Flac00 said:
Macgyvercas said:
That still doesnt excuse the north. The "border" states that allied themselves with the north were for all intensive purposes northern states, and if slavery was practiced heavily there, it still counted to the north.
There's no difference in it at all, the north just wanted to ride a moral high horse so the rest of the world would look favorably on them since slavery was becoming something you didnt want to do in "developed" nations of the time, like Britain (who had outlawed slavery before the US did, yet strangely still supported the South and just waited for a chance to jump in that wouldnt look like they were backing slavery).
And no, slavery itself was not the issue, at least not totally. It came down to commerce at most, and it came down to seeds that had been sewn WAY back when the colonies were still being founded. While slavery was an issue that lincoln had heavy issues against slavery and equal rights personally, but those sentiments by and large were not shared by his fellow countrymen of the North, and especially not the south. to the North, this was a war to bring back the union to what it once was and to show solidarity as a young nation. to the south, it was a war to finally be seen just as good as the union and finally maybe be an equal.
in fact, some of the higher confederate figures, like General lee, were more "northern" in their thinking then the north themselves but they instead wanted to conitnue to believe in a confederate rather than a union that was stepping on them and hurting their economy (and not through trying to be rid of slavery) or rights as states.
Im not saying its right by any means, and Im not saying the south should have been let go and divided from, just the north wasnt totally innocent and moral like it likes to paint itself to be during the civil war and that the civil war wasnt even about slavery at heart until much later int he war (and even then, it was only against the south until the 13th amendment).