![]() In order to abolish it completely in the US, he would have to go to war with the South to settle the matter, which he did. This would have likely caused an uproar in the North, as Lincoln had written the emancipation proclamation, and the people would have wanted him to follow through with abolishing slavery. They might have even fought (and defeated) the North later and re-formed the United States as their own nation, which would have been devastating to the Union.Īs Abraham Lincoln was an opponent of slavery, it would not have been right to let the South secede and continue practicing it. It would have been likely that the South would form alliances with the other groups and maybe even annex their territory. The South might eventually be seen as a leader in this (as they would have been the first, most powerful, and (most likely) the biggest territory to split off from the Union. If Abraham Lincoln allowed the South to split off from the North, it might be seen as hope to all the other rebellious groups, and inspire them to split off from the North as well, potentially causing the US to split into pieces and disintegrate into war on all sides and mayhem. In any case, expansion was critical for economic reasons, which also meant that the South might threaten the North later if they were granted freedom, possibly causing a war over territory, resources, or a combination of the two. If not that, then maybe South into Latin America. Before the Mason-Dixon line was set, the South also thought that the central plains states would be a perfect place to expand. ![]() ![]() Since the South controlled the mouth of the Mississippi, they effectively controlled all economic movement in or out of the region, making it impossible for the North to import or export goods there. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |