Skip to comments.Was the Civil War Actually About Slavery?
Posted on 08/30/2012 2:40:56 PM PDT by PeaRidge
click here to read article
I'm interested to see this as well. Thanks.
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power “to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment “express and irrevocable.”
As late as 1862 July Lincoln came under attack by charles sumner for still supporting the black codes.
He did vote for the exclusivity of white suffrage, catering to the overall racist sentiment of the state and the North.
you want to look it up as I have no time to do everything for you.
in his first inaugural address he pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery by making it explicitly constitutional with the “Corwin Amendment,” that had already passed the U.S. House and Senate.
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of “colonization” or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti—anywhere but here. “I cannot make it better known than it already is,” he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, “that I strongly favor colonization.” To Lincoln, blacks could be “equal,” but not in the United States.
Lincoln repeatedly expressed his view of whites as superior to blacks, opposed equal rights for them, wrote to Illinois legislators that eliminating every black person from American soil would be a glorious consummation, appropriated taxpayer money to fund his plan to export freed slaves to a variety of countries; and, despite his famous Emancipation Proclamation, engaged in manipulations so that only slaves in the south would be freed and not those in the north. Lincolns prejudices also showed up, Griffin points out, in Lincolns support of the war on American Indians unwilling to move to reservations, resulting in their systematic extermination.
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” And, “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”
on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.”
read this and it will give you a different view to what you are used to.
what was your last username on here?
Because you say so. Well I guess that settles that.
Do you often have people come back under different names to annoy you with questions you can't seem to answer? Well don't worry about me. You've pretty much confirmed my suspicions. I won't bother you any more.
what was your last username on here?
still like you said you won;t be bothering me so youwon;t answer or reply to me.
not from Il and now living in KS are you ?
Why should we think of this article as anything other than Democrat agit-prop against Republicans?
This ridiculous conclusion is not supported even by the carefully selected facts Dr. Boli presented.
Every word of Dr. Boli's argument demonstrates that slavery was the core issue between North and South.
That is a flight of fantasy so opposite of historical reality, it suggests there is nothing serious going on between your ears, JRF.
Actually there are several who are watching how deep a hole you intend to dig...
Most people who've bought into neo-Confederate propaganda don't even know that the Confederacy first started the war, by seizing many Federal properties, culminating at Fort Sumter in April 1861, then three weeks later formally declared war on the United States.
Before the Confederacy's declaration of war (May 6, 1861), no Union force "invaded" the Confederacy, and no Confederate soldier had been killed in battle against the United States.
In all of history, very few entities have formally declared war on the United States, but in no case has it ended well for those who did.
sigh......sarcasm is completely lost upon some of us.....
\thought you learned your lesson after Beckett08 and how you humiliated yourself by trying to deend a troll
out of curiousity.
I am going to take it that you supported America getting her independance, yes.
\Do you not support the south getting her independance and do you support fighting those who do not want to live with you?
Not to go back and forth like the usual trolls but was wondering about that.
i’ve never seen the point to fight people and force them to live with you.
Hell even if my own family or a member wants to go it alone then all means go.
Even today if the north east, or say the wst coast wants to leave then so beit, no point killing hundreds of thousands to make them live with you.
it was sarcasm I’d have thought
I’ve enjoyed participating in these WBTS discussion on FR over the years. One of the many things I’ve learned is that you can find documents and writings from the era that prove either point. For some folks, continuation of slavery was THE thing. For others, it wasn’t even a consideration. What I do know with certainty is that it defies logic and common sense to believe that the hundreds of thousands of non-slave holding southerners who fought and died did so because they wanted black people to be slaves, even though they owned none nor benefited from their enslavement.
Another thing I know with certainty is that Abe Lincoln and the north decided once and for all whether the union would be a lose knit collection of sovereign states or just a collection of federal government subunits. Abe and the yankees put the wheels in motion that have torn down state autonomy and allowed Marxist pigs like Obama to take power.
At this point it doesn’t matter why the WBTS was fought...this is the outcome.
We have no way of knowing, but given the fact that every other civilized nation in the western hemisphere abandoned slavery, there is no reason to not believe it would have been abandoned in the Confederacy as well...given enough time and pressure from the rest of the world. Had Abe simply let the South go and two separate nations emerged, I dare say the union would Marxist nirvana/hell and the Confederacy would still be living under the original concepts of the Constitution.
I suggest you find another posting name...unless you are shooting for irony.
Oh, dear me, where to begin?
If you have followed these CW threads in the past, you've already seen repeatedly most all of the arguments available on either side.
So I can't make a new argument, just restate what's been said here before...
Our Founders provided no Constitutional mechanisms for secession, but their writings -- their Original Intent -- on the subject are clear and consistent.
"Disunion", "dissolving the compact", "secession" or whatever other name was used, this was acceptable as with any other contract, by "mutual consent" or by "usurpations" or "oppressions" having that same effect -- those were James Madison's words. Others used similar formulas.
Madison said that secession "at pleasure" was not authorized by the Constitution.
In November 1860, when South Carolina first called for its Secession Convention, there was neither "mutual consent" nor "usurpations" justifying secession, and so slave-states began to secede "at pleasure".
But secession itself did not cause Civil War.
Indeed, in March 1861, in his inaugural address, President Lincoln announced there could be no war unless the seceding states started it.
And, of course, that's exactly what they did.
Beginning sometimes even before their formal declarations of secession, secessionists committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States, seizing dozens of major Federal properties, threatening and firing on Federal officers, and finally on April 15, 1861 attacking and seizing by force the Federal Fort Sumter.
Three weeks later (May 6, 1861) the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States -- all this at a time when no Union army had "invaded" seceding states and no Confederate soldier had been killed in battle.
So the reason for the Civil War was that the Confederacy wanted war, started war and then formally declared war on the United States.
Obviously, the Confederacy expected to win its war, and early on its confidence seemed justified.
But long-term, northern numbers, industry and leadership overwhelmed the rebellion and demonstrated for all time that the Confederates' methods for declaring their secession is not acceptable constitutionally.
Constitutional methods for seceding remain as our Founders intended: by mutual consent -- through Congress and/or the Supreme Court -- or by "usurpations" or "oppressions" having that same effect.
So you posted as sarcasm arguments that others have made seriously, and expected me to notice the little twinkle in your eye?
Seriously, was your Dr. Boli also making a joke?
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.