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'll answer. I just need clarification. Are you asking me if slavery was wrong before the northern states tired of it, or afterwards?”
That’s a stupid, evasive question.
Your response reminds me of a phrase Charles Krauthammer used awhile back to describe a compound, but unintended, self-repudiation uttered by Mrs. Clinton: “beyond irony.”
I think that if a large majority of residents in a state really wanted to secede, we probably would try to find some way to do it legally. However, I'm not sure what steps that might involve.
Like you say, though, there are no such states. I suspect that most of the very few people who dream of secession live in states that, as I pointed out in post 690, have become most dependent financially upon the government of the United States of America. (I want you to picture some drunk on the sidewalk outside of the Department of Public Welfare screaming, "If you don't return my phone calls, I'm going to quit cashing my welfare checks!!") That's not likely, is it?
However, if a large majority of the people of a state genuinely wanted to leave, we would probably need to at least try to develop some new procedures to accommodate them. It would be a very tricky matter. The notion that the USA is just some sort of revocable joint venture of the states and that any state can leave at will was, of course, utterly repudiated. The United States involves a bond between the people of the United States ("We the People") and those bonds between the American people cannot be severed by any state. We are citizens of the United States of America and our state government cannot just cancel our U.S. citizenship. That was the mistake of the seceding states in the 1860's. Similarly, as things now stand, the United States government cannot just sell the state of Mississippi to the Chinese. The People in the affected states have rights.
We're all in this together and, fortunately, all but a few of us are very happy to be Americans. It'll all work out.
"You said: Where do you people come up with this stuff?!
Economic data: (from Historical Statistics of the US, Dept. of Commerce, pg. 164)
Receipts of US Government for 1859--$53,486,000
In 1859 tariff revenue was $49,566,000 on $317,333,000 worth of imports.
The exports from the US that bought those goods were worth $278,902,000 at the ports of exit from the US.
Of that amount, the value of cotton, tobacco, rice, naval stores, sugar, molasses, hemp, cotton manufactures (all originating in the South) was worth $198,309,000 or about 87%. (Statistical abstract of the US, 1936 edition,pgs 435-439)
The figure of 90% is derived from the above amount, plus the value of tariffs paid on overseas purchases made with cash by Southern governments, and bounties for fish exports paid to the treasury, and the total reaches 90%.
Ancestor worship I guess. There's no way their great grandpappies could've made any mistakes. lol
Except you don't. You gloss over the point, dismiss it, and ultimately ridicule it while believing yourself to have addressed it, which you seldom do.
This leaves me with the impression that trying to argue with you is a pointless effort.
"...and just keep repeating your own propaganda points..."
And that's real funny coming from you. :)
"And apply it to the Union. You know the truth, you just can't speak it. Here, I'll do it for you. "If there was no rebellion, the Union had no problem with slavery here."
It was repudiated by force, but has yet to be repudiated by reason. The Founders said explicitly that people have a right to independence, but some times the King wins a clash of arms and denies them their right.
Didn't have any ancestors here during that war. Mine came across the Atlantic at the turn of the 20th Century. I also don't live in a Former Confederate state. I have absolutely no reason to favor one side over the other except for what happens to be the actual truth.
I am objective, but because I don't engage in worshiping *YOUR* ancestors, (whom I presume to be on the Union side) You don't want to hear what an objective person has to say.
The Ugly reality is that the South had a right to leave, and the Union was completely in the wrong by forcing it back into the Union.
Adding the goal of stopping slavery two years after the war had started does not morally justify the evil part of what was done.
History and Reason do not condone the "selling of indulgences". You don't get absolution for doing evil, just because you later did good, and especially when you do good for the wrong reasons.
If you were objective you would admit that trying to murder those at Sumter was an act of war.
The Ugly reality is that the South had a right to leave, and the Union was completely in the wrong by forcing it back into the Union.
The ugly reality for the South is that they signed an agreement, the Constitution, and didn't follow it in their attempted secession, following Article IV, then stole federal property, then tried to murder American troops, then declared war on the northern states.
Adding the goal of stopping slavery two years after the war had started does not morally justify the evil part of what was done.
Preservation of the union was the goal after the illegal secession, then prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit.
History and Reason do not condone the "selling of indulgences". You don't get absolution for doing evil, just because you later did good, and especially when you do good for the wrong reasons.
The south was doing evil. Slavery was evil.
Same old story, flee from the tyranny of the former country then try to turn America into what they had to flee from.
My paternal 5-G grandfather fought in the Revolution out of Norfolk.
I guess anyone can arrive at his own opinion. I believe that the Constitution created "one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states" like Patrick Henry said. He saw clearly that "we the People" meant something very different than "we the states" and that we were creating more than just a confederation. Like Patrick Henry, I've never even thought it was a close issue. Apparently, you see it all differently.
But, it really doesn't matter what you think or I think. The matter was, as you say, decided "by force."
My point has been that you can still try to convince folks to divide the country up. You just can't do it unilaterally. You need to convince the American people that it would make sense.
Ok state referendum passed with flying colors in 1861. So apparently then the “people” were convinced.
In the 19th century abolitionists were considered terrorist and slavery was mainstream.
But the belief that you cannot leave this government is inconsistent with the principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that you can.
This is a dichotomy. Both things cannot be true.
I think you will need a broader consensus than just a referendum in one state. However, I believe that if you could demonstrate that a large majority of residents in a state favored separation, you could induce the American people to try to find a way to accommodate them. Scotland talked London into permitting the people of Scotland to decide that kind of issue. I think it could be done.
But, we're not going to find out any time soon because the vast majority of people in every state value their American citizenship and want to keep it. In the 1860's, there were some people who thought that staying with the Union might lead to the loss of what then many have been the most valuable asset class in the world (slaves).
That's not true now. No one agrees with everything and not everyone is succeeding in our economic system, but a lot of these folks wouldn't do well in any economic system. Enough people are succeeding here that I wouldn't be counting on any mass movement in favor of separation.
This is a dichotomy. Both things cannot be true.
No, I disagree with you about that. I don't think that those who signed the Declaration of Independence meant that if 3 out of the 4 families living on your street want to form an independent country, that they have a God-given right to do so. That fourth family has rights that you are ignoring.
I recognize that you don't mean one street, but the principle remains the same whether you're talking about your street, your village, your county or your state. You're going to need to work out these issues with all of us. If you could make out a convincing case, it could probably be done in some way.
Patrick Henry was against the US Constitution. He regarded that as a criticism of the proposed constitution. He saw the US Constitution as a danger to freedoms, and especially the autonomy of the States. In that regard, he and the other anti-Federalists were absolutely correct. They were prophetic.
But this is still beside the point. Even if we count Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry in his criticism as a valid authority in making this interpretation of the constitution correct, it still does not override the power of "nature and nature's God" in exercising a right to leave such a government.
But, it really doesn't matter what you think or I think. The matter was, as you say, decided "by force."
That we should accept an outcome merely because it is decided by force is a position that is incompatible with reasonable men or a Free Republic. This is no different from arguing that Jim Crow was acceptable because they had the power to get away with it.
Might does not make right.
My point has been that you can still try to convince folks to divide the country up. You just can't do it unilaterally. You need to convince the American people that it would make sense.
You're talking pragmatism, and i'm talking principle. If you can't get the principle straight in the public mind, you will never be able to work out the practicality.
Many people are convinced that leaving the Union is absolutely forbidden, and will simply not entertain the question at all. They have been propagandized and brainwashed by the events during and subsequent to the Civil War.
If you put the word "some" in front of abolitionists, I think you're probably right about 19th century public opinion.
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.