🇳🇱
Interesting fact of the day: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation **only** freed the southern slaves and kept the north slaves legal and enslaved. It was a sort "screw you to the south" more so than to abolish slavery.
Lincoln only supported and pushed through the 13th amendment once slavery was voluntarily abolished at the state level first.
Four Union States allowed slavery when the war started.
@threalist Yup, it was all the states that bordered the south but were in the north.
Though technically you could argue after the emancipation proclimation (since the north is the legal recognized government) the north was the only region left with slaves after that moment..
Of course the reality is more complex since southern states didnt recognize the authority. But at least from the perspective of the north, as the one true government, after that point slavery existed **only** in the north (legally).
@freemo @threalist Speaking of border states, one problem the South had was all the high tech industry was either in the North or in those border states that sided with the North.
The Confederates built a big powder mill - one of their few industrial successes - and they had to confiscate a Northern made steam engine to make it go!
They also wound up pulling railcars with horses because their steam locomotives were broken and they could not fix them.
> 25% of the white men who served were immigrants, and further 25% were first-generation Americans
@threalist @freemo Wow that's a lot. I know the South actually had a lot of slaves forced to fight for it. And there were a surprising number of Southern men - like 200K - that left to join the Union army.
The non land-owning white Southerner had to know that slavery did not serve his interests. It depressed wages and allowed the Boss to treat him with contempt. So he had to wonder "what's in it for me."
I think that is what the "Golden Circle" invade Mexico idea was for. Were they serious?
It is interesting to read the dairies of Confederates. The ones I've seen in terms of "why they fought" most often reference a pride in their homeland and the view that Washington didnt represent their interests or values..
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2001.05.0123%3Achapter%3D7.66
> Dark and lowering clouds hover over the political horizon. The recent elections in the northern States indicate the triumph of the Republican party, in which event a disruption of the Union, and a civil war will probably follow, as the South will not submit to a sectional President, and the North will not submit to a peaceable separation.
@threalist @freemo What I don't get is why the South did not play the good cop/bad cop game threatening to secede unless the North relaxed the tariffs and generally backed off. They had a lot of bargaining power which they threw away once they seceded.
Everything I've read says secession was an emotional mob action not a thought through decision. They needed the strategist (Lee) THEN not once they were no the short end of a war of attrition.
Because they fought a different angle.. they wanted state rights to sort it out for themselves. Because no group could get a majority acceptance on any issue.. so everything else was a standstill.
@freemo @threalist We seem to be right back there too. Someday Congress is just going to lock up and fail to reboot and the debt ceiling deadline is going to expire. That will kick off the "interesting times."
