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?
True, part of the incidentals/providence involved.
“Is secession an act of a state?”
We have seen you attempt to lick that same calf three or four times. Enough. Open the gate and walk him on out.
“Why do you have a problem typing . . .”
This is a family-oriented site. There is no justification for bringing that kind of thing here.
rockrr you have swerved close to the truth, but be careful, because in a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
When both northern and southern colonies saw slavery as a money-maker, both regions viewed the practice as moral. Both agreed to write it into the Constitution.
The Tracing Center, a civil rights organization in Boston, talks about the money-making on their website. They write:
“A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.
“The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolf and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.
“While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.
“The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports–Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs—most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.”
But the north did later, largely, come to view slavery as immoral. That occurred about 10 seconds after they discovered that, for the north, it was no longer a money-maker. The only thing remaining after the discovery was to start the killing.
Southern slave interests “lost it all” in the war. (Yeah!)
rockrr, you are knowledgeable about history. Can you cite any prominent New England Universities, politicians, families or business empires that exist today whose fortunes can be traced back to slavery?
What part of what I wrote was less than truthful?
In a thread on “Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War”(sic) you wrote the South's motivation was money. That part was fine.
I thought you would have also spoken about how the north originally was motivated by money from the slave trade and slavery. You could have also mentioned that knocking the South off the nation's economic and political stage for 100 years benefited the northern states financially.
The thought crossed my mind that the reason you didn't mention these things was because you didn't want word to get around.
You’ve got to be kidding.
So you admit that nothing I said was untrue. Thanks!
“So you admit that nothing I said was untrue.”
No. What I said was, “That part was fine.”
Still, my statement to you (That part was fine) is something you can carry with pride for the rest of your life.
It looks like we are bored tonight. Clear on your final.
Why don’t you have the honesty to answer the question? You said that I “swerved close to the truth” which means that I was less than truthful. When I asked where I missed the mark you reframed what I originally said and then added a bunch of other stuff that was irrelevant to what I posted. That was dishonest of you.
If you claim that I’m not telling the truth (AKA lying) then you need to show the lie or STFU.
Lol! That's funny you can't admit that secession is an act of a state. If it isn't an act of a state what is it?
“If you claim that I’m not telling the truth (AKA lying) then you need to show the lie or ****.”
Ok.
In a thread on “Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery, and the Civil War”(sic) you wrote the South’s motivation was money. That part was fine.
I thought you would have also spoken about how the north originally was motivated by money from the slave trade and slavery. You could have also mentioned that knocking the South off the nation’s economic and political stage for 100 years benefited the northern states financially.
The thought crossed my mind that the reason you didn’t mention these things was because you didn’t want word to get around.
Nothing "contradictory" about it, self or otherwise.
Read it again if you disagree.
Boogieman: "You can’t restrain the federal government by taking power away from the states and the people.
The only way to restrain the federal government is by limiting it to its enumerated powers, and the power you want to give them is not one of those."
But the definition of "enumerated powers" -- in the hands of today's liberal/progressives -- means literally anything they can imagine, so it will not help you restrict Federal power & scope of government.
The only possible way to defeat the word-smithing of our Big Government supporters is by reference to Founders Original Intent, as modified by subsequent constitutional amendments.
Even that is not fool-proof against an electorates' insatiable desires for More Big Government, but it at least starts the debates where it belongs: what exactly did our Founders mean by their Declaration and Constitution, as it applies to today?
Finally your phrase, "the power you want to give them" refers to nothing I've posted, is just a figment of your own imagination.
We need to remember that slavery in Illinois had long been legal under French and British rule, and even when Illinois became a US territory and slavery supposedly outlawed (1787), the Federal law was not enforced and slavery continued in various forms.
In 1824, Illinois voters narrowly defeated a proposal to make slavery lawful in Illinois.
In 1825, the Illinois state supreme court finally began to enforce anti-slavery laws, and in 1848 the new Illinois constitution specifically outlawed slavery.
Nevertheless, Illinois retained some of the strongest "Black Codes" in the country, forbidding blacks from outside the state staying more than ten days without paying a $50 fine, or facing deportation.
But the key events our FRiend DiogenesLamp remarks on:
Bottom line: like some other Northern states in 1860, Illinois had a strong pro-slavery minority, and plenty of ruffians eager to enforce the South's Fugitive Slave Law by capturing & returning black people, regardless of their actual legal status.
So you admit that nothing I said was untrue. Thanks!
But there was no order to "invade", period.
And the orders which originally said "reinforce" were eventually changed to "only resupply" so long as there was no Confederate resistance.
The fact is that such a mission was no more an "act of war" than today's missions to resupply or reinforce US forces in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So the decision for war was made by Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln.
Davis' decision was soon followed by a formal declaration of war, on May 6, 1861.
One could easily get lured out into the tall grass with all the lies and logical fallacies our FRiend DegenerateLamp offers up - if one allowed oneself to that is...
You should recognize that you have no mind at all, none, and that all you've done here is prattle miscellaneous words.
Really, if you had even half a brain, you'd "get" that your responses here are quite inappropriate.
I have no doubts, none, that when Lincoln asked God for guidance, God responded, and that God's judgments against slavery in the 1860s were every bit as fierce as they were during Old Testament times.
If you have any doubts about God's judgment on slavery for His people, you might consider Jeremiah 34.
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.