Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.
The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...
After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Well it isn't jmacusa. Who does that leave?
Federal supremacy was in the constitution from the beginning. That was why General Lee was called out to put down the insurrection in Pennsylvania, and later, his son was called out to put down insurrection in Virginia.
The more I study it, the more it looks like a pissing contest which got out of control. The South had successfully seceded. Had they not fired on the Fort, they likely would have been left alone. Let a few years pass without any conflict, and the situation would have solidified.
They fired on Ft. Sumter out of pride and arrogance. They couldn't stand what they regarded as the humiliation of having US troops on what they regarded as their soil. Firing first gave Lincoln a justification for doing what he wanted to do anyway.
Both sides thought it would be a quick little conflict, and quickly forgotten. They each underestimated the arrogance and stubbornness of the other. Once enough blood had been shed, they could no longer let go.
I’m no fan of this current administration but I love my country. As far as ‘’Federal Leviathan’ that would seem to me to be the Democrats(Dems again) under Roosevelt and his New Deal’’ government socialism and LBJ with his ‘’Great Society ‘’ which created the modern day welfare plantation.
This is true, but the roots of what LBJ did go through what Roosevelt did, and before him what Wilson did, and before him what Roosevelt (teddy) did, and before him, what Lincoln did. Lincoln established the Precedent of using the Federal government as a tool to solve social problems. What LBJ did was a natural extension of that same policy.
Yup, it is your yapping and ankle biting that scared me away.
We did fight a war with Canada in 1812. We also fought a war with Mexico in 1848, and came very close to another in 1916, but they were not organized to hold up their end.
Imagine T. Roosevelt as the US president while Wilson was president of the slave owning Confederacy. Each allied to a set of partly compatible European powers. Ouch!
I suggest if you haven’t, you read the Declaration of Independence. That explains the difference between
1. a war started by England against the Colonies to support a pretended right to tax, and
2. a war started by the slave power in an attempt to preserve the institution of human slavery and seize territories that were shared with the free states.
I guess arguing against the facts could get tedious. That is why I don’t do it.
Of course Jefferson used the government to solve social problems, as did Jackson, Polk, Pierce.
And that darned Washington, set a bad precident putting down the Whiskey Rebellion with General Lee at the head of his forces. Federal Supremacy writ large!
No, it wasn’t Lincoln that innovated federal power, it was the Slavocrats who innovated a completely unconstitutional doctrine of nullification, and then, after Jackson put that down like an old dog, invented ‘at pleasure secession’ as the Slave Power’s replacement. Also throw in Taney’s ‘no negro has any rights’ innovation, disregarding the long history of negro sufferage.
No, it wasn’t Lincoln that forced the war. It takes a powerful lot of moonshine to turn his “We are not enemies, but friends...” inaugural address to a cause for war, as pretended by the Slave Power.
Many of them were impressed into the Union army against their will, (What were they fighting for again?) and many of them were sent to die in the South because they always needed more men to throw against Lee's meat grinder.
You should read more history, and not just the stuff you can find on Wikipedia.
Sounds like we need to get you scheduled for your distemper booster.
In Washington, Congress would not have dared. Lincoln had already arrested the legislature of Maryland, what was a few more troublesome congressmen to him?
It was the first time the British Empire ever gave up colonies. The last time was nearly 200 years later.
They apparently had more forbearance than did their subsequent Civil War counterparts. 25,000 dead was apparently enough for them.
I don't think it was so hard. Wilson campaigned for his second term by promising to keep us out of the war. Were it not for the manipulations by the British, et al, we likely never would have gone to war at all. I argue with an Austrian from time to time that still claims the Lusitania was carrying explosives to England, and that's why it sank so quickly.
Nor do I think that the assassination of Ferdinand was necessary. Germany had invested in its military, and spent more on that than they spent on trade with France, so they looked to their legions as a solution, rather than restraining their legions to retain trade with France. Britain had more trade with France than Germany, so would side with France.
Plus they had the experience of their previous victories against France, and were likely feeling arrogant. Seems to be a common problem in wars I think.
I’ll answer this tomorrow. Time for me to go.
Don’t respond to my posts.
F U very much.
Funny how the Lincoln Coven always says an independent South could never survive on its own, too backwards etc. But in the same breath, they’ll claim without the South the USA could have never stood up to European powers. Well which is it?
0Hey Dude, get over it, will you? This isn’t 1861 anymore or haven’t you noticed? We ‘’secceded from the Brits’’ So what, would you like to return or would you have favored seeing the United States being Balkanized?
I don't know if you can say that for sure. For all we know events could have changed history enough that the first and second world wars wouldn't have happened. But I do believe that a separation as a result of the war would have led to future wars between the U.S. and the Confederacy, and that those who think that the two countries would have eventually reunified are just kidding themselves. Separation would have been permanent, hostile, and a drain on both countries.
With the exception of Texas, all the forts seized by the Southern forces were empty. So it's hard to make the case that a precedent of 'giving up' the forts was set. In Texas, the Army turned its facilities over only because the commander down there was a southern sympathizer and he ordered it done.
We didn't secede from the British? Let that sink in for a moment. There is a cognitive disconnect at work in anyone who could make such a statement. It is an abject denial of fact, the likes of which require some sort of delusion.
You simply cannot wrap your mind around the fact that what the Colonists did with England, is the exact same thing that the Confederates did with the US, and now you are trying to talk yourself into seeing a distinction that doesn't exist.
They made war on us, and we eventually fought back, and eventually we responded to the state of war with a Declaration of Independence.
Yes, the Colonies were just going along, minding their own business when the British "made war on us." Good God man! Own up to the truth! We broke away, intentionally, and for reason's which we thought were good. *WE* shot at them. (Battles of Lexington and Concord.) *WE* killed 73 British Soldiers in the initial conflict. Stop lying to yourself, and stop trying to push your make believe on me.
By contrast, the slave power pretended to secession first, then complained about the crisis they created, as their justification, using secession as their justification to enslave all the poor white males US citizens by conscription (but exempted the wealthy slave owners from conscription).
Your statement above is so ignorant/stupid, that you ought to be embarrassed for having written it. Seriously, "the slave power pretended to secession"? "Then complained about the crisis they created"?
If this is your level of understanding, then it is a waste of time to even discuss this with you. It's like arguing with a child. You need to finish High School, and get into College where you can study some History while developing a more mature attitude.
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.