue to the point of armed conflict. and only one or two of them is taking the battle to the streets (of kansas). the fact that blacks were evidently never promised any federal protection or homesteading rights in the west proves to me that the primary question of slavery for the union was not liberation but economic control. nevertheless, abolitionists were indeed making most of the proper noises. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 8:50 AM oh yeah, as to migration. i could see that. but i think there would have to be a very big motivation behind a mass migration. the blacks in the south *were* the agricultural industry. so they naturally expected that their livelihood would be in farming. however the southern establishment created a legal system to reduce their labor to worthlessness - a comprehensive and unavoidable cheat, all within the capitalist system... 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 9:04 AM Destiny6 i will be very careful in my response to you and PLEASE try and follow me. I will keep it VERY SIMPLE. I am immensely proud to be a BLACK MAN. I am an American and i will LIVE wherever MY MONEY will carry ME. PLEASE DO NOT EVER MISUNDERSTAND ME AND THINK THAT I WANT TO SLEEP IN YOUR BED OR ANY OTHER WHITE PERSON'S BED. YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU THINK TOO MUCH OF YOURSELVES. DO NOT EVER TELL ME WHAT WHITE PEOPLE HAVE DONE FOR ME BECAUSE I HAVE MET A MANY NUMBER OF GOOD WHITE PEOPLE BUT NONE AND I MEAN NONE HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING FOR ME AND I HAVE NEVER ASKED. My wonderful parents instilled a tremendous work ethic in their children that is second to none. White people have RED blood just as i do, no better no worse. I do not appreciate YOUR PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME BUT I WILL NOT BE DUPED INTO YOUR SLIME. Destiny6 you may choose to respond to this note if you so desire but i will not correspond with you or any person like you. You are a bit too dangerous for me. May GOD bless and guide you always. PEACE. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No dongee2 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 10:06 AM JT296 : Beg your pardon. Wasn't most of your early education given to you by white people who you claim has NEVER done a thing ,or given anything to you. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 10:44 AM Imagine it is April 12, 1861. The southern states have seceded, the Confederated States of America have formed. Now the CSA troops have fired on Fort Sumter. Why preserve an already broken Union? Why fight to put an end to slavery, if it only exists in the seceded states? Now answer the posted question. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No boohab Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 10:49 AM then you have the usa vs the csa for western territory. and you would have the usa joining in alliances with indian nations to fight csa expansion west. yike. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 11:05 AM boohab: that's a hypothesis that needs testing, but itis worth looking into. It had never ocurred to me that the souther states had already seceded BEFORE until I checked a Civil War chronology, exploring this question. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 11:06 AM boohab: I meant BEFORE firing on Fort Sumter. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 11:13 AM Dongee2 allow me to enlighten you. I was educated at St. John's College in the Bahamas where 97% of my teachers were BLACK and educated at THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES. My BLACK TEACHERS who were educated in England earned it the same way the ones at UWI did. The only difference was that they were in HOSTILE TERRITORY. After high school i went to College Of The Bahamas where most of my teachers were BLACK(99%). Most of them also went to UWI. It was only when i came to America i encountered THE WHITE TEACHER WHO AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY TRIED TO DISCOURAGE ME FROM BECOMING A DOCTER OF DENTAL SURGERY BY TELLING ME I WAS NOT SMART ENOUGH BECAUSE I WAS BLACK AND BLACK PEOPLE DO NOT BECOME DOCTERS IN AMERICA. Of course i encountered WHITE TEACHERS with CHARACTER AND STRENGTH and were not affraid or insecure about a BLACK MAN becoming a docter. It was when i came to this country that THE WHITE MAN tried to sell me the nonsense that something was wrong with me because i am BLACK and thus was not entitled to alot of things in life but THANK GOD FOR MY WONDERFUL PARENTS AND EXTENDED FAMILY IN THE BAHAMAS WHO TOLD ME OTHERWISE. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the AFRICAN AMERICAN because HE encountered THIS RACISM EVERYDAY AND HE CONTINUES TO FIGHT THIS INJUSTICE. People are people, some are smart, others smarter and then there are those that are smartest and it has nothing to do with the COLOUR OF ONE'S SKIN. I cannot believe how sad a person you and alot of people like you are. I feel terribly SORRY for YOU and YOUR KIND THAT THINK LIKE YOU. May GOD bless you and your family and enlighten you about your insecurities and shortcomings in this area and all areas. Again you may choose to answer this if you so desire but YOUR POLITICS is a little too dangerous for me and i will not be pulled into YOUR SLOP. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No toussaint Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 11:16 AM Please? may I say something to SchtdyGirl? SchtdyGirl, did you know France abolished slavery in 1794? (Just feeling proud we did it before the english)... 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No martini102 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 11:55 AM Slavery was not abolished until 1863 by the Emancipation Proclamation and that I was taught was to keep England(who was pro South and needed the cotton but anti-slavery) and other European countries out of the war. Remember the Proclamation did not free the slaves in the "slave" states that fought on the Northern side. The South went to war as they believed they had the right to suceed and felt that the North was being oppressive, economically. Many on the South fought for their "state" first. Remember Robert E. Lee turned down the post of Commander of the northern troops to be Commander of the troops of Virginia and it was only later that he became Commander of the Confederate troops. Also don't forget there were black men who fought for the Confederacy, some slaves and some free men. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No frew Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 12:20 PM There is a tendency to conflate the two issues of ending slavery and equality for blacks. The two are not necessarily the same thing. I have no doubt that equality and justice for Africans was what many abolitionists had in mind, but in many if not most minds in the north the two things, a free black and a black that had rights and priviledges equal to whites, were different issues, the former acceptable and the latter totally ridiculous, totally unacceptable. In fact, what many abolitionists had in mind for Africans once they were freed was that they could then go back to Africa, and some did. For hundreds of years before the civil war free black men lived in the south, many of whom owned property and some of whom actually owned black slaves. That they could coexist with their white neighbors without fear seems paradoxical if one considers white supremacy to be a major motivation to continue slavery. The rise of white supremacy, Jim Crow and the KKK 40 years after the civil war ended had to do with other issues that came up after the war, notably reconstruction, when the north forced southerners to accept blacks as civic leaders and major property owners by fiat. These were not efforts to enforce equality for blacks (the north certainly never elevated blacks to that level in their own states), but rather were two of the many ways that the northern whites used to degrade and punish the southern whites. It was a kind of affirmative action program that ended the way that all such programs have ended wherever they have been tried in the world (which is several times throughout history involving various ethnic groups); that is, with civil unrest and violence. Blacks that fled the south for the north were greeted with a different kind of segregation. It has often been said that southerners never minded living with blacks and might have many black friends, but they couldn't stand the idea of a black man getting a white man's job. The northerners, on the other hand, had no problem giving blacks jobs, but they couldn't stand the idea of living along side them or coming into contact with them socially. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 12:49 PM boohab: went to your favorite website| C.L.I.M.B. added info about Cathay Williams; found nothing about Buffalo Soldiers 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 1:35 PM Frew your last thread was very eloquently stated. Arasan as i said earlier, this is a very difficult and thought provoking question which has provided many excellent responses as you can see from the majority of the threads. Cheers to you again for asking this question and to you Frew for your last response. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No grsing Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 2:32 PM I beleive that abolition was a significant cause of war, but by no means the only. You are correct that two Union states did have slavery, I believe, but am not sure, that they were Maryland and Delaware, or maybe Kentucky. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No joannedorel Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 3:24 PM Everyone always like to say it was economic but I think that begs the question. True one of the main issues was economics, you know like, could you transport your property (slaves) across state lines and through non-slave states. But, in my opinion it was the movers and shakers of the anti abolution establisment that created the atmosphere in which the civil war came about. The South, wanted to protect their, " peculiar institution" at any cost. They, the South, were always afraid of their slaves as is true in all societies where slavery is a mainstay of the culture. The United States was not only being hit from within because of slavery, but the world, namely England and France did not approve. And sense the South tried hard to keep up with the North in every way the issue just got out of hand and it was fear tht drove the South to secede. As I said, my opinion. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No rustybucket55 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 3:57 PM jt296: You wrote the words, not me! I am sorry that no white person ever did anything for you! Is that why you hate them? As for you living where ever your income may permit, this is as it should be and in fact IS. However, just because one can afford to move to a nice neighborhood, it doesn't mean they can put their cars in the front yard up on cement blocks! Nor can they stand beside a tree and urinate in a wine bottle, reguardless of who they are! Also it is not polite to use capitol letters! It makes it read like you are a big mouth. Blacks, whites and other people who have differences have united to form unions that are aimed at a united goal, both political and social. That goal is to raise the living conditions of all people. That dosen't mean we have to like each other, only that we must respect each other. Your statement that no white person ever done anything to help you is stupid! They are as diverse as we are. If you think all blacks are nice to other blacks you should stop and think about the fact that most black crime is commited against other blacks! I hope you can afford a nice home in a nice area, but if or when you do, don't cheapen it. Our kid have to grow up there too. And presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, Johnson helped you! Reguardless of the reason! Not the Ceasers, or Nepoleon, nor Hitler got what they wanted with a gun. What makes you think the Malcolmn X's and the Farakahns can? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No elf Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 4:14 PM I cannot add to this discussion in any meaningful way but I do want to thank all who are providing this interesting and enlightening dialog. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No rustybucket55 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 5:55 PM boohab! Or is it jababa hab or nimpoopoohab! The history that now abounds was written by the people wanting to make money from it! They write the shocking story books. Who cares about Africa? I wish them well! I hope they quit slaughtering each other! I'm not going there! I got it good here. This is my country! With all its faults it is better than going to that place where people still eat each other! I didn't lose anything there. Did you? I say to you and all others, I am an American as much as anyone else. I am going to try and change my country for the better for ME and my kids! You teach your kids whatever you want. But for me, I want them to stay here and prosper. If you feel you have to defend yourself all the time you do it! Without me! 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No joannedorel Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 7:01 PM A pox on YOUR house Destiny6. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No angie Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 9:07 PM jt296: Are you new to abuzz? I am relatively new, but I have already learned that, while most people here are sincerely interested in an honest, open, thoughtful interchange of ideas, others are here just to play games and draw apparently much needed attention to themselves through insult and invective. I think such individuals are best dealt with by ignoring them. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 10:12 PM Angie i am not new to Abuzz and i totally agree with you. I have learned alot from this process and will continue to be apart of it because of the learning process. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtfulness and i wish you a pleasant good morning. Cheers. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No toussaint Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 1:10 AM jt296 : destiny is not just a racist, s/he is an angry loser. Worthless. Click here to understand why you should just ignore him/her: http://www.abuzz.com/?a=vqc&q=q.86718 One question to you: did you ever become the doctor you wanted to be? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 8:25 AM Toussaint i became a docter of dental surgery in May 1991 from the University Of Michigan School Of Dentistry Ann Arbor, Michigan. Notice the plug for the school because the school as a whole was very good to me. There were difficult times but that is the case with life period. Michigan is a diverse school which maintains high standards and the school is truly committed to its students. Thank you for the information and that is one of the reasons i love this country because of the opportunity to express oneself however i will not allow myself to be drawn into negativity and hatred. Cheers and God bless you. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Dancer314 Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 9:28 AM The economic reasons for Slavery had already disapeared due to various discoveries. The institution of Slavery was a hold over from the days when it was economically necessary. Slavery was already in decline at the start of the Civil War and by some estimates, would have disappeared over the next 10 or 20 years or so as more plantations switched to cheaper alternates. The entire cause of the Civil War was slavery. The south tried to succede from the Union because they believed that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, they had lost the political fight for whether the country would have slavery or not. Just prior to the election, the southern states had forced through some legistation turning some free states into slave states in an attempt to shift the balance of power in Congress. The public backlash is one of the reasons for the election of Lincoln. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No joannedorel Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 10:48 AM You are absolutly correct Dancer. Thank you. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No arasan Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 5:08 PM I find it difficult to believe that sons and fathers would lay down their lives to stop treating black people as slaves in order to start treating them as second class citizens. Combine this observation with the known facts that abolition became a war aim 2 years into the war, and that 2 northern states still maintained slavery, and I cannot see how abolition could have been a " determining factor" as opposed to a less significant " contributing factor". A "determining factor" is a factor which, if absent, an event would not have taken place. To help us make this qualification (a difficult thing to do as history is far from being an exact science) could I suggest a thought experiment; we need to ask ourselves had slavery NOT been an issue at all (imagine that there was no slavery in North America), would there have been a civil war? If your answer is NO then abolition was indeed a determining factor - if YES then abolition was not a determining factor. When war was declared, presumably Lincoln stated the objectives of the war. The historical record shows that at the outset of the war abolition was not one of them. Can someone quote me precisely what the North's publicly stated aims were at the outset of the war? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No jt296 Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 7:06 PM Arasan in April of 1999, i took an exam to become a Naturalized Citizen of the U.S.A. and the question: What was the cause of the American Civil War? was on that exam. The correct answer was The Abolition Of Slavery. Oh how i wish Slavery had never occured in North America. Oh how i wish the north and the south were fighting because northerners had less time sun bathing to become darker due to winter while southerners had the pleasure of sun bathing year round and this made the northerners so mad that they decided to teach the southerners a lession because their darker skins looked so much better than the northerners pale skin during winter which both sides truly despise but will never admit it. Okay i am being a little facious here but let us call it as it is. Slavery played a vital role otherwise the answer to the question would be different. Do you ever know the Majority to give credit where credit is not dueand besides, before the answer was decided on, extensive research went into it by the Historians of the Majority. Your first two sentences are oh so important in your last thread except they were fighting to keep Blacks as slaves because in their minds, second class was too good for Blacks and they could not afford to lose money or time by having to work those fields themselves and die shortly from an acute case of wrinkles and skin cancer due to the sun and work in which they were not accustom to performing. I will continue to research this question because it is indeed an excellent one. Cheers. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Charles H. Seitz Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 8:39 PM As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Fort sumter collected Northern duty on southern cotton exports to England and the South felt that they were being treat like a colony unfairly by the industrial Northannd seceded to get out from under this suppression. England needed this raw material for their textile mills. New England plans of their looms and set up mills in America and possibly they used the duty to protect their fledgling industry. How England expected them to grow cotton with out slavery I don't know unless they saw cotton being harvested with machinery. England was on the side of the south and had intended to bleed the North dry in a long war bby breaking the Northern naval embargo of the Southern ports but the Russian Tsar sent his battleships and prevented it. That is why England financed the Russian revolution to get even. It was enough tohelp the North win the war. The English built their lavish manor houses from financing the southern plantations and the owners were in debt up to their ears to England. Prior to Clays compromise and Congress stayed in session all night to pass it, expansion west was done two state at a time. One free and one slave, but when they hit the Mississippi on the other side there was only arable land in the North, the south was desert. So the south moved North and wanted to cut misouri and illinois in half hence the comprromise. But time was up. After the war there was talk of the South remaining slave and the North free but the free-soilers wanted all states to be free. Dunring reconstruction the blacks in the state houses passes some fine laws and stsate consttitutions that are still on the books but when the carpet baggers left the Southerners and the KKK, a Sccotish rite masonic organization, put things back the way they were, so to speaak. In the mean time the southern upper class has completely dominated the federal government. That's how I understand it. correct me if I am wrong. 1 out of 1 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No cicerone imposter Quick stats Added on Mon, Aug 28, 2000 10:45 PM A very minor part. The civil war was about political division of the country. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No fdisalle Quick stats Added on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 3:42 AM CSeitz: when I see the British, the Tsar, the KKK, and the Masons in one post, I have to say, "Whoa!" Let's break it off a piece at a time: Does anybody out there have any evidence that the Czar was involved in any way in the Civil War? We'll start there and see what happens next. I'll give you a hint: the next question is why? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No Kenobi Quick stats Added on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 6:36 AM I am a little late to the conversation but here is an interesting point. Charles Seitz was correct about the British dependecy upon southern cotton and wanting to destroy the fledgling textile industry in New England. That is why they took an active interest in the war and southern success in either full seperation or bleeding the north white. As a matter of course, the British began a troop build up in Canada, very modest but certainly indicitive of intentions, prior to the "Emanicipation". One often removed notion of the passing of the Emancipation was to give the war a moral flavor that would put the British in a difficult position should they directly aid the south militarily. Boohab was also correct in the expansion issue. While the majority of the Southwest is not conducive to large scale agriculture, south California is actually ideal for the growing of cotton. To directly address the question, slavery was not the main issue of the war but it became its symbol, due in large part to the Radical Republican (who were dominated by the the abolotionists). It stood as a glaring division of two economic societies, one industrial free labor (but no means equal) and the other agrarian bondage labor. Abolition was not in the minds of everyone, the majority of Northerners feared emancipation--contributing in large part to the NY City Draft Riots of 1863. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No johnburkitt Quick stats Added on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 12:01 PM This is one of the most fascinating and intellectual questions that I have seen on Abuzz. I majored in Am. History; but, I realize that I still have a lot to learn and need to go back. jt's response was very interesting, although I'm a born-again Pagan, I do respect jt's beliefs. I think slavery was an ancillary cause-celebre of the Civil War("War between the States" , "War of Yankee Aggression"-whatever!!). Even Lincoln did not consider Blacks equal to Whites (biologically or vote-wise,later). I think he agreed with others to push for repatriation of Black Americans to Africa--which some Blacks did do in establishing Liberia and naming the capital city,Monrovia, after James Monroe! Recently, the descendants of American slaves in Liberia lost their autocratic hold on the government in a rebellion of "native African" peoples!! So, the beat goes on. By the way, slavery still exists in some parts of the world, incl. the Sudan--where Moslem blacks enslave and sell Christian Blacks. When will humanity ever learn? 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No zalshl Quick stats Added on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 7:29 PM a little 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No c.c.hart Quick stats Added on Tue, Aug 29, 2000 7:53 PM If slavery was the motivator of the war of independence of southern states why did the war not settle the issue. The end of slavery came about months after the war ended when Lincoln relized the south was hepless he then and only then used dictorial power he didd not have to declare slaves free. I think however any slave will attest that an edict to end slavery and freedom are two different breeds of dogs 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No David Quick stats Added on Sat, Sep 2, 2000 10:21 PM I was about to enter in the issue but I'm a foreigner and the subject is heating up. My English language is awful. I'll give a try at least, I remember when England was against bringing Africans to America, as slavery cheap labor force, it was not on humanitarian grounds they chases those ships but economically ones. They were at the top in industry and need markets, consumers, slaves gets nothing, buy nothing. And in the other hand, cheaper labor force make competition unfair according to the British Empire. It think the state's rights, the need of a higher developed north, more industrialized put on the top of the agenda what Lincoln said: " A house divided can not maintain itself" The abolition could be refarded like a " Casus Belli" rather than the cause of the war. A capitalist system in the Nor th, a backward slavery economic and social system is the South can't coexist. To unite the House divided, was the cause, the main one, at least. Sorry for minding in your own business my friends. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No johnburkitt Quick stats Added on Sun, Sep 3, 2000 5:12 PM Dear David, I think your interpretation of the causes of the American Civil War was very astute. I believe that the Industrial emphasis and power of the northern states, as well as their tendency to tax cotton leaving the South for England was the primary cause. Slavery became an ancillary issue two years into the war--to further punish the rebellious South. Please don't worry about your English--You are doing just fine. Thank you for your interest in part of our history that just will not go away!! 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No kyzyltuva Quick stats Added on Sat, Sep 9, 2000 3:59 AM There were twelve years after the civil war which we called Reconstruction Years. Now the people of the south black and white had to be helped to make a living. The most important were the newly freed slaves who had to be made cleared and protected by law so they can have a normal lifestyle; work, play, etc.etc.etc. Two states were Louisiana and Arkansas that tried to come back in Lincoln's plan to agree that the slaves would remain free but they never did. Congress would not admit the men sent to Washington so they remained a slavery state. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No originalbluemax Quick stats Added on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 3:01 AM To Rustybucket... You comment that slavery would have continued for a hell of a lot longer without the war is clearly a questionable assumption. It was at the time of the civil war that the cotton gin was developed, makin the ownership of slaves less attractive, and surely would have led to the voluntary release of most of the slaves in fairly quick order by many historians. The United States, just prior to the war, was adding states by virtue of slave state or freestate.. adding states specifically to the union in balance. Slavery was an issue but the civil war was the greatest travesty to befall our great nation. Without the civil war, our country would be even more developed than it is today. We lost a great brain trust due to the war, a great loss of utility in that our youngest and brightest were slaughtered on the battlefields. It is true that slavery ended with the civil war, but it also sparked the beginings of such organizations as the kkk. It is hard to say what prize was won by the war. yes, we may have remained a unified country, but if you looked at our country as a picture following the war, it was not a clear and crisp picture. Really it could only be described as a blurred and grainy picture at best. 0 out of 0 people found this Response valuable. Valuable? Yes or No