Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abraham Lincoln Speech in the Lincoln-Douglas Debate (on slavery)
Son of the South ^ | 8/21/1858 | Abraham Lincoln

Posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:28 AM PST by Loud Mime

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is this Thursday. I thought it fitting to quote from the first Republican president's debates against Stephen Douglas. Each had an hour to present their case, hardly what the mainstream media would like.

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; abraham; debate; greatestpresident; lincoln; presidents; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-388 next last
insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

It sounds like the Democrats of old are the same as the Democrats of today; they just advocate government as our new slavemaster.

By the way, the website I pulled this from may be of interest to any persons interested in the war between the states.

1 posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:29 AM PST by Loud Mime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vision; definitelynotaliberal; Mother Mary; FoxInSocks; 300magnum; NonValueAdded; sauropod; ...

ping


2 posted on 02/07/2009 7:46:23 AM PST by Loud Mime (Stop the Clown-Car Stimulus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

A logical, intelligent speech from a political figure? Surely this is fiction!


3 posted on 02/07/2009 7:54:55 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

As I read the passage you highlighted I am struck by the fact that what Lincoln says he is agitated by is the embarrassment slavery causes to him. He expresses no particular concern for the slaves here. Lincoln and his cronies were mostly animated by their hatred, not for slavery, but for Negros.


4 posted on 02/07/2009 7:55:25 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

What the heck are you talking about? He is saying he is embarrassed by the existence of slavery—how does that NOT show concern for those who suffer under it?

“Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation.”

Refreshing to see someone post this for all those who claim the anti-slavery forces were some snooty bunch of northerners who denied they’d ever benefited from slavery.


5 posted on 02/07/2009 8:03:32 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
"how does that NOT show concern for those who suffer under it?"

It is concern for himself. Read it again.

"Refreshing to see someone post this for all those who claim the anti-slavery forces were some snooty bunch of northerners who denied they’d ever benefited from slavery."

Well Lincoln was a Southerner himself remember. Though he always aspired to be a snooty Northerner.

6 posted on 02/07/2009 8:31:09 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

And ANOTHER Douglass — a black one — had THIS bit of advice. His words are as timely NOW as it was when he uttered them.

“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate
agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical
one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a
struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit
to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and
wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue
until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857

Give the clearly expressed intentions of a contemporary black man, we may well find ourselves having to once again impose Douglass’ limits.


7 posted on 02/07/2009 8:31:19 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days.

What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon.

What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals."

8 posted on 02/07/2009 8:34:34 AM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
IMHO, Lincoln used the moral issues of slavery to subvert the Constitutional limitations placed by the Founders and ended the voluntary Union of States that comprised the Republic.

Reconstruction legitimized the 'democratic' actions of Lincoln, and, in effect, enslaved the Nation to the will of the federal government.

Nope, I can't think of a single thing to celebrate on Lincoln's birthday.

-----

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States – 1803 [paragraph 337]

9 posted on 02/07/2009 8:36:21 AM PST by MamaTexan (If you enjoy being a slave to government.....thank Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

“Find out just what a people will submit
to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and
wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue
until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857”

Douglass describes our current situation.

There is nothing new under the sun.


10 posted on 02/07/2009 8:43:47 AM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Lincoln and his cronies were mostly animated by their hatred, not for slavery, but for Negros.

What were Jefferson Davis and his cronies animated by? Just curious.

11 posted on 02/07/2009 8:46:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Lincoln did the right thing, the wrong way and for all the wrong reasons.

He pretty much dumped the constitution to get his way.

That being said, I am sure we are all glad slavery ended.

A big problem I have with the south was the attack on Fort Sumter and on that supply ship.

If for instance Bush was still president and Castro attacked Gitmo, we would have tore old Fidel a new one.

Secession should have been handled diplomatically at first and in the mean time the CSA could have built up their military via European help in preparation for a possible future armed conflict. Striking first was just dumb.

12 posted on 02/07/2009 8:50:04 AM PST by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

And where in any of that was Lincoln wrong?


13 posted on 02/07/2009 8:53:36 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What were Jefferson Davis and his cronies animated by? Just curious.

Their slavery-dependent incomes, primarily -- with a nice patina of fancy talk to rationalize their defense of a moral abomination.

It's not necessary to paint them as fully evil (as our neo-confederate friends are brainlessly wont to do with Mr. Lincoln) because they were not. They had many good qualities as well.

Mr. Davis and his cronies stand as powerful examples of something we all do from time to time: mistake our own comforts and desires for what is right. How often have we all angrily defended something that, deep-down, we know is wrong? I've done it -- perhaps you have, too.

This does not absolve Mr. Davis, et al, of guilt for attempting to propagate and protect an atrocity ... and their positions of power make their guilt all the greater. But it would be a mistake to think we're incapable of the same sorts of things.

14 posted on 02/07/2009 8:56:04 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Secession should have been handled diplomatically at first and in the mean time the CSA could have built up their military via European help in preparation for a possible future armed conflict. Striking first was just dumb.

War was inevitable, even if your approach were the way things had gone. And the South would still have lost, regardless, for the same reasons they lost in any case: they were not capable of sustaining a total, industrial war such as the Civil War became.

As for "striking first," it was dumb ... and also completely predictable.

15 posted on 02/07/2009 9:00:47 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

thanks...to read later.


16 posted on 02/07/2009 9:06:55 AM PST by Rick_Michael (Have no fear "President Government" is here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

I particularly like how Lincoln acknowledges his awareness of who was who...

17 posted on 02/07/2009 9:07:22 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Lincoln was a white supremicist and a tyrant who ignored the right to secession, ignored the 10nth Amendment, ignored habeas corpus, committed war crimes by sacking and burning whole southern cities ans used the emancipation as nothing more than a war gambit.

September 13, 1862, Lincoln said, “ Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds ... I view the matter [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.”

Lincoln responding to an op-ed piece in the then NY Tribune,who called on Lincoln to immediately and totally abolish slavery,
” My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. “

Once again, Lincoln signed the proclamation as nothing more than war propaganda.


18 posted on 02/07/2009 9:07:55 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
IMHO, Lincoln used the moral issues of slavery to subvert the Constitutional limitations placed by the Founders and ended the voluntary Union of States that comprised the Republic.

Your H.O. humbly forgets that the Southern states brought a decades-in-the-making crisis to a headby seceeding -- prior to Lincoln's inauguration, and the reason they did so was to protect their "right" to keep slaves.

It's all very nice to blame Mr. Lincoln, but he didn't force anybody to seceed -- he had no power to do so in any case, at the time the secessions began. The blame for that, ma'am, belongs with those who started the ball rolling in the first place.

And ... you seem to use the term "moral issues of slavery" as a way of suggesting that it should not have been addressed by making a clean end of it. How ... convenient.

You also forget that the secession convention of your own state, among others, said outright that maintaining the institution of slavery was the reason they seceeded. You can defend that if you wish.

19 posted on 02/07/2009 9:08:21 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

>>>It sounds like the Democrats of old are the same as the Democrats of today; they just advocate government as our new slavemaster. <<<

Actually, it is Lincoln’s form of “republicanism” that is more like the democrat ideology of today. Lincoln despised states rights, and preferred instead a strong central government. Conservatives of today are more like the non-slaveholding, old-South Democrats (and there were many more non-slaveholders than slaveholders). Lincoln was also an unapologetic racist who believed whites to be intellectually superior to blacks, much like the democrat party of today. Some links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e6PBcMkE1M
This is a very good YouTube lecture on Lincoln by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson7.html
Excerpt: “At the time when Lincoln inaugurated coercion against the seven seceding Southern states, there were (rounding off 1860 census figures) 1,387,000 slaves in the seceded states and 1,817,000 (or over 56 per cent of the total American slave population) still in the Union, including nearly 3,700 in the District of Columbia and 18 in New Jersey. It is hard to draw much of a moral to support military conquest of seceding states from that, especially as Lincoln had already declared that he had neither the right nor to desire to interfere with slavery in the states.

And what about the 488,000 free black people in the United States, more than half of whom were in the slave states. How can they be “hostages” when they discouraged and often forbidden from entering Northern states where the black population was, according to much testimony, extremely depressed and oppressed!”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html
Excerpt: “The truth is that Lincoln repudiated the dictum of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. He also unequivocally denied that “all men are created equal.” “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he said in the August 21, 1858, debate with Stephan Douglas. “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,” he continued.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson22.html
Excerpt: “Of course, the greatest Presidents, according to the Mainstream Intelligentsia (MSI), are those who grew the federal government the most and who exercised the most dictatorial power – that being their definition of greatness. The whole enterprise of such ratings has always seemed fishy to me. What do we mean, for instance, by Great? Genghis Kahn, Hitler, and Mao were great – in the sense that they made a great impact on history. Being Great in history is not necessarily a good thing. And greatness is surely a matter of perspective. Many may have profited from the doings of a great President, but there are also many who suffered. I doubt if very many of the 600,000 Americans who died in the War to Prevent Southern Independence would be all that enthusiastic about the greatness of Honest Abe Lincoln if they were allowed to vote. “


20 posted on 02/07/2009 9:11:26 AM PST by PhilipFreneau (Make the world a safer place: throw a leftist reporter under a train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Self government.


21 posted on 02/07/2009 9:12:30 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“And where in any of that was Lincoln wrong?”
-
Nowhere.
He was speaking “truth to power” at the time.
But to read this is to realize that all was not as the
re-writers of history would have us believe of those times.


22 posted on 02/07/2009 9:12:39 AM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

“As I read the passage you highlighted I am struck by the fact that what Lincoln says he is agitated by is the embarrassment slavery causes to him. He expresses no particular concern for the slaves here”

Did you somehow miss this: “I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself”? You see, he didn’t say the injustice of slavery bothers him. He said slavery itself is unjust.

“Lincoln and his cronies were mostly animated by their hatred, not for slavery, but for Negros”

Not to say that he wasn’t racist, but the Republican party was animated in its infancy largely by the free-soil movement, everything else on their platform being a carryover from decades of Whig policy, and had little to do with negroes. Now, a very compelling argument can be made that the free-soil movement was concocted as an excuse for white settlers to keep slaves from competing with them. That’s part of it. Another part, and in my opinion the bigger part, is that preventing slavery from moving into new states would hasten its assumed eventual disappearance.


23 posted on 02/07/2009 9:13:38 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
It is concern for himself. Read it again.He is no more concerned for himself than any Christian is when he obeys God's commands in order to save his immortal soul.

Well Lincoln was a Southerner himself remember. Though he always aspired to be a snooty Northerner.

Better a snooty Northern who for all his human flaws turned against slavery than...something else.

24 posted on 02/07/2009 9:14:02 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Once again, Lincoln signed the proclamation as nothing more than war propaganda.

LOL! It was a war strategy ... and a rather successful one at that.

Your whole rant forgets one simple fact: secession occurred, and the Confederacy arose, over the issue of slavery, and their "right" to keep slaves. All of the other fine talk was nothing more than window-dressing.

25 posted on 02/07/2009 9:15:06 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Secession had little to do with slavery.

Southern States were debating cessation long before 1860 BECAUSE of the decades long feud over the proper economic role of the central government. High tariffs were punishing the south beginning with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.

The fact you fail to observe the time line of events and suffer cognitive dissonance is not my concern.


26 posted on 02/07/2009 9:17:10 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

It works like this in the democrat mind. A fetus is subhuman and the property of the woman. The woman is the new slave master. As a result, the radical feminists have totally undone centuries of social evolution.


27 posted on 02/07/2009 9:19:01 AM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Another part, and in my opinion the bigger part, is that preventing slavery from moving into new states would hasten its assumed eventual disappearance.

Actually, that was what made the Civil War inevitable. Pretty much any way you play the what-if game -- even if the Confederacy were freely allowed to form itself -- the South's need and desire to spread slavery, and the North's desire to prevent it, would inevitably have led to fighting.

28 posted on 02/07/2009 9:19:08 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“It’s all very nice to blame Mr. Lincoln, but he didn’t force anybody to seceed — he had no power to do so in any case, at the time the secessions began. The blame for that, ma’am, belongs with those who started the ball rolling in the first place.”

You seem to equate blame for secession with blame for the war, which need not have been so.

“You also forget that the secession convention of your own state, among others, said outright that maintaining the institution of slavery was the reason they seceeded. You can defend that if you wish.”

Just because the secession was about slavery does not make secession as such invalid.


29 posted on 02/07/2009 9:20:10 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself.

Please explain how this is "concern for himself".

P.S. I said " those who claim the anti-slavery forces were some snooty bunch of northerners" to which you replied "Well Lincoln was a Southerner himself remember."

Which was my point.

Before you start advising others to read things again, maybe you should learn to read properly the first time.

30 posted on 02/07/2009 9:20:40 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The free-soil movement may have had far more to do with protecting northern wage workers than with helping blacks (if at all). Northerners were afraid that bringing slavery to the North would cause slaves to take jobs away from themselves.


31 posted on 02/07/2009 9:24:46 AM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Wait, I didn’t mean to say Lincoln “didn’t say the injustice of slavery bothers him”. I meant to say Lincoln didn’t say slavery was unjust because it bothers him. He said slavery was unjust in itself.


32 posted on 02/07/2009 9:25:16 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

I don’t read that in it at all. He is saying it is morally reprehensible, and at the same time he understands what the South is saying.


33 posted on 02/07/2009 9:27:43 AM PST by bboop (obama, little o, not a Real God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Self government.

Yeah, right. But let me be more specific. When it came to slavery and Negroes what were Davis and his cronies animated by? Love? Brotherhood between the races? Moral justice? What?

34 posted on 02/07/2009 9:28:51 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
You seem to equate blame for secession with blame for the war, which need not have been so.

Probably not, had the confederacy not initiated war with their attack on Sumter.

Just because the secession was about slavery does not make secession as such invalid.

No, but unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern state was invalid.

35 posted on 02/07/2009 9:31:07 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Secession had little to do with slavery.

Oh, pooh. Secession had everything to do with slavery. It was the culmination of the controversy that informed the Missouri Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Those were all predicated on dealing with the Sectional Crisis, which in turn was all about slavery.

Many of the seceeding states said so outright, with Mississipi being perhaps the most explicit:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

If you want to talk about "the proper economic role of the central government," it is impossible to do so without facing the fact that the economies of the secessionist states were utterly dependent on slavery. The "economic issue" at hand was nothing more or less than the threat of abolition of slavery, and the ruin it would bring upon the southern economy.

The threat posed to their economic well-being by the abolition movement cannot be dismissed. It is pretty much impossible to imagine secession occurring without the issue of slavery to precipitate it. The gentlemen of Mississippi, Texas, and elsewhere admitted that. If you're interested in facts, you should admit it, too.

The fact you fail to observe the time line of events and suffer cognitive dissonance is not my concern.

LOL! The facts are the facts, sir. You can ignore the facts, but they won't go away.

36 posted on 02/07/2009 9:32:23 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“Pretty much any way you play the what-if game — even if the Confederacy were freely allowed to form itself — the South’s need and desire to spread slavery, and the North’s desire to prevent it, would inevitably have led to fighting.”

I can’t accept this. Gradual and compensated emancipation worked elsewhere around the world. What makes American Southerners especially irrational? If gradual emancipation had been seriously tried at some point between the Founding and Lincoln’s election, things could have been different.

Things also could have been different without John Browne. Or if Stephen Douglas had been elected. Or if the North had negotiated peace. Or if Dred Scott had been decided differently. Or if the Missouri Compromise had stretched to the Pacific.


37 posted on 02/07/2009 9:32:28 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

>>>He is saying he is embarrassed by the existence of slavery—how does that NOT show concern for those who suffer under it?<<<

If Lincoln was so embarrassed by the existence of slavery then why did he support strengthening the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the law? Some links:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html
Excerpt: [Lincoln] instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states. These laws were used to attempt to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor69.html
Excerpt: “Abraham Lincoln consistently pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., to make northern states complicit in the perpetuation of the peculiar institution. He moreover opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. (See his letters to Salmon P. Chase and Samuel Galloway on June 20, 1859 and July 28, 1859, respectively.)”


38 posted on 02/07/2009 9:32:35 AM PST by PhilipFreneau (Make the world a safer place: throw a leftist reporter under a train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

“The free-soil movement may have had far more to do with protecting northern wage workers than with helping blacks (if at all). Northerners were afraid that bringing slavery to the North would cause slaves to take jobs away from themselves.”

I don’t deny that was a big part of it, especially for the average voter. That doesn’t exactly explain why abolitionists flocked to the Republican party. Except for the fact that there wasn’t really any alternative major party for them.


39 posted on 02/07/2009 9:35:38 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

One State`s reason does not negate the underlying cause.

What they didn`t completely understand was basic economics.

Slavery was economically untenable. The fact that either those in the south or north didn`t get it is testament to their undeveloped economic theories and practices.

“servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy.” (mises.org/pdf/humanaction/pdf/ha_21.pdf)


40 posted on 02/07/2009 9:36:43 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Lincoln was a white supremicist...

And since Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee and Thomas Jackson were also white supremecists then I suppose you have a healthy hatred for them as well? Or just Lincoln?

and a tyrant who ignored the right to secession...

No such right to secede unilaterally exists.

...ignored the 10nth Amendment...

On the contrary, Lincoln was well aware of the 10th Amendment. Especially the powers denied to the states by the Constitution part.

...ignored habeas corpus...

Article I gives the government the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion.

...committed war crimes by sacking and burning whole southern cities...

Complete and utter nonsense.

...ans used the emancipation as nothing more than a war gambit.

Finally something we can agree on. And it was a very successful war gambit, wasn't it?

Once again, Lincoln signed the proclamation as nothing more than war propaganda.

No you were right the first time - war gambit. It denied the South the assistance of all that slave labor. In that it was very successful.

41 posted on 02/07/2009 9:37:37 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
One State`s reason does not negate the underlying cause.

Which was?

42 posted on 02/07/2009 9:38:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Actually, that was what made the Civil War inevitable. Pretty much any way you play the what-if game -- even if the Confederacy were freely allowed to form itself -- the South's need and desire to spread slavery, and the North's desire to prevent it, would inevitably have led to fighting.

That business about the southern need to spread slavery was a Northern propaganda bugaboo. Any such need was based on maintaining parity in the Senate and ended once the South seceded.

BTW the Confederate constitution addressed this issue by requiring a super majority to admit new states. The Confederates were keenly aware that the admission of new states had been the primary source of all their disputes with the North since independence and they also knew slavery was already dying out in the upper South. Secession is feared by the political class because it suddenly creates new political majorities and minorities. But adding new states presents exactly the same problem. Remember the first secession movement had begun in New England in response to the Louisiana Purchase. The requirement for a super majority would have made it very unlikely the Confederacy would have been expansionist.

43 posted on 02/07/2009 9:41:55 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau

“If Lincoln was so embarrassed by the existence of slavery then why did he support strengthening the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and opposed efforts in the Republican Party to repeal the law?”

We all know he wasn’t an abolitionist. He was a conservative, and not willing to go so far. That doesn’t mean everything he said is tinged by a disregard for negroes. It’s easy to be radical on the issue 150 years after the fact. In the midst of history, most people aren’t willing to move heaven and earth to stamp out things they don’t like.


44 posted on 02/07/2009 9:43:44 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Wow....great quote!


45 posted on 02/07/2009 9:43:55 AM PST by Loud Mime (Stop the Clown-Car Stimulus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
You seem to equate blame for secession with blame for the war, which need not have been so.

Not quite. I see the war as inevitable, because the South's desire to spread slavery westward, and the North's desire to the contrary, had been coming to a head at least as early as 1820. Armed conflict over commonly-desired territories was already a fact.

Given the demographics of north and south, it was inevitable that the North should eventually gain the upper hand politically, which made abolition an eventual certainty. By 1860 it was almost a fact. The South recognized that they faced a stark choice: to accept abolition and face economic ruin; or to seceed in order to protect slavery and thereby preserve their economic position. Secession was a logical, if morally repugnant choice, but it could not have prevented war. At best it would have delayed war by a year or two, but war would have come in the west regardless.

Just because the secession was about slavery does not make secession as such invalid.

Perhaps -- there's a fine debate to be had about that. But secession as it actually occurred does not help your case, because it was about slavery. Secession in defense of an abomination is abominable in itself.

46 posted on 02/07/2009 9:47:31 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“No, but unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern state was invalid.”

I’m not sure what you mean by unilateral. Are you referring to the fact that the leadership didn’t accurately represent its public? ‘Cause I bet that’s so. Although the common man fought like he did once the war started. But his homeland was being invaded, so it was a natural response.


47 posted on 02/07/2009 9:47:41 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No you were right the first time - war gambit. It denied the South the assistance of all that slave labor. In that it was very successful.

I don't think it had much effect in that respect. There were no slave revolts during the war for example. What the EP did achieve was to close off the possibility of direct assistance for the Confederacy from Britain or France.

48 posted on 02/07/2009 9:49:49 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

>>>Article I gives the government the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion.<<<

Article I gives the congress the power to suspend habeas corpus, not the executive. Lincoln usurped power from the congress, which is tyranny.


49 posted on 02/07/2009 9:52:52 AM PST by PhilipFreneau (Make the world a safer place: throw a leftist reporter under a train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“Not quite. I see the war as inevitable, because the South’s desire to spread slavery westward, and the North’s desire to the contrary, had been coming to a head at least as early as 1820. Armed conflict over commonly-desired territories was already a fact.”

I have to agree with the above poster who said that the expansion issue would have largely floated away with an independent Confederacy. No doubt the two nations would have competed over Western territory. But the slave interest was landed and wealthy, and not prone to frontierism. Plus, Western agriculture was not as conducive to slave farming.


50 posted on 02/07/2009 9:54:14 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-388 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson