gator68 wrote:lurker wrote:the constitution until 1865 neither approved nor disapproved of slavery, merely acknowledged it. that's why it took a 13th and 14th amendment to abolish slavery.
You're better than that. You know, from all the published articles of secession, the southern states left to preserve the institution of slavery. If the noble southern soldiers wanted to simply support the constitution they could have stayed home.
yes, i am, thanks. try not to condescend for a minute.
i've written about this here before, but apparently you missed it, or chose not to get it.
soldiers do not fight for the same reasons that governments start wars. we see this in every war, we acknowledge it when we say "rich man's war, poor man's fight". governments lie, people die.
i happen to agree, the confederate
government started the war to preserve slavery. that's not why southern men enlisted.
but let's start with the federal side first. the federal government is less clear. Marx had something to say about it. there's ample evidence that the federal government resisted secession because it could not sustain the loss of revenue that secession would entail. for the north (NOT the south), the war was about tariffs. not the only reason, but one of several which converge on the notion of keeping the union together.
the north did not begin the war with the stated goal to end slavery, that only became important with the emancipation proclamation, and even then it was out of military utility, not an end in itself. was lincoln an abolitionist? sure, but he lacked (and he knew it) the authority to abolish slavery. early in the war, federal genls. john c fremont (1856 republican candidate for president) and David Hunter faced dismissal for advocating freeing the slaves. so, not so pure.
federal soldiers enlisted for a variety of reasons, ending slavery not high among them. most enlisted as a response to a strong emotional appeal to preserve the union after the confederates fired on fort sumter. when the EP came out, many threatened to mutiny, and the citizens of new york rioted.
ok, that's the federal side. the southern state (because there was no confederacy yet) governments were clear enough if you're willing to look just beneath the surface. the articles of secession were legal documents, describing WHAT they were going to do and how, but not WHY. they rarely mention slavery. i have a copy of south carolina's here before me. there's ample evidence that it was about slavery, the keystone speech, the resolutions on secession, letters from congressmen, newspapers from the day, but not the actual articles. some of this was subterfuge, and some was just an artifact of the way our governments work, going back to the declaration of independence. what we have here is a mission statement, a statement of the why of.. secession. from britain. simply a statement of intent, and justification. it has no real legal standing. that was the articles of confederation and later the constitution. tennessee is a particularly useful example. texas, virginia and north carolina all produced similar documents, and they're clear. "our cause is thoroughly connected to the institution of slavery, the greatest economic interest in the world".
but that was not the appeal made to the people. the governments and their media mouthpieces stated it in terms of greedy northern industrialists and merchants sending foreign mercenaries to kill, burn and rape, and to compel southern men to do the same.
as i stated in another post, monuments rarely say anything about the governments or their goals, they are about soldiers. soldiers goals are not the same as governments. leave them alone.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?