The second point is, was it necessary to fight the Civil War at all? I have long had a suspicion that the Civil War caused damage -- in terms of casualties and regional resentments that endure to this day -- that outweighs the benefit of ending slavery quickly (which, in itself, seemed an afterthought -- Lincoln appeared much more concerned with his fetish of preserving the union, to me a meaningless abstraction).
Greg Nowell:
The war was not fought to abolish slavery. As is well known that came as a strategic afterthought, which is why the emancipation proclamation waited till 1863. Industrialists needed a large protected market: the South. The election rally of 1860 was "vote for Lincoln, get a 160 acres and a tariff!" referring to free land for the Western faction and a protected market for the industrial faction.
Protection of sundry manufactures was not just in itself an objective. A market for protected goods made it possible to guarantee heavier railroad traffic. (as opposed to the South geting stuff from UK). Railroads were colossal investments by 19th century standards and guaranteeing their profitability was central not just to the RR interests but to the industrial interests that shipped their goods on them and also the banks which used RR bonds as one of the principal assets behind banking operations (they took the place occupied by govt bonds today--if you do a series analysis of the long interest rate in the US, the 19th century proxy for US debt is RR bonds and some municipal debt).
The routing of the RRs was also a big issue and related to the whole question of western expansion.
These economic issues were a very big deal. The alliance with the anti-slavery movement is something akin to Republican party's marriage to fundamentalists today: the program of "capital" is the abolition of the welfare state and low taxation, the means to carry it out is alliance with religious fundamentalists because they're the only ones stupid enough to buy the program and go out to vote for it. But that doesn't mean all Republican politicans who are anti-abortion are cynical about their views; and it is quite possible that the tangible, enormous material benefits of "maintaining the union" for northern industry went hand-in-hand with a personal commitment on Lincoln's part to abolish slavery--if the moment was opportune. But keeping the union intact was a sufficient reason to get into the war.
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298