3 ms·
The moral shift played a part in galvanizing enthusiasm for the war, but the Civil War ultimately was started by Northern statists who were adamant about mainta
by c_crank 3y ago
The moral shift played a part in galvanizing enthusiasm for the war, but the Civil War ultimately was started by Northern statists who were adamant about maintaining a firm control over the North American heartland. Recall that the Emancipation proclamation came three years into the war.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoAre you really pushing the Lost Cause narrative here? It’s revisionist history that’s widely rejected by historians. The main cause of the war was slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
- c_crank 3y agoThe CSA seceded for the State's Right to Own Slaves. That much is obvious. The Northern response, as stated by Lincoln and understood by the majority of volunteers, was to Preserve the Union. That much is also obvious. Total abolitionism emerged only three years into the war. If the Northern population did not have a strong desire to Preserve the Union and only relied on abolitionist forces, then there would hardly have been a Civil War at all.
- ethanbond 3y agoNortherners wanted control of the new territories because of slavery. Because at that point it was something most northerners did not want expanded across the rest of the continent as, again, a moral concern borne of a recent moral awakening.
- c_crank 3y agoIt was an economic, political, and a moral concern. Free Soilers wanted the land for their own purposes. Expansion of slave states would mean expansion of a Senate group that would be in favor of reducing taxes and tariffs, an issue that almost caused a civil war to happen 40 years prior.