Is this true?

[bunny]

I know pretty much nothing about US history (I'm an Australian) but last night someone I respect who knows lots claimed the following:

During the US civil war, there was a distinct possibility that England would enter the war on the side of the southern states so abraham lincoln adopted an anti-slavery position to ensure england was on his side. In other words, the anti-slavery position was adopted mid-way through the war and was not ethically motivated but was a political/military decision.

Is this true? It is counter to popular versions of history I have heard - where slavery was portrayed as one of the primary motivators of the war.

[Brainwalter]

England and France joining on the side of the South weren't the only reason, but yes, its true that the emancipation proclamation was a political decision and slavery was not the primary motivator for the war. In Lincoln's words:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that..."

[Borodog]

Yes, it is true, more or less. DiLorenzo covers it in The Real Lincoln.

The civil war was explicitly _not_ about slavery. Read Lincoln's first innaugural address. It is _extremely clear_. Only revisionists and Lincoln apologists make that claim with a straight face. Lincoln didn't take the war on the anti-slavery tack until 18 months into the war, when the North was losing. Lincoln went anti-slavery to boost support for a war that was flagging in the North from a war-weary populace. However, roughly a quarter of the northern population were abolitionists, so co-opting the anti-slavery angle was strategic for regaining public support.

But it is pretty clear that the Emancipation Proclamation was basically a PR stunt to keep England (and France) from coming to the aid of the Confederacy; there was a strong enlightenment bent in the populations of both countries, both of which had outlawed slavery decades before. Making the war about slavery made it politically difficult at home for leaders in those countries to come to the aid of the South.

[Borodog]

MY PONY TOO SLOW

[jogger08152]

It is true that this was Lincoln's motivation. He cared far more about the union than about slavery, and would (if he thought he could) have accepted the institution in an instant to save the union.

It is also true that slavery was one of the primary motivators of the war. If you're interested, google (Dred Scott + civil war) for more info.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is true, more or less. DiLorenzo covers it in The Real Lincoln.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ken Burns also covers the issue of England possibly entering the war on the Southern side in his excellent documentary series on the Civil War. Burns also points out that the emancipation proclamation was hugely unpopular among Union Soldiers. Abolitionists were outspoken, but were a minority. The vast majority of Union soldiers were not fighting for the cause of freeing the slaves.

[Woolygimp]

The booming cotton industry in the South was one of the primary catalysts for the war.

The North had around 20 million people compared to around 5 million in the southern states, thereby controlling the majority of the federal government. Without slaves, the cotton industry would crumble; an industry the South was built upon.

It would basically be like the Japanese government banning the manufacture of automobiles. As such as the average citizen of the time had very little interest in slaves, but more so the consequences of any legislation imposed by the industrial North.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The booming cotton industry in the South was one of the primary catalysts for the war.

The North had around 20 million people compared to around 5 million in the southern states, thereby controlling the majority of the federal government. Without slaves, the cotton industry would crumble; an industry the South was built upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody in the North, other that a minority of abolitionists who did not hold any power, was threatening slavery in the south. If anything, racism was far worse in the North that it was in the South; many Northerners hated freed Southern blacks competing for jobs.

The South seceeded because of Lincoln's election, as he had explicitly stated that he would be strictly enforcing tarrif policies that were plundering the South. And anyone who believes that Lincoln gave a rat's red ass about "preserving the Union" is in dreamland. If you want to know why Lincoln invaded the South, one has to look no farther than the fraction of Federal revenues generated by the South (70%) and the fraction of Federal revenues spent in the North (70%).

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The booming cotton industry in the South was one of the primary catalysts for the war.

The North had around 20 million people compared to around 5 million in the southern states, thereby controlling the majority of the federal government. Without slaves, the cotton industry would crumble; an industry the South was built upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody in the North, other that a minority of abolitionists who did not hold any power, was threatening slavery in the south. If anything, racism was far worse in the North that it was in the South; many Northerners hated freed Southern blacks competing for jobs.

The South seceeded because of Lincoln's election, as he had explicitly stated that he would be strictly enforcing tarrif policies that were plundering the South. And anyone who believes that Lincoln gave a rat's red ass about "preserving the Union" is in dreamland. If you want to know why Lincoln invaded the South, one has to look no farther than the fraction of Federal revenues generated by the South (70%) and the fraction of Federal revenues spent in the North (70%).

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.



[/ QUOTE ]
citation

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
MY PONY TOO SLOW

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this pony stuff mean?