Yeah, I defiantly made a mistake about the Emancipation Act (it did indeed free the Southern States' slaves, my bad
)
I just see the war as a war for State's Rights. Had the South abolished slavery on it's own (which would in turn might have allowed Great Britain to come in on the Confederacy's side), I feel the war would have been more justified. The South felt (reasonably) that the North was overly oppressive. Northern Tariffs, Southern resources being handled badly by the industrialization of the North. Centralization and "big government" was also a huge factor: the Confederacy wanted states to be able to do what they wanted (and yes, slavery was a big factor here). But still, do states have rights to allocate resources as they wish? While slavery indirectly helped fuel the fire and (I believe) made the war justifiable for the North, Lincoln was a big government politician and (again, my opinion) overly controlling.
My question is are state's allowed to succeed from the Union? Does that make a war justifiable? Both sides had slaves, both sides had racist people, but both sides also had people that thought slavery was awful (Gen. Lee for example). By far, the two best things the war accomplished was the eventually abolition of slavery and keeping the nation together.
As for Lincoln recognizing the CSA as a sovereign nation, he never did so in words, but it seems that his actions may indicate otherwise. By blockading Southern ports, invading his own country are reasonable grounds for recognition. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to say that the CSA was just a band of rebels under organized leadership. You have to win the war in-order for the war to called a "Revolution" and not a "Civil War." Plus, if the CSA was in-fact a nation, then I live in a "conquered nation."
Oh well, guess it's over now...
