From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: southern reasons
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 22:00:17 GMT

In article <00964D63.288F9D40@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>I thought I'ld split some hairs...
>A previous poster has noted that the north went to war "to preserve the Union", but in the opening stages of the war, it might be equally precise to say that the Union went to war to protect Federal property in the seceeding states.
>Note that a serious 'shooting war' didn't occur when states seceeded, but
>when South Carolina attached and occupied the Federal post of Fort Sumter
>(sp?). It was only after this, and several similar events in other states,
>that a state of insurrection was declared and a call for state troops
>issued.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. You are saying that Lincoln
only prosecuted the war after federal property was destroyed.  Sort of
like arresting me if I deface a mailbox?
I think if you look a little closer, you will find Lincoln trying
everyway possible to avert war and he called up troops only after it
was apparent that there was no other way to keep the union together.
The preservation of the Union was Lincoln's chief goal and he was
prepared to use all means at his disposal to attain that goal.
I would suggest that calling up troops was done when it appeared that
the South was not going to come back into the Union peacefully; not
due to destruction/confiscation of federal property.

>Also, regarding the boost in army morale with the issuance of the
>Emancipation Proclamation...
>I've always felt that it had a negligible effect on Union morale. The rank
>and file of the Union army had minimal regard for enslaved African Americans
>and saw no reason why they should be shedding their blood for another race.
>It was a more significant factor in Europe, where English and French working
>classes saw themselves as opponents of the 'southern aristocracy'. It was
>the pressure exerted upon their respective governments by the lower and
>middle classes, and their own political self-interest, which prevented
>European intervention.
>

I agree that the need to impress Europe was a big factor in issuing
the Emancipation Proclamation.  I would be interested in knowing what
your sources were about the working classes. I do not have much
knowledge in this area and have always assumed that the governments
of Europe that ended slavery for various economic reasons were the
targets of the E.P. But again I have not done to much reading on the
European aspects of the war.
As for the rank and file Union soldier not caring much about the
slavery question, I think there was much more abolitionist spirit
than you think. Along with an altruistic idea that slavery is bad,
slavery also tended to drive down wages for the free workers.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++