Why did Lincoln choose to end slavery by force?
And not peacefully like these other countries.
Central America 1824
French and Danish Colonies 1848
What was his motive?
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
He didn't. The Civil War happened so as to preserve the union. It was not about ending slavery, although that was the primary issue that led to secession. The Emancipation Proclamation, which is what ended slavery, was peaceful, but it was made in the midst of the war.
And really, how do you think the slave states would have reacted if he had made the proclamation before the war?
- 1 decade ago
Just because apples & oranges are both round doesn't mean they're the same. Thoses countries weren't undergoing a civil war at the time, William, and they weren't the US, which was and is unique in many ways.
It was political, not humanitarian, interests that lead Lincoln to declare an end of slavery. Ending slavery was not the point of the Civil War, though some historians have tried to paint it that way. Slavery was prohibited in *some* Northern states by the start of the war, but it wasn't ended in all Northern states until well after the end of the Civil War, and only after it was prohibited in all of the former Confederate states. If ending slavery was the point of the war, then it would have been ended in all Union states prior to the start of hostilities.
The object of the war was to prevent the Confederacy from seceding from the Union in protest over heavy-handed and unfair federal controls, something that Lincoln had tried, and failed, to do peacefully. Since the South was largely dependant upon institutionalized slavery, ending slavery in the South added a measure of havoc during the war, and helped the North control the former Confederacy as the defeated southern states struggled to rebuild following the war. This not only punished them for daring to secede, but also prevented them from getting their strength back too quickly.
This enforced weakness during the rebuilding era following the war allowed Northern banks & "carpetbaggers" to gain a foothold on the South, forcing the former Confederate states to come around in a manner agreeable to the Federal government. Anti-slavery proponants pushed to have slavery ended in all the states, which it eventually was - once it was deemed convenient to do so.
Maybe you should read a book.
- ZingerLv 61 decade ago
I am up in age and now that I know more about the true historical events I am appalled at how the history text books were written in my time and still today they do not do it justice.
The American Civil War was about state's rights first and foremost. The South while beginning to shift to industry was still primarily an agricultural region and needed the slaves. One because of a shortage of labor and two because the plantation owner liked the profits. While slavery was detested in the North the general public did not support going to war at any cost. When the South seceded from the Union and fired on Ft. Sumner Lincoln needed a rallying cry to gain support from the population of the North. He chose slavery as his main battle cry in order to appeal to people's emotions instead of trying to drum up support for a war to fight over taxation and representation. Remember about a decade earlier Andrew Jackson had to call out the federal militia to quell a revolt in the Carolinas over the same issue. Well, this time the South was as one on the entire matter.
So give Lincoln credit in that he was probably the 'first political spin doctor' but don't be fooled into thinking the war was just about slavery which was a secondary issue.
- LorenzoLv 61 decade ago
With so many European powers licking their chops over the prospect of a fractured Republic full of resources, why do some people assume that a CSA would have remained sovereign or retained the concepts manifested in the US Constitution, such as the the first and second amendments. There is little reason to believe that the European powers would respect states rights in a separate CSA given the opportunity not to.
Slavery needed to go. In retrospect, non-slaveholding southerners had little reason to take a chance on being sucked back into the old world order in order to prop up nouveau aristocrats.
Even Charles Sumner complemented the Gettysburg Address; here are some excerpts.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."
"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom"
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."Source(s): US Constitutional conservative & "old frontier" southerner
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
- The UNION included some "slave states."
- He offered PERPETUAL "slave state" status and other "benefits" to any State that would voluntarily rejoin the Union.
By his own admission, Lincoln unlawfully invaded "the South" to assert plainly unConstitutional Federal Supremacy over the Sates.
Oh. Yes Ft Sumter.
Upon secession, Union forces were "evicted" from States no longer in the Union. They left peacefully, KNOWING they had no legal right to stay.
Having already decided to wage war, Lincoln was livid at this and ordered a stop to it before Sumter was evacuated and ordered Sumter's shore batteries turned INLAND against the State.
Remaining there was an unlawful occupation, a fact acknowledged by the U.S. Army. Refusing to yield the fort was ITSELF an act of war.
- frofro32Lv 41 decade ago
Because the civil war began because the South wanted to succeed from the Union. It was not started to end slavery. Liberation of slaves was initially done to weaken the southern rebels. Later, with the war in full effect, it was added as a Union cause.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
By the time Lincoln decided to end slavery by force, the Civil War had already begun. Lincoln ended slavery in order to disrupt the South's ability to wage war. By promising freedom, any Southern slaves who received word of this would be likelier to rise up against their masters. The South would have a nigh impossible task of feeding itself without its slave labor force.
Again, the Civil War began before it became a war to end slavery. Slavery was merely one of many issues regarding states' rights vs. federal authority on which Southern states disagreed with their Northern counterparts.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He didn't really care about slavery at all, but it gave his war on the Southern Confederacy a moral side. Funny he didn't free the slaves till after about half the war was done, and then just because so many in the North were wanting to call it quits.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Lincoln would have permitted slavery to avoid war, but would rather have been skinned than permit States' Powers - Constitutionally guaranteed - to survive.
Remember: he was all but unknown outside IL and could never have won the presidency on his first run without very wealthy backers. So, who knows if it was really his doing, entirely?
Centrists thrive on a divided, vengeful populace.
Vengeance is emotion.
Emotion blinds us.
We are reduced to finding fault with one another.
If and when we ever silence the emotion and defer to logic, the Centrists will be reduced to emotion.
- email@example.comLv 51 decade ago
Because the Southern States wanted to break the United States into two halves. The north and the south. He had no other choice.