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?
I think in DL's world, formal declarations and actions mean nothing. The Declarations of Secession say their cause was slavery. DL says no. The Confederacy tried to murder those at Sumter, DL says that since they were bad shots it should have been overlooked. The Confederacy declared war on the US. Never been mentioned by DL. DL says even though it was war and the objective was preservation of the Union, that the north should've immediately gave up after stiff resistance.
DL is definitely in the running as being closest to 180 degrees away from logic, common sense, knowledge of human reaction to events, and just a general knowledge of how history flows in these situations.
Thanks for the link, saved for future reference.
I think it is instructive that the people who were working for an independent Scotland did not base their case upon claims that George II was a drunken bum, that Bonnie Prince Charlie was some kind of special hero or that either side back then was right or wrong. They accepted the outcome of the Battle of Culloden and understood that 18th century disputes have nothing to do with whether or not Scotland should be independent today. And, the proponents skillfully succeeded in convincing folks to permit an election to decide the question of independence now.
If there are people here in the USA who think that certain parts of the USA should become independent of the USA, then they should study how the proponents of an independent Scotland succeeded in getting London to permit the people of Scotland to decide the issue by election. Modern day secessionists should learn from that example. It is a mistake for them to try to relitigate the issues that were important in the 1860's. They should refuse to pick at old scabs by arguing about Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. They should decline to discuss tariffs or slavery. They should focus instead upon the reasons that they want some independence somewhere now. How would independence somewhere improve things somewhere today?
Translation: jeffersondem should criticize the South.
Why should I criticize the South? There are already not much less than 275 millions of Americans trained and eager to do that.
And they are led by Southern Governor's like Terry McAuliffe; Nikki Haley; Jeb Bush. And Southern Presidents like Jimmy Carter; Bill Clinton. And Southern Senators such as Linsey Graham; Bill Nelson; Trent Lott. And lesser Southern lights like the Memphis locals who are about demolishing memorials to the Confederate dead; and have announced plans to desecrate graves of the dead.
If I do their job and criticize the South, who will do my job - which is to seek to distinguish right from wrong and proclaim the difference.
Southern leaders have been routed because they do not want the national media, the big corporate boys, and conservatives like Brother Joe to play the race card on them.
Without knowing for sure, I'm guessing (because you post on Free Republic) that you are appalled to find the Full Faith and Credit Clause means men can marry men; that glancing geese can invoke the Commerce Clause and give Fish and Wildlife control of every square foot of a continent; that minimum wage workers have a responsibility to pay for Rush Limbaugh's health care (he says he is appalled).
Were you surprised some seasons back to learn the shooting in the back of Randy Weaver's 12-year old son was a good shoot because his father had created a twice-barreled shotgun one-fourth of an inch too short at the request of a federal agent?
Who is held accountable for the abuses at the IRS? Who is held accountable for the hundreds of deaths that resulted from Fast and Furious? Who is held accountable for the decision to eradicate U.S. borders?
No one. And the reason is because no one believes they have the constitutional power to impeach the attorney general, or the president. And because they don't think they have the power, they don't have the power.
Americans, because of the dominant Appomattox narrative, believe we live in a Democracy, not a Republic. Gone are the concepts of dual sovereignty. The meaning of the phrase, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress" is as foreign to most people as the suggestion that a parent should buy their own child a lunch.
Human problems started in the Garden of Eden, not with the election of Abraham Lincoln. But Lincoln made the decision, for whatever reason, to destroy the union in order to save the union.
In my opinion, that was the wrong decision.
As you can see, our hubristic FRiend chooses selective criticism and apologism over the truth. In typical fashion not only is Lincoln personally responsible for every misstep the United States has taken since his presidency, but he is to blame for much of the history that preceded him.
And since there are others who criticize the insurrectionists he sees no inclination to accept any of their wrongdoings. Classic.
If your job really is to distinguish right from wrong as you say, you should have no more problem dealing honestly and humbly with the wrongs committed by Southern leaders long since dead and gone as you do recognizing the glaring faults of the modern-day Judases in the Republican Party.
Thanks again for some great quotes.
I had not realized there are quotes from the likes of George Washington and Patrick Henry supporting abolition of slavery.
Rubbish!
The whole "South" did not "demur".
The Deep South only, first declared secession and Confederacy, then provoked, started and declared war on the United States, sending military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri.
The Upper South then joined the fight, though huge portions of their populations demurred from secession, and remained loyal Unionists.
Border States were majority Union by factors of two & three to one, and never did demur from Union.
But the decision for war was strictly the Confederacy's, and their daily decisions to continue fighting until thoroughly defeated, and unconditional surrender, are the reasons so many died, period.
Thanks. I don't understand it, but do know there are many like DiogenesLamp out there, and none seem interested in the actual facts or reasons of history.
What they do wish is to vent their rage at America and advance their theories making the Confederacy right and "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans the roots of all evil.
Go figure...
Since this thread is about slavery, I take it your reference to “wrongs committed by Southern leaders” is a reference to slavery in the United States.
Don't let me put words in your mouth.
If you are speaking of slavery in the United States, why do you limit your comment to “Southern leaders long since dead?”
From my experience, many northerners prefer to see slavery, and racism, as a southern problem rather than a national problem, or a global problem. The South lost the fortune they made out of human bondage; the North intends to keep theirs. And to keep it a secret, too.
Otherwise, we would be tearing down the flag of Brown University. But we are not tearing down the flag of Brown University.
Agreed.
There are posters here who say they want to declare secession today, and I advise them: as long as they keep it peaceful and lawful, go right ahead, though I can't imagine any state in the Union with even a small majority to vote for secession.
And seems to me an actual secession would require at least three critical votes: 1) a state's popular vote to begin negotiations with Congress for terms & conditions of secession, 2) a vote by Congress approving negotiated terms and conditions, and 3) a final state popular vote to approve the terms negotiated with Congress.
But I doubt of any of those so passionate for secession would go along with that lengthy procedure.
As some posters here have indicated: it's enough if they want to secede, and declare their secession, they should be considered seceded, even if it's only from their local township!
Well... obviously ridiculous, but apparently the well-spring of such people is inexhaustible, because there's no shortage of them on these threads.
By 1860 the North had almost completely ended slavery, as has been documented repeatedly for you on this thread. The South still had most of their culture and economy built on it. So much so that they were willing to go to the extreme of secession and war to protect it, whether it was in fact truly threatened or not.
But you tell me, was the institution of slavery wrong or not?
Virginians like George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, And George Mason, and Patrick Henry said it was.
Jefferson engineered the Northwest Ordinance, pushing the transfer of that vast territory from Virginia to the general government, SLAVE-FREE, in perpetuity. The Virginia legislature signed off on it. Were they all wrong?
FRiend, you "play the race card" on yourself whenever you defend slavery.
There's no defense for it, and no defense for those Confederates who fought to the death of 600,000 Americans to preserve slavery.
Of course, many here say that's not why their Confederate ancestors fought & died, and doubtless they're being truthful.
But protecting slavery certainly was the reason their leaders declared secession & Confederacy, starting and declaring war on the United States, then refused to stop fighting until thoroughly defeated militarily.
jeffersondem: "Lincoln Jefferson Davis made the decision, for whatever reason, to destroy the union in order to save the union slavery."
There, fixed it for you. You're welcome.
“But you tell me, was the institution of slavery wrong or not?”
Not to put too fine a point on this, but — are you asking me if slavery was wrong before the northern states tired of it, or afterwards?
I’m not sure the northern states ever tired of slavery. Massachusetts never enacted any laws against slavery. It was only outlawed there when the Civil Rights Act passed in the 60’s. The 1960’s that is.
The north was making too much money using southern cotton to weave fabric up in the New England mills. To do that they needed to enslave children as young as 6 years old to work in the mills.
The north was making too much money off the onerous tariffs they enacted so four southern states were paying 90% of that federal income. Those were the days before income tax so the north was getting a free ride off the southern productivity.
The emancipation proclamation only freed Southern slaves. The Union slaves were kept enslaved.
And BTW there were thousands of black slaver owners who didn’t want slavery to end. But they were southerners so...
The greatest of the founders, even the great ones from Virginia, were already tired of the institution of slavery at the founding, as has been demonstrated to you already on this thread.
They couldn't find the political will and means to stop in their time, but at least, to their credit, they put it on the path to extinction.
By 1860, the North had aleady pretty much carried out that program.
But the leadership in the South was determined not only to hold onto the infernal institution, but to greatly expand it wherever possible.
That's the history of what ultimately led to war.
Where do you people come up with this stuff?!
You set out some tainted bait and when it was sent back, you decided you wanted no part of it. Well, I can't blame you for that.
Northern states were real cozy with the slave trade, and with working slaves, for a long, long time.
People, north and south, made fortunes out of the business. All the while some of those making the most money were proclaiming that they “denounced the practice in the strongest possible terms!” (shaking their fist)
Southern interests lost the fortunes they made out of slavery. The North intends to keep their fortunes. And they intend to keep it a secret too.
I'm not sure if this supports my point or not (because I don't know if the ancestors of the actor that goes by the name of Ben Affleck were from the North or South).
In any event, Mr. Affleck is a northern boy (well Berkeley) and attended the University of Vermont. He definitely has slave owner privileges. He needs to pay. And give back those awards.
From the main stream media:
“Ben Affleck is owning up to coercing “Finding Your Roots” producers to omit the fact one of his ancestors owned slaves — and admits he was embarrassed by the discovery.
“Affleck copped to lobbying the PBS show to hold the slavery — which it did — because “the very thought left a bad taste in my mouth.” In the apology, posted on Facebook, he says participating in the show makes you vulnerable ... and he assumed it would not “include things you think would embarrass your family.”
“The cover-up only came to light when WikiLeaks posted hacked Sony emails between Ben and show execs.”
“Tainted bait”? No, it was a simple question. One you just can’t bring yourself to answer.
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.