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?
Thanks for another great link! Bookmarked for future reference.
Tau Food: "Nobody at FR was around in the 1860's and nobody at FR has ever even known anybody who was around in the 1860's.
Surely, some of us have ancestors who were around, but we didn't know any of them."
One of my great-grandfathers, fresh off the boat, not English speaking, enlisted, fought, was captured & wounded, in the Civil War, and fortunately for me, survived.
Two others were conscientious objectors, and the fourth hired a replacement, who may or may not have survived the war, we don't know.
Point is: the Civil War is personal, and as close as my beloved grandparents' fathers.
Tau Food: "The interesting question for me is why some of these folks find that life in the USA seems so intolerable."
Not everybody draws a "long straw" in life.
And some who have a "long straw" are bitter their straw is not longer, or not the longest.
That's human nature, and it drives some to embrace ideologies which make them feel, well, "special".
My personal opinion is that they are all entitled to whatever beliefs they wish, but when they try to propagate such beliefs in a public forum like Free Republic, then those who can have an obligation to: point out the errors in their thinking.
I don't think I can defend either "Manifest Destiny" or Reconstruction, except perhaps in the most general terms, allowing that much of it was not... well... pretty.
Hmmmmm... now there's an interesting Latin term.
DiogenesLamp: "I think people have been misinformed about the war since 1861, and even more so 150 years later.
I think most modern people lack the necessary cognitive capabilities to comprehend the zeitgeist of that time period, and always try to evaluate it based on what are the modern herd impression."
But FRiend, you are amongst the most misinformed, and stubbornly resistant to truth of any poster on Free Republic.
You have a set of ideas that you will not be budged from, regardless of how false they are shown to be.
DiogenesLamp: "They are also unaware of how so many things that are a result of that war, and continue to negatively impact society today.
Illegal Immigration, Abortion, Government's Anti-Religious policies, and Gay Marriage can all be traced back to the aftermath of that war."
Now there is a logical fallacy with an official Latin name: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Surely as somebody eager to toss out terms like "Argumentum ad populum" you are most familiar with the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Your hand-waving aside, there there is no proof that the Civil War itself had anything to do with the events you so decry.
DiogenesLamp: "Not just frustrations, but concern that the economic path we are on will only end in tragedy.
When chained to a mob that cannot comprehend that you can't have an everlasting spending party, one becomes desperate to disassociate from such individuals who will obviously come to ruin at some point."
And yet virtually everyone posting on Free Republic agrees with those sentiments, at least up to a point.
Still, most of us feel no need to jump from there to calling "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" the heart and soul of evil, indeed just the opposite.
We see Lincoln and the Republicans as a great example of how the greatest of crises can be met and brought eventually to a better end.
We blame Jefferson Davis for starting the war and credit Lincoln for winning it.
DiogenesLamp: "It's not that people allow themselves to get tangled up in the slavery issue, it's that any discussion of secession cannot be considered rationally by the team cheerleaders for the Union.
They have a religious fervor regarding the question of separating from the Union.
To allow such a thing is tantamount to saying their "team" was in the wrong, and they simply love their team, and will admit no such thing under any circumstances."
But not a word of that is true, as we have endlessly tried to point out, but you won't listen.
Indeed, you can't listen, because listening is not part our you psychological makeup, is it?
You are not here to listen, you are here to propagandize, so just ignore everything else.
The fact is that everyone here understands that slavery was the law of the land, in 1860 in the South.
We also know that slavery was the core reason for their secession, and nothing you claim can change that.
But nearly everyone here disputes your claim that we believe lawful, peaceful secession is constitutionally impossible.
We don't.
We think it's entirely possible if done correctly, as our Founders intended -- by mutual consent of Congress, or by material "breach of compact."
But there is no chance today that a majority of citizens of any state would vote for a lawful secession, much less a repeat of the unlawful secessions of 1860 and 1861.
DiogenesLamp: "They have bought in to the belief that Separation is impossible, and if you disagree, you must be a supporter of Slavery, and therefore your opinion need not be respected."
Not true, as explained above.
DiogenesLamp: "It was very relevant to the economics and financial assets of the South, but it was completely irrelevant to whether or not they had a right to leave;
A distinction which is apparently too subtle for many people to grasp."
Despite your exalted self-opinion, your own mind is in no way "subtle" or even supple -- you utterly fail to grasp what has been endlessly explained.
So here it is, as simple as simple can get: Civil War did not begin because of slavery or tariffs, Civil War did not begin because of secession, Civil War did not begin because of the new Confederacy.
Civil War only began after the new Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri.
So how hard can that be to grasp?
Once you grasp that, your whole problem goes away, and you can reject the example of the Confederacy as being just stupidity in motion, while defending the possibility that a lawful secession could still be constitutional.
So what exactly is your problem with that?
They were still wrong, and frankly, they knew it.
I don't know that I've ever seen a louder babbling brook of idiocy.
FRiend, when it comes to your religious opinions, they are as ignorant as the world is wide -- so don't embarrass yourself, or Free Republic with them, please.
A military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter was an act of war, regardless of how many were killed.
Indeed, many more would have died, had Maj. Anderson decided to seriously fight.
As it happened, two soldiers lost their lives directly as a result of the action.
And least anybody doubt the Confederacy's intentions, they soon formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
EternalVigilance: "Actually, the killing started because of a continued southern claim to a 'right' to do one of the most egregious wrongs there can ever be, which is to enslave their neighbor."
Sorry, FRiends, but the "killing began" for one reason, and one reason only: because the Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, while sending military aid to Union Missouri.
Just as President Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural, March 4, 1861, there could be no war -- none -- until the Confederacy started it,
First of all, that figure of 300,000 additional slaves is roughly 8% of the total, so a less than decisive number.
Second, we need to remember that in 1776, slavery was lawful in all 13 colonies.
By 1787 only two northern states had fully abolished slavery, and five more had begun to phase it out, quite gradually.
Two northern states (New York and New Jersey) had not yet even begun to abolish slavery.
Point is: in 1787 there was not unanimous Northern agreement that slavery should be abolished, and many were willing to compromise with Southern slave-holders in order to achieve a successful Constitution.
So, the good Reverend Adams' point in January 1861 may, or may not, be accurate, but it's irrelevant to events of his day.
*****************************
By the way, I'm very interested to note that PeaRidge seems to be taking on some of the duties our old FRiend rustbucket.
If you prove as congenial and trustworthy-accurate as rusty, it'll be fun seeing your posts...
And yet, as Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural, there was an underlying cause for all of it:
"All knew that this interest (the slave interest) was somehow the cause of the war."
Fellow-Countrymen:
At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
-- President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address
Your post, deffersondem, is incomprehensible.
I gather you suppose it's funny, but it makes no sense.
Thanks for a great post!
Except for two Northern states, slavery was not completely abolished, even in the North, in 1787, the year of the Constitutional convention.
Slavery lingered for decades longer in most Northern states, so at the Constitutional Convention there was no particular urgency to abolish the "peculiar institution", and there was a Northern willingness to negotiate slavery in exchange for other provisions which seemed, at the time, equally important.
But it was Southern states which insisted on enshrining slavery in the Constitution, and Northerners who reluctantly went along.
So, jeffersondem, your efforts to blame those provisions on Northerners are patently absurd.
No, you don't find them "eye opening" because they are all part of the standard repertoire of Lost-Causer arguments -- so it's what you've believed all along.
Lincoln certainly did not "maneuver to start the war", but did what he could and lawfully had to, to fulfill his obligations under the Constitution.
Union forces were instructed not to fire unless first attacked, and they did not, sometimes even when attacked.
The Confederacy's many provocations for war were mostly ignored by both outgoing President Buchanan and incoming President Lincoln.
Even such absolute acts of war as the assault on Fort Sumter, and the Confederacy's Declaration of War (May 6, 1861), did not immediately produce a military response.
That response only seriously began in June, 1861, with the first Confederate soldier killed at Big Bethel on June 10.
Actually, Big Bethel was the sixth battle or incident, skirmish or seizure which combined resulted in 15 Union soldier deaths, about 100 Union wounded and nearly 500 Union soldiers captured and held as prisoners.
So there is no doubt the Confederacy was the aggressor in early 1861.
Lincoln in no way "maneuvered" them to do it.
I guess that’s my point BroJoeK. Either we own it - good, bad, or indifferent - or we delude ourselves and lie to each other (like DegenerateLamp does). I know that you are not personally responsible for the Trail of Tears or the reconstruction but the nation that we hold allegiance to did those things and hold responsibility for them. And I don’t hold lost causers personally responsible for the actions of the insurrectionists (but they should have their eyes open regarding the movement that they are apologists for).
Case in point is the knee-jerk response of lost causers when we state the fact that the south went to war to protect the institution of slavery. One of them will invariably point out (in an indignant and melodramatic tone) that slavery existed in one form or another in the north. While technically true, it is irrelevant to the actions of the rebels.
Of course the reason they make this claim is to open the door for some sort of invalidation of our assertion claiming the doctrine of unclean hands (you can’t point out our guilt when you have guilt of your own). Yes, there was some vestiges of slavery remaining in the north. But yes, the north was actively doing something about it. And equally true is the fact that no, the north wasn’t imposing their practice of slavery on the south like the south was imposing their practice of slavery on the north.
What a crock!
Lincoln's actions were no more a "conspiracy" than the meeting of any county police chief with his subordinate officers.
His actions were totally legitimate.
Further, his intentions were not to "cause the beginning of a war", but rather, as he pre-announced to South Carolina's governor, to resupply Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.
Yes, those Union ships were armed, because other Union ships had already been fired on.
But that was no more a "maneuver" than the US today sending armed ships to resupply or reinforce our base in Guantanamo Bay.
It was the Confederacy, specifically Jefferson Davis, who chose to use that resupply mission as his excuse to launch the attack on Fort Sumter, and hence war on the United States.
A decision soon followed by a formal declaration of war on the United States.
So nobody "maneuvered" Jefferson Davis, he did what he chose to do, for reasons which he thought substantial and sufficient.
Unfortunately for Davis and his cause, his choice was ultimately very stupid, bringing the destruction of the very thing he most wanted to preserve: the "peculiar institution" of slavery.
Another ridiculous crock, totally out of context.
In 1776, slavery was lawful in all 13 colonies, but two soon abolished it immediately, and by 1787 four more started gradual abolition.
Still, there was no move in the 1787 Constitutional Convention to abolish slavery outright.
However, Founders did contemplate abolishing the international slave trade, and there were partial abolitions right away, with total abolition of US slave ships coming in 1807.
This had nothing to do with the nonsense you've quoted, and everything to do with the fact that it was the most that Northern abolitionists in 1787 could get their Southern colleagues to agree with.
Of course, it's true, after 1807 the entire US economy grew more and more to depend on export dollars generated by slave-produced cotton.
Yes, in that sense, all Americans were "addicted" to slavery.
And that hugely explains why before the 1850s there was no anti-slavery political party -- not the Federalists, not the Whigs, and certainly not the Democrats.
But in time, slowly, slowly, God's will regarding slavery became known to more and more Americans, and some began to speak out openly about it.
That produced a crisis of conscience which destroyed the old Whig party and gave birth to Republicans.
Those are the facts, short and simple.
So why would you wish to sully them with your hatred and distortions?
It was agreed in 1787 to abolish the international slave trade by 1807, and that was done, as promised.
Northern states, one by one, also officially abolished slavery.
But the South did not, and as the South grew increasingly prosperous, the entire country benefitted economically, and almost everyone agreed that slavery in the South was the South's business, period.
So what changed in 1860?
Just one thing: "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery into western territories, and that was enough to cause Slave-Power Fire Eaters to declare their secession, Confederacy and war on the United States.
Those are the real facts.
jeffersondem: "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 North certainly did not benefit economically from the post-Civil War collapse of the Southern cotton economy.
Just as the entire nation had benefitted economically from cotton before the war, so it also suffered after cotton's collapse.
However, two major economic factors rose up to replace cotton's importance: 1) northern and western agricultural products, and 2) northern manufactured goods.
Because of these, the South's economic collapse did not hurt the North as much as it might have in previous decades.
By the way, we might note that US cotton produced in 1860 was nearly 5 million bales worth almost $200 million, or 75% of the world's export supply.
Today's cotton production is about 15 million bales, stimulating business worth about $25 billion (with a "b"), employing about 200,000 workers and providing roughly 1/3 of the world's export supply.
Now Brother Joe, I don't want to upset you, but check my history.
If I recall, the South wanted “all other persons” to be counted as whole people for the purpose of political representation in Washington, but the northern states didn't want to count these human beings at all; or as one-half a human. These northern states were so, so ... well notorious, to use your word.
But I guess the 3/5 compromise was pretty cozy for the northern states (and the southern states too).
I can't understand how the northern states could do this (shaking my head). We need to take down the state flags of the notorious northern states. Every time I see the flags of one of the northern states I'm reminded of the 3/5th compromise and slavery.
On a thread like this, if I have time (which is seldom), I start at the beginning and work my way through, one by one, answering every bit of ridiculous nonsense I see.
And since you overflow with such.. ah... "treasures", you get a lot of responses from me.
And since you never, ever, learn from them, and just keep repeating your own propaganda points, my responses do indeed tend to get a bit duplicative, and triplicative...
Thanks! But it's late and I'm tired, just a few more, then bed time... ;-)
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.