Alabama Gov looses support of 'Confederate' voters

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Wasn't there a big discussion about this stuff in the thread with the commemoration for the Confederacy?

 

I thought the concensus was that this was was mainly about State's rights, surprisingly different opinion in this thread.

[CanadianChris 0]

The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election.  The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

My problem with this would be that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone, which seems odd if Lincoln really was so into the whole abolishionist movement, morally anyway.

That old chestnut again?

 

Lincoln knew he couldn't abolish slavery without a constitutional amendment. While working to make the amendment reality, he issued the Proclamation in his role as Commander-in-Chief. When the Northern army rolled through the South, the slaves followed them. It had the effect of freeing slaves everywhere as a result. The Proclamation itself may not have freed the slaves, but its impact on the war ended up freeing them anyway.

In 1861 a proposed amendment to the Constitution would have explicitly stated that the federal government had no authority - ever - to interfere with slavery in states where it existed. Lincoln supported this saying. Which suggests to me he had no real interest in seeing the slaves freed.

As a politician, it's sometimes necessary to support something you find personally distasteful for the greater good. Lincoln was trying to hold the country together at the time and stave off civil war.

[2GOLD 0]

Wasn't there a big discussion about this stuff in the thread with the commemoration for the Confederacy?

 

I thought the concensus was that this was was mainly about State's rights, surprisingly different opinion in this thread.

 

I remember it somewhat. The belief amongst the soldiers was state's rights, the problem was the Confederate Congress wasn't about the state's rights at all. They just wanted to keep their slaves for money and easy labor.

[The Decemberists 0]

The catalyst for the seccesion was Lincoln's election, who was elected from the anti-slavery party, and it was the anti-slavery potential of this election that caused the deep resentment in the south over Lincoln's election.  The south was more and more on the losing side of the balance of power between slave and free states, and Lincoln's election was the final straw.

My problem with this would be that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone, which seems odd if Lincoln really was so into the whole abolishionist movement, morally anyway.

That old chestnut again?

 

Lincoln knew he couldn't abolish slavery without a constitutional amendment. While working to make the amendment reality, he issued the Proclamation in his role as Commander-in-Chief. When the Northern army rolled through the South, the slaves followed them. It had the effect of freeing slaves everywhere as a result. The Proclamation itself may not have freed the slaves, but its impact on the war ended up freeing them anyway.

In 1861 a proposed amendment to the Constitution would have explicitly stated that the federal government had no authority - ever - to interfere with slavery in states where it existed. Lincoln supported this saying. Which suggests to me he had no real interest in seeing the slaves freed.

As a politician, it's sometimes necessary to support something you find personally distasteful for the greater good. Lincoln was trying to hold the country together at the time and stave off civil war.

Lincoln has a long history of anti-abolishionist statements and non where he openly speaks of getting rid of slavery.

 

Back in 1858 in the fourth debate with Douglas he says

 

I say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyeway the social and polotical equality of the white and black races... I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together... I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

 

Now, if he was secretly an abolishionist which you seem to be suggesting, then why not just say something relativly non-commital rather than the above?

[The Decemberists 0]

Wasn't there a big discussion about this stuff in the thread with the commemoration for the Confederacy?

 

I thought the concensus was that this was was mainly about State's rights, surprisingly different opinion in this thread.

 

I remember it somewhat. The belief amongst the soldiers was state's rights, the problem was the Confederate Congress wasn't about the state's rights at all. They just wanted to keep their slaves for money and easy labor.

I think that's pretty much right. There's this quote from a Southern soldier.

 

Times may grow a great deal worse then they now are, and still we can stand it - And even then not go through what our Grandparents went through, when they were struggling for the same thing that we are fighting for now

 

The majority of Souther soldiers believed they were continuing the great revolutionary tradition of the founding fathers by taking arms against the oppressive North the same way they took arms against the oppressive Brits, fighting for self-government.

 

H.L. Mencken wrote in his Notes on Democracy 1926 that he belive that;

 

The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

 

Which I think sums it up reasonably well for a single sentence.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed. It matters what they were fighting for. There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery. But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care. Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews. There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them. What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

You're going to be associated with the cause on the basis of easy generalities, because its much easier to think of a whole group being evil or racist rather than realizing the diversity of the actual group. You can't fire up your army and people by saying "Well, most of the people we're fighting today are just like you and caught up in what the leadership says, but we've got to kill them anyways. You have to make them different and EVIL to make your fighting force effective.

 

When you sit back and become a detached observer, rather than getting caught up in the rhetoric, is when you realize just how tragic war is.

 

Slavery, in the end, would have been abolished when it became economically inefficient. By separating from the north, the South was effectively signing the death warrent to slavery vis a vis economic reasons(go back to Ricardo again). However, slavery was still economically viable then, and would like have remained a viable option until the early 1900s.

 

Ripper, you speak in such black and white terms. The world's grey man, the whole damn thing's grey.

[Ripper 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.  Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

You're going to be associated with the cause on the basis of easy generalities, because its much easier to think of a whole group being evil or racist rather than realizing the diversity of the actual group. You can't fire up your army and people by saying "Well, most of the people we're fighting today are just like you and caught up in what the leadership says, but we've got to kill them anyways. You have to make them different and EVIL to make your fighting force effective.

 

When you sit back and become a detached observer, rather than getting caught up in the rhetoric, is when you realize just how tragic war is.

 

Slavery, in the end, would have been abolished when it became economically inefficient. By separating from the north, the South was effectively signing the death warrent to slavery vis a vis economic reasons(go back to Ricardo again). However, slavery was still economically viable then, and would like have remained a viable option until the early 1900s.

 

Ripper, you speak in such black and white terms. The world's grey man, the whole damn thing's grey.

Cute in theory, but sadly, war is black and white once you get pass all that other stuff. You are either fighting for side a or side b. Everyone has their reasonings and you can discuss it all day, but war pits one army against another army. In this case, the major reason army one was against army two was slavery. You might have fought to protect your farm, you might have been fighting because you were forced to. It doesn't change what side you were fighting for. You reason for fighting means absolute shit in the end.

 

If a solider is in Iraq fighting because he believes what he is doing is best for this country any less or more involved in the war as the guy that is just doing it because that is what he signed his name to do in case of war? They are both fighting for the same thing overall.

 

Yes their are shades of grey in the world, but when it is a vs. b, there isn't much room for grey.

[Guest JMA]

"Roy Moore will get all of the Confederate vote for governor," Broxton predicted.

Sure he will.

 

Roy "Martyr" Moore will be squashed just like his allies were. He's a disgrace to this state.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seriously, it IS a partisan issue because you come back to the argument of what exactly the message is that is resonating from these images. Or what the perceived message is.

That's a matter of personal taste and opinion, and there can be majority opinions on these issues. Go ahead and wear a swastika, but it's not a mystery what the majority of the populace will think it represents and decide it's a reason to avoid you.

 

 

Again, there's a political message in flag burning, too. But you don't see me out on the front lawn torching Old Glory telling people, "No! No! I really am a good, honest, law-abiding American! I love this country, and I'm just protecting my right to do this if I chose to! It doesn't mean ANYTHING!" Hah, good luck not getting curb stomped.

[Jingus 0]

Jobber proves, once again, that the gap between intelligence and the law is Grand Canyonesque.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Go ahead and wear a swastika, but it's not a mystery what the majority of the populace will think it represents and decide it's a reason to avoid you.

And to think all this time I thought it was due to my breath...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber proves, once again, that the gap between intelligence and the law is Grand Canyonesque.

I don't know how to respond to that, so I'll just take it as a backhanded compliment.

[SuperJerk 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed. It matters what they were fighting for. There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery. But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care. Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews. There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them. What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

[Guest MikeSC]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.  Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.   Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

Actually, that doesn't create a problem at all in what I said, now does it.

[The Decemberists 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.   Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

 

And on the Union side there was...

If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side

[The Decemberists 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.   Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

Actually, that doesn't create a problem at all in what I said, now does it.

What creates a problem with what you said was that WWII was not about saving the Jews, it was about stopping German expansion and keeping the status quo. The whole Jew thing was thrown in as an after though, a la slavery

[SuperJerk 0]

You're wrong Morrissey.

 

The Civil War was the south's attempt to preserve slavery (which they believed was in danger with Lincoln's election), just like World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

 

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.  Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

I'm sure there were German generals who also liked Jews.

 

Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

Edited April 8, 2005 by RobotJerk

[The Decemberists 0]

Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war.

 

And it was more about German power than an racial purification. Of course in Hitler's thinking was that in order for the German race to thrive non-Aryan races had to be gotten rid off, but again, that wasn't the purpose of the War. It was about German expanding and challenging the traditional power structure of Europe.

[SuperJerk 0]

Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war.

I'm sorry....

 

 

Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II?

 

Yikes.

 

The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II.

 

 

At this point we're just arguing symantics, though. I'm more interested in talking about the Civil War and how the South seceded to preserve slavery.

Edited April 8, 2005 by RobotJerk

[The Decemberists 0]

Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war.

I'm sorry....

 

 

Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II?

 

Yikes.

 

The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II.

Hitler did not declare war on anyone though. Legally the war was started by Britain. And Hitler had no reason to think we'd declare war on him anyway, as we'd already warned him about Austria and Poland and everywhere else he kept threatening.

 

 

Edit: Fair enough, back to civil war chat.

 

Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves anyway, his only goal was to save the Union, and if he could do that freeing no slaves, some slaves, or all slaves he'd do it.

 

In the end he managed it without ever freeing anyone. If he really wanted to free slaves he would've let the South go, as what happened in Brazil in after the outlawing of slavery in 1884 in the state of Ceara would have almost certainly happened in the South.

 

It make no sense for the South to go to succeed and go to war over slavery. They were not that stupid.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Morrissey is God

[SuperJerk 0]

Doesn't change the fact that World War II was Hitler's attempt to racially purify Europe.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war.

I'm sorry....

 

 

Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II?

 

Yikes.

 

The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II.

Hitler did not declare war on anyone though. Legally the war was started by Britain. And Hitler had no reason to think we'd declare war on him anyway, as we'd already warned him about Austria and Poland and everywhere else he kept threatening.

At this point we're just arguing symantics over what the word "started" means. I'm more interested in talking about the Civil War and how the South seceded to preserve slavery.

[The Decemberists 0]

Edited last post to go back to civil war.

[Guest MikeSC]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.  Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

Actually, that doesn't create a problem at all in what I said, now does it.

It's hard to say that Lee fought for slavery when he opposed it more than people who fought to abolish it.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

The thing is, it doesn't MATTER what they believed.  It matters what they were fighting for.  There were plenty of guys on the northern side that thought keeping blacks as slaves was all well and good and just as many southerners who disagreed with slavery.  But the bottom line is, you are going to associated with the cause in which you are fighting for.

 

Thats why when people always talk about the confederate fighters being poor farmers not fighting for slaves, I just don't care.   Somewhere there were German soilders that didn't agree with the destruction of the Jews.  There were some anti-semetic allied forces that couldn't have cared less what was happening to them.  What did you fight for is the question that has to be answered. If these poor farmers from the confederacy had won the war, slavery would not have been abolished.

I'm with Ripper on this one.

Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee.

-=Mike

Actually, that doesn't create a problem at all in what I said, now does it.

It's hard to say that Lee fought for slavery when he opposed it more than people who fought to abolish it.

-=Mike

No its not hard. If his side one, slavery would have continued, if(and when) he lost slavery ended. Its not hard at all to say he fought for slavery. I am not saying he agreed with it, but he definately fought for it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves anyway, his only goal was to save the Union, and if he could do that freeing no slaves, some slaves, or all slaves he'd do it.

 

In the end he managed it without ever freeing anyone. If he really wanted to free slaves he would've let the South go, as what happened in Brazil in after the outlawing of slavery in 1884 in the state of Ceara would have almost certainly happened in the South.

In order for Lincoln to know what worked in Brazil in 1884, he'd have to have precognitive psychic powers. Lincoln's been credited with many things, but that's not one of them.

 

Lincoln's intial goal in fighting the war was not to free the slaves, but that doesn't change that the war was foguht over slavery. The South THOUGHT Lincoln's election endangered their "institution". In the end, ironically, it was their very own seccession that caused the very thing they wanted to prevent.

 

Yes, states' rights was a cause of the war. The states' right to let people own slaves.

 

Yes, tariffs were a cause the war. The reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need slavery to still make money.

 

 

If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side

 

Grant's fundamentally inability to understand the political causes of an important issue might also explain why he made such a crappy president.

 

 

Lee fought for the South because he was loyal to his home, right or wrong.

 

 

edit: This kind of intelligent discourse over an interesting topic of considerable historical significance is a primary reason why I started this thread. Even though I'm actively trying to look for flaws in differing points of view, that doesn't mean I don't want to read them. I like having my views challenged by others.

Edited April 8, 2005 by RobotJerk

[The Decemberists 0]

Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves anyway, his only goal was to save the Union, and if he could do that freeing no slaves, some slaves, or all slaves he'd do it.

 

In the end he managed it without ever freeing anyone. If he really wanted to free slaves he would've let the South go, as what happened in Brazil in after the outlawing of slavery in 1884 in the state of Ceara would have almost certainly happened in the South.

In order for Lincoln to know what worked in Brazil in 1884, he'd have to have precognitive psychic powers. Lincoln's been credited with many things, but that's not one of them.

 

Lincoln's intial goal in fighting the war was not to free the slaves, but that doesn't change that the war was foguht over slavery. The South THOUGHT Lincoln's election endangered their "institution". In the end, ironically, it was their very own seccession that caused the very thing they wanted to prevent.

 

Yes, states' rights was a cause of the war. The states' right to let people own slaves.

 

Yes, tariffs were a cause the war. The reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need slavery to still make money.

 

 

If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side

 

Grant's fundamentally inability to understand the political causes of an important issue might also explain why he made such a crappy president.

 

 

Lee fought for the South because he was loyal to his home, right or wrong.

I wouldn't require precognitive psychic powers. It would require common sense. If the South leaves and becomes it's own country, then there's no more fugitive slave act. Therefore enough slaves can escape, or at least try and escape to make slavery economicly unworkable. Simple stuff, and for supposedly such a great guy like Lincoln it shouldn't have been too much for him to have worked out.

 

Slavery did become an issue in the war, but no untill it had already been going for eighteen months. Even if the only reason the South left was to keep slavery, that did not mean the North had to go to war. The South's motives to secede are of much lesser importance than the Norths motives to declare war, and slavery was not one of them. From the beginning the Senate declared that slavery was not an issue, passing a resolution on the 26th July 1861 that the war was soley fought

to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union.

Slavery, as you should know, was allowed in the Constitution! The North were fighting for the Constitution, and therefore, it could be argued, for slavery. Congress members pleaded with Lincoln to make the war expressivly about slavery in order to gain foreign support, particularly British and French support, but he refused do to so, as his sole concern was the Consitiution and the Union.

[The Decemberists 0]

One more thing, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky were all slave states and STAYED IN THE UNION.

 

Which I think is important...

[SuperJerk 0]

Therefore enough slaves can escape, or at least try and escape to make slavery economicly unworkable.

I think that's a stretch.

 

 

Even if the only reason the South left was to keep slavery, that did not mean the North had to go to war.

 

This is true. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. However, the Union wouldn't have been in danger if it wasn't for slavery.

[The Decemberists 0]

Therefore enough slaves can escape, or at least try and escape to make slavery economicly unworkable.

I think that's a stretch.

It's what happened in Brazil, and it's what William Lloyd Garrison thought would happen at the time. A reasonable number of slaves were already escaping, and with the guarantee of not being sent back it should be obviously more would try. And after than it's simple supply and demand economics.

 

This is true. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. However, the Union wouldn't have been in danger if it wasn't for slavery.

 

It was the constitution right to have slaves if you lived in a slave state. The modern equivalent is a war between pro and anti firearm states. It's stupid. They had a right in the constitution to have slaves.

 

Slavery was used as a way of playing one-up-man-ship. Why the hell were there furious arguments over where slavery should be allowed in New Mexico in the 1840s when no one in his right mind would want to bring slaves there to start a plantation.

 

In 1827 there were four times as many anti-slave societies in the South as there was in the North.

 

Slavery was used to mask the real issue of the stuggle for power in the Union. Of course slavery was an issue, but not even for secession or war. Even Republicans of that time acknowledged that political power was at the root of debates over slavery. The more slave states there are, the more powerfull the South is in Congress, the more free land states the more powerfull the North is.

 

 

Plus as well as the four slave states that remained with the Union, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas only left after war had started - not in a desperate attempt to keep their slaves, but because the use of force against fellow Americans was, they believed, utterly opposed to traditional American beliefs.