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 ...
I have a good friend whom i've known for 33 years. We went to High school together. He happens to be black, and he has always had an extreme interest in History, especially regarding Slavery and the Civil war.
One day he told me that he had learned a very interesting thing that day. Lincoln was a genius because he single handedly engineered the Civil War in a manner such as Patton bragged he would do to the Russians.
Lincoln was aware that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were being blockaded by the Confederates. South Carolina wanted Federal troops removed from Charleston Harbor because they regarded the property as theirs, and the Federals as an illegal occupying force which was not respecting their sovereignty. Lincoln's officers had come to him with a plan to provide supplies to the fort from the sea, without having to confront the confederate troops blocking land access.
According to my friend, Lincoln was having none of this. He sent a letter to the Confederate leadership informing them that on a certain date, he was sending a supply train to re-supply the fort. My friend said that Lincoln knew that this would be regarded as a provocative act by the confederates, and would likely induce them to attack the contingent at Fort Sumter. My friend said that at this same time, Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened.
The Confederates did attack the Fort with cannon fire, yet no one was killed as a result of it. (Were they really aiming to kill anyone, or just making noise?) The only Union casualties were the result of a surrender ceremony in which Union forces were firing a cannon that oddly enough blew up and killed three of them. (If I remember correctly.)
Lincoln knew that the newspapers of the Northern states would be behind him only if the South could be induced to attack first. Had Lincoln initiated the aggression, he would have been roundly denounced by the states he needed to wage a conflict. By maneuvering the confederates into initiating the hostilities, he got them to look like the bad guys for the Entire Northern press. (A group still causing us problems today.)
Lincoln thought the Confederates were just playing at government, and thought that a quick force sent down to chastise them would put an end to the succession nonsense. Lincoln underestimated their determination to be independent, and unknowingly triggered a conflict which exceeded anything that anyone at the time would have thought plausible. Everyone thought it would be a quick and easy little jaunt, but it escalated into the most horrific calamity in American History.
If it is true that Lincoln intentionally induced the attack on Fort Sumter, than he was just too clever by half.
I shall not be surprised if this thread ends up getting locked and/or deleted.
The sort of Federalism that Lincoln gave us is the disease from which we are currently dying. I am sensitive as to how it got into our National blood stream. It certainly does not resemble the Federalism which our Founders had bequeathed us.
Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all followed pretty much the same philosophy but to an ever expanding extent.
That’s exactly how the union felt, considering that Sumter was their property.
Just as much as Fort Ticonderoga was British Property.
You forgot Roberts on that list. I think we are in agreement.
Don’t know how the klan is involved, but thanks, will check it out.
You could just as easily say that if Davis had not fired on Sumter then all those deaths could have been avoided. What threat was Sumter to the South, even had Lincoln been able to resupply the fort? Did it threaten the safety of the Confederacy? No, Charleston was one port and besides, the troops in the port had done nothing to interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston. Did the troops there take any hostile action aganst Confederate forces? No, they stood their post and didn't fire at anything. So why the attack? The only purpose for firing on Sumter was to provoke a conflict. One has to ask why Davis chose to do so if he didn't want a war with the North.
Nice post. Well stated.
It would be more apt to make that comparison to purported ownership by the confeds.
“We haven’t ended slavery, we’ve just changed masters and added more slaves.”
Really? Really??? You’re going to compare anything we have now to the 1800’s practice of slavery? You are truly delusional.
It was just a matter of pride. It had nothing to do with any actual difficulties with the troops being there. But might I ask you how would the Founders have regarded a continuous occupation by the British of Fort Ticonderoga?
I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?
The British did not pursue the fight. Had they wanted, they could have kept Fort Ticonderoga, and we would not have been able to dislodge them no matter how much we tried.
It is true that our chains sit lightly upon us, but do you not feel them growing heavier with each passing year?
Thank you. I have learned that in History, all is not always as it seems.
So a fortification, built by the French and Canadians was seized by conquest by the British. At least once it was captured from the Brits by Americans. Its ownership was calculated by possession, not title.
How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?
What we have no is bad, no doubt about it. But any comparison to REAL slavery is ridiculous.
The Founding Fathers did not choose to start their war with the British by attacking Fort Sumter. But had they done so, I think they would have recognized that doing so was certainly an act of war and that the Britihs would have no choice but to respond in kind.
I will also point out that Federal Troops had shortly before abandoned Fort Moultrie in South Carolina. Were it so easy to abandon one Fort, why not another?
They also gave up Castle Pinkney and the Charelston Armory and for the same reason; none of those three were defensible. Sumter was.
Don't blow smoke. Is it, or is it not American property?
How again is this even remotely analogous to the seizure of Sumter by the rebels?
I'm thinking that if I have to explain it further, you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand it anyway. But just for kicks and grins, you do know that the United States was formerly Colonies of Great Britain, right? Well, we issued a Deceleration of Independence from them, and count the founding of our Country from that Date; July 4, 1776. Should we have let them keep an American fortress?
My point is... that is coming as well. Of course we will be more of the Soviet style of slavery.
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.