Replies

I’m not in the slightest a Ron Paul supporter and I think the slave purchase idea is ridiculous, but he’s correct in his assessment of Lincoln. Lincoln freed the slaves to help win the war, he did not fight the war to free the slaves (i.e. Lincoln’s preferred solution was to ship the slaves back to Africa, a solution which turned out to be logistically impractical). The North did not want free blacks in their cities (see NYC riots) and when tens of thousands of the former slaves eventually migrated to Northern cities, they were treated like dirt and dumped into ghettos. Lincoln destroyed the independent authority of the States and ensured the dominance of the Federal behemoth that continues to grow its power every day.

Slavery would have died a natural death in the South just as it did in the North, through time and education. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, but it wasn’t until 1804 that New Jersey became the last northern state to follow suit. Nobody suggested making war against NJ to force them into compliance.

I have no time for those who “see the light” and then demand that all others immediately follow suit. The Northern elite were like a life long smoker who suddenly quits and then becomes an anti-smoking zealot hounding as pariahs all those who disagree (and no, I’m not trying to equate smoking with slavery).

i.e. Lincoln’s preferred solution was to ship the slaves back to Africa, a solution which turned out to be logistically impractical

Does that make Lincoln a bad man? Here's a quote from a letter from a about 40 years before Lincoln. I'd like you to tell me what your opinion of the author is:

"Amidst this prospect of evil, I am glad to see one good effect. It has brought the necessity of some plan of general emancipation & deportation more home to the minds of our people than it has ever been before. Insomuch, that our Governor has ventured to propose one to the legislature. This will probably not be acted on at this time. Nor would it be effectual; for while it proposes to devote to that object one third of the revenue of the State, it would not reach one tenth of the annual increase. My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the State, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo. There they are willing to recieve them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of taxation aided by charitable contributions."

So...bad as Lincoln? Vile racist? What?

Update: Interesting little page on NJ:

http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

So, they passed an 1804 law for gradual abolition (which is good, and should’ve been done nationally), or a sunset more or less.

Generally seemed to work by 1840. It didn’t take total effect, though, until after 1860, with PC terms for slavery.

Slavery would have died a natural death in the South just as it did in the North, through time and education.

From the perspective of 2010 it may be possible to say that, but not from the perspective of 1860.

All through the 1840's and 50's the southern states were making slavery more, not less, onerous. Freeing of slaves by masters was being made more and more difficult. The laws against educating slaves were ratcheted tighter. And it was made increasingly difficult for free blacks to earn a living.

Standing in 1860 I think it would be difficult or impossible to conclude that southern slavery was on the way out.