Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
Terrific post! Thanks so much.
Thank you.
And thank you for bring so much substance to this thread.
Well... sure, people like to say that slavery was "America's original sin," but that is not a correct analogy.
In fact, slavery was a precondition:
Most Southern colonies in 1776, or again in 1787, would not have joined the United States if it necessitated abolishing slavery.
Without Northern acceptance of slavery, in 1787 and until 1860, there would have been no United States.
Everybody in those days understood this, and that is why, until Republicans came along in the mid-1850s there had never been and American anti-slavery party.
And those first Republicans then, just as many Republicans today, were the weakest of milk-toast anti-slavery politicians.
No major Republican publically called for abolishing slavery in the South.
All Republicans (including Lincoln) said they wanted was to stop slavery from expanding into western territories which didn't want it, or into their own Northern states via the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.
But that was just enough:
Bottom line: slavery was as important to the North as it was to the South, for equal and opposite reasons.
But Lincoln's first concern was to defeat the rebellion which had declared war on the United States.
In that mission, he saw the Emancipation Proclamation as the military equivalent of several US Army corps.
In Lincoln's mind, as we would say it today, it was a "win-win".
Pretty ironic to see someone championing "states rights" calling others "statists"! ;-)
Regardless, our Founders in 1776, and again in 1787 joined a "perpetual union" which they then made "more perfect".
Yes, they considered "disunion" or "secession" valid and necessary, but only under certain conditions, and never "at pleasure".
None of the conditions considered necessary for lawful secession by our Founders existed in 1860.
But regardless, it was not the Slave-Power's declarations of secession which started Civil War, but rather the fact that they provoked, started and declared war on the United States, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
Please note that my response was to jeffersondem. He is the one that listed the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, not me. I fully recognized that you said his election, and not his inauguration.
Having said that, however, I will note that, from the time of his election on November 06, 1860, till the time of his inauguration on March 4, 1861, Lincoln had no more powers than any other private citizen. He didn’t even leave Illinois to go to Washington until February 11, 1861, arriving in Washington on February 23, 1861, less than 2 weeks before he became president. How did citizen Lincoln violate the Constitution during this time?
Keep trying. Here is what I said: "Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution until after he was in office."
Aside from Obama who seemed to have invented the "Office of President Elect" complete with seal, no one considered it an official office. As that sometimes unreliable web site Wikipedia says "An -elect is a political candidate who has been elected to an office but who has not yet been installed or officially taken office[1][2] These may include an incoming president,[3] senator, representative, governor and mayor."
“What started Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Federal troops in Federal Fort Sumter . . “
This is also known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, err, I mean the Fort Sumter incident.
“God did not look so kindly on the Slave Power rebelling and starting a war to protect their “property” and “peculiar institution” of slavery.”
Interesting post with religious implications. Seems like you have thought this through. Can you tell me if Jesus was wrong not to have spoken against slavery?
And China does not recognize Taiwan.
And North Korea does not recognize South Korea.
Georgia does not recognize Abkhazia.
Nigeria did not recognize Biafra.
And Iran does not recognize Israel.
And don't forget, the United States did not recognize Manchukuo.
What does all this mean? Morally, nothing. Economically it means much, especially if a larger power conducts total war against civilians.
If total war had been conducted against southern civilians there wouldn’t have been any left.
Extreme hyperbole doesn’t really strengthen your arguments.
Actually, He did. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
How would you like being a chattel slave?
“Actually, He did. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Are you absolutely certain that Jesus’ ministry, and the above quote, was about ending slavery?
You said: “If total war had been conducted against southern civilians there wouldn’t have been any left.”
Is there any particular reason anyone would think my comment was a reference to an attack on southern civilians? Hmmmm?
No, it was about loving your neighbor, whomever he might be.
Is enslaving somebody a demonstration of love to you?
Yeah. The context.
So, your arguement is that, since Fort Sumter was incomplete is wasn’t a federal fort? Seems a little weak, especially since work was started back in 1829. But, have it your way, it doesn’t alter that fact that even if it was only a “reinforced position” in your terms, it was a US Army “reinforced position” held by US Army troops, that was attacked by the Confederacy. As regards your documentation that hostile Federal fire predated both Sumter and “Star of the West”, I am looking forward to seeing this documentation and, I’m sure that you will tell me how this caused General Beauregard to attack Fort Sumter.
As far as a ruling that the Supreme Courts ruled that the war officially began in Lincoln’s office several days after Sumter, this is akin to saying that World War II started after Pearl Harbor when the Congress declared war on Japan on 8 December. While technically true, I think you would have to consider the attack on Pearl Harbor as part of the war, just as you would have to consider the attack on Fort Sumter as part of the Civil War. In both cases these actions preceded the declaration of war, but in both cases, they were a major part of the war being started in the first place.
Indeed.
Okay, I declare my property the new nation of Libertia.
Woohoo, no more property taxes for me! And all that money the government borrowed since Jackson, now I don't owe a penny of it! This secession thing is great!
I don’t think people have the right to leave the Union. I do believe States have the right to do so. The Constitution is silent on the subject of secession, so it defaults to a right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.