You’ve heard of the official Emancipation Proclamation, but this was an earlier version. Did you know that Lincoln gave southern states an opportunity to return to the Union—and to keep their slaves?
You pose difficult questions Tara. What would the Union have looked like had some or all of the Southern States returned to the Union and kept their slaves? It would be difficult to then say that the Civil War had been fought over slavery but I would think that there would eventually have been another Civil War and or another succession over slavery.
Tara, I wish that the algorithms would leave you alone. It is frustrating for everyone but if you find Facebook to be untenable, I will follow you wherever you find to be more acceptable. I would hope that the vast majority of your readers would as well. Your message is very important to me and others.
There were various reasons for the Civil War but chief among them was the disagreement over the institution of slavery. Not all of the disagreements were altruistic or humanitarian. There were strategic political reasons on the part of the North as well as economic reasons and States Rights issues on the part of the South. Seems that preserving the union was the crux of the matter and more political than humanitarian. We can be thankful though that in the end freedom for slaves won out regardless of the motives.
Truly a virtual Banquet for thought … thanks for sharing a fascinating , Really challenging one Tara ! Awesome as per your usual ! Love it and really appreciate learning new things about our history 🇺🇸❤️👍🏻
As I initially stated when I began following Tara, I didn’t become interested in history until college, hence, I am now catching up through Tara’s posts, additional comments I read here, and my own reading. This particular topic is confusing me and I appreciate the follow-up comments here. I think I have some homework to do to read further about the Civil War. Thank you, Tara, for bringing this topic to the table, and I also thank the commenters here for their added points of view.
As a young girl, I was taught that the civil war , although slavery was an element, was essentially fought over States Rights. My father emphasized to me, most of the Confederate Army were poor, or farmers, they were not slave owners themselves. The southern economy depended on slavery to be sure..but states rights was the root cause.🇺🇸
While the concept of freeing slaves is an easy way for teachers to describe the Civil War it is not truly what the war was about. The overall outcome that led to the freeing of the slaves is truly welcomed and world-changing, but it is not the complete story. The truth is that the war wasn't really about the freeing of slaves. It was a war based on one of the oldest arguments of our Republic - the battle between stares' rights and the federal government. Lincoln went to war in support of the federal government. By winning the war he essentially nullified the concept of states' rights. This led to a weakening of the Republic because it essentially said that states have no rights except those allowed by the federal government. This was a huge and major shift in the concept of the United States of America.
As much Civil War History I've read, somehow I missed this nugget. It actually surprises me to learn that Lincoln tried this. Seems to me it was a poor political decision on his part to say the least. More like an act of political desperation? I would love to know what rationale Lincoln used to make such an offer to slave holding States. Acceptance of that offer would have seriously undercut the moral basis for continuing the War and, I assume, alienated those who believed in the righteousness of the
Betsy Tara Ross but it only freed slaves in Union states, and only if they took up arm against the Confederacy. These men burned out innocent women, children, and other non-combattants in Atlanta and the March to the Sea, then did the same to Indians in Texas. They're the Buffalo Soldiers!
It actually didn't free the slaves in the Union states, believe it or not. I imagine Lincoln didn't want to upset slaveholders who were still in the Union.
You pose difficult questions Tara. What would the Union have looked like had some or all of the Southern States returned to the Union and kept their slaves? It would be difficult to then say that the Civil War had been fought over slavery but I would think that there would eventually have been another Civil War and or another succession over slavery.
Tara, I wish that the algorithms would leave you alone. It is frustrating for everyone but if you find Facebook to be untenable, I will follow you wherever you find to be more acceptable. I would hope that the vast majority of your readers would as well. Your message is very important to me and others.
Thank you, Tara, for another great story!
History is complex, that’s why none of it should be erased. More history, not less...🇺🇸🤓
Absolutely agree Diana!
There were various reasons for the Civil War but chief among them was the disagreement over the institution of slavery. Not all of the disagreements were altruistic or humanitarian. There were strategic political reasons on the part of the North as well as economic reasons and States Rights issues on the part of the South. Seems that preserving the union was the crux of the matter and more political than humanitarian. We can be thankful though that in the end freedom for slaves won out regardless of the motives.
Truly a virtual Banquet for thought … thanks for sharing a fascinating , Really challenging one Tara ! Awesome as per your usual ! Love it and really appreciate learning new things about our history 🇺🇸❤️👍🏻
🇺🇸 Interesting strategy by Lincoln. I never thought of him as a gambler. 🇺🇲
Another bit of history I did not know. If the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the north, what did?
As I initially stated when I began following Tara, I didn’t become interested in history until college, hence, I am now catching up through Tara’s posts, additional comments I read here, and my own reading. This particular topic is confusing me and I appreciate the follow-up comments here. I think I have some homework to do to read further about the Civil War. Thank you, Tara, for bringing this topic to the table, and I also thank the commenters here for their added points of view.
As a young girl, I was taught that the civil war , although slavery was an element, was essentially fought over States Rights. My father emphasized to me, most of the Confederate Army were poor, or farmers, they were not slave owners themselves. The southern economy depended on slavery to be sure..but states rights was the root cause.🇺🇸
You have again benefitted your readers, helping us to understand the enigma of Lincoln's position on slavery.
While the concept of freeing slaves is an easy way for teachers to describe the Civil War it is not truly what the war was about. The overall outcome that led to the freeing of the slaves is truly welcomed and world-changing, but it is not the complete story. The truth is that the war wasn't really about the freeing of slaves. It was a war based on one of the oldest arguments of our Republic - the battle between stares' rights and the federal government. Lincoln went to war in support of the federal government. By winning the war he essentially nullified the concept of states' rights. This led to a weakening of the Republic because it essentially said that states have no rights except those allowed by the federal government. This was a huge and major shift in the concept of the United States of America.
Thank you, Tara.
As much Civil War History I've read, somehow I missed this nugget. It actually surprises me to learn that Lincoln tried this. Seems to me it was a poor political decision on his part to say the least. More like an act of political desperation? I would love to know what rationale Lincoln used to make such an offer to slave holding States. Acceptance of that offer would have seriously undercut the moral basis for continuing the War and, I assume, alienated those who believed in the righteousness of the
conflict . Gotta say, this one confuses me.
Not true
I'm wondering which part you dispute?
Betsy Tara Ross but it only freed slaves in Union states, and only if they took up arm against the Confederacy. These men burned out innocent women, children, and other non-combattants in Atlanta and the March to the Sea, then did the same to Indians in Texas. They're the Buffalo Soldiers!
It actually didn't free the slaves in the Union states, believe it or not. I imagine Lincoln didn't want to upset slaveholders who were still in the Union.
People forget that Lincoln was "separate but equal" long before Plessy v. Ferguson. Thanks!