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

Skip to comments.

A Voluntary Federation ( Lincoln was Wrong )
http://mises.org ^ | January 18, 2013 | Donald W. Livingston

Posted on 01/18/2013 5:53:09 PM PST by Para-Ord.45

This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is primarily a document justifying secession, but it has been thoroughly corrupted by Lincoln’s reading of it and the ritualistic repetition and expansion of that reading. The Lincoln tradition reads the Declaration as affirming a metaphysical doctrine of individual rights (all men are created equal) and takes this to be the fundamental symbol of the American regime, trumping all other symbols, including the symbol of moral excellence internal to those inherited moral communities protected by the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, this tradition holds that the Declaration of Independence is superior to the Constitution itself, for being mere positive law, the Constitution can always be trumped by the “higher” metaphysical law of equality.

The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime...

Lincoln’s vision of a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of an antinomic doctrine of equality had its roots in the French Revolution, which sought to unify the decentralized traditional order of France into a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of the rights of man. But Lincoln’s vision was also forward looking. By the 1830s, the forces of nationalism and industrialism were sweeping Europe, and had begun to have an impact on an industrial North all too eager to compete on the world stage with the empires of Europe. For this project, centralization and consolidation were necessary. Lincoln’s vision of consolidating the states into a nationalist regime was of a piece with that of Garibaldi in Italy, Bismarck in Germany, Lenin in Russia, and the general consolidating, industrializing, and imperializing forces on the move in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

(excerpt)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 01/18/2013 5:53:11 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Oh no .

Don’t you know Lincoln saved the Union?

And it only took the deaths of 600,000 Americans to make it happen.Which was a much larger number than died breaking away from England.It is a good thing Licoln was such an effective leader and President.

I’d bet there were (are) a lot who would have agreed with J.W.Booths words,if not his actions.

Now what other Presidents have been noted for ignoring the will of Congress and rulings of the courts ?


2 posted on 01/18/2013 6:05:22 PM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
The British colonies were, politically speaking, built on top of the debris of the states outlined in the Treaty of London (1604).

The Treaty of Paris 1783 for some reason recognized the colonies as independent nations.

All off which means the footing of the political entities making up the USA really isn't as clear as you might have imagined.

3 posted on 01/18/2013 6:06:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Other than being responsible for destroying states rights, the Constitution, turning Federalism on its head and being the driving force behind the needless deaths of 600,000 boys, I have no problem with the man.


4 posted on 01/18/2013 6:11:35 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

The trick is war began as he took the office ~ so Lincoln didn’t start it. As time has demonstrated, we didn’t get rid of near enough Democrats. That party should hve been eradicated.


5 posted on 01/18/2013 6:12:24 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: central_va

And just what date were you planning on eliminating slavery ?


6 posted on 01/18/2013 6:18:19 PM PST by onona (KCCO, and mind the gap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Count me a Booth fan. Too little too late though.


7 posted on 01/18/2013 6:37:33 PM PST by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onona

Slavery was already out of fashion, it was only a matter of time before it ended as all hubris ends. War was unnecessary.


8 posted on 01/18/2013 6:40:44 PM PST by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
the symbol of moral excellence internal to those inherited moral communities protected by the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment.

?????????

I stopped reading here.

9 posted on 01/18/2013 7:02:26 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

And after 600,000 dead and 150 years the blacks are still slaves to the Democrats.Every election 95% of blacks vote for the people who helped destroy the black family and condemn hem to a endless cycle of poverty and government “assistance”.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 8:07:34 PM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No, Lincoln blamed the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin for starting the war.


11 posted on 01/18/2013 8:10:53 PM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
Slavery was already out of fashion, it was only a matter of time before it ended as all hubris ends. War was unnecessary.

Slavery was on verge of expansion just before the Civil War. Had the South won, slavery would had been expanded to new territories in the West, and possibly to the islands such as Cuba.

12 posted on 01/18/2013 8:18:05 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Well, in the event Lincoln won, and every thing is peachy keen.


13 posted on 01/18/2013 10:50:03 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Bwahahahahaha~~!!!!!!


14 posted on 01/19/2013 12:02:31 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

There’s a lot of history in between ~ ignore it at your own risk.


15 posted on 01/19/2013 12:03:36 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Not really. The steady march of anti slavery movement was firmly established throughout the world, even the states in the South were debating abolition. Technology, moral suasion, policy would have eventually killed it off. “Nice” people would’ve eventually given it up, then it would’ve become illegal and the rest would be a local police action.


16 posted on 01/19/2013 4:25:18 AM PST by WriteOn (Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Really? I stopped after this crap: “This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence.”


17 posted on 01/19/2013 7:10:25 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Yrs Lincoln did save the union - against the cowardly and despicable actions of the traitorous slavrocrisy that threw an entire continent into chaos and misery. The blame for those 600k deaths rests squarely upon the southron slavers.

I’d bet there were (are) a lot who would have agreed with J.W.Booths words,if not his actions.

That's a comment unworthy of FreeRepublic and more suitable for DU.

18 posted on 01/19/2013 7:18:46 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Slavery was on verge of expansion just before the Civil War. Had the South won, slavery would had been expanded to new territories in the West, and possibly to the islands such as Cuba.

Cuba already had slavery, and indeed didn't give it up till 1886.

Certain southerners had delusions that after independence they would be able to expand militarily into the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central/South America, creating a great slave empire.

But it was never more than delusion. Such expansion, given the transport tech of the time, could only be by sea. And the Royal Navy, not to mention the US Navy, would never have allowed it.

19 posted on 01/19/2013 8:15:53 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Walter Williams the economist once stated the Founders detested slavery:

” Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”

Other Founders condemned slavery. George Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” John Adams: “Every measure of prudence ... ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence.” James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” James Otis said, “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature.” Franklin, after visiting a black school, also said, “I ... have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained.” Alexander Hamilton’s judgment was the same: “Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” John Jay wrote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” “

Williams also stated slavery would have died an economic death being that no slave owner would have the ability to modernize ie, cotton gins, harvesters,weaving mills etc, and keep slaves, pay for their housing, food,medicine,education,etc.

Williams alos condemned Lincoln :

“History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so.”

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.” A recent article by Baltimore’s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled “The Great Centralizer,” in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that “place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the “Tariffs of Abominations.” A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.”

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams87.1.html

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp


20 posted on 01/19/2013 8:24:55 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
even the states in the South were debating abolition.

Care to provide evidence that southern states were debating abolition during the 1850s? Most of them passed laws prohibiting even the mailing or possession of abolition literature.

21 posted on 01/19/2013 8:26:23 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government.

Not chronologically correct.

The Morrill tariff passed the Senate on February 20, by a vote of 25 to 14. It was finally approved on March 2.

This was well after seven southern states, with 14 senators, had seceded and formed their new government on February 8.

I assume you are capable of doing the math that shows why the tariff passed in 1861 when it had failed in 1860?

22 posted on 01/19/2013 8:37:27 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

By the 1850s the North had majority.

The Tariff act wa in it`s infancy well back in 1859.

Were the nullifications all about anti-slavery laws ?


23 posted on 01/19/2013 8:55:55 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The point is that the Deep South did not secede because the Morrill Tariff passed, the tariff passed because those states seceded.

Confusing cause and effect and all that.


24 posted on 01/19/2013 9:07:47 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
The steady march of anti slavery movement was firmly established throughout the world, even the states in the South were debating abolition.

Thirty years before. And it was defeated. After that even mere discussion of abolition was suppressed.

Technology, moral suasion, policy would have eventually killed it off.

You mean the mechanical cotton picker which didn't become common until the 1940s. Eighty years after secession!

“Nice” people would’ve eventually given it up, then it would’ve become illegal and the rest would be a local police action.

There were enough "nice" people in the CSA who supported slavery to guarantee its survival for generations to come. A Confederate victory would have set back the pace of emancipation for decades.

Say you're right, though. Say that there was a move to "abolish slavery" to win over the goodwill of England and France. Something very similar to slavery would have been put in its place. As in fact happened.

My point, though, is that a fair-minded, well-informed person looking at the situation in 1860 would not have assumed that slavery was dying out on its own. It had become more and more profitable in the 1850s.

Support for slavery in the cotton states had become more enthusiastic and monolithic among the educated classes. Given their own country they would have taken steps to spread their beliefs to shore up their institutions.

And even if, as happened as a result of Britain's turning to other sources for cotton, prices eventually fell as they did in the 1870s, this wasn't something people could forsee in 1860s. Simply letting pro-slavery forces have their own way was no recipe for emancipation. Saying we care nothing for freedom would have been a major setback to the progress of emancipation.

25 posted on 01/19/2013 9:22:44 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.”

You forgot the key difference between the confed constitution and the US Constitution: the confeds immortalized in perpetuity the institution of slavery.

26 posted on 01/19/2013 9:25:03 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

They had the votes regardless of secession and the Southern States congealed around Nullification based on Tariff laws being passes, not anti-slavery laws which did not exist.


27 posted on 01/19/2013 9:25:03 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

*passed


28 posted on 01/19/2013 9:26:16 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Oh BS!!

You so conveniently forget that slavery was legal under the Constitution and some of the Founders were slave-owners.

I believe Thomas Jefferson was a prominent one,yet we quote Jefferson's views on many other points of freedom.The ownership of arms comes to mind.(Which I would be surprised if Jefferson promoted amongst his slaves!)

NOT saying slavery ever was a good thing but it was a part of early America.

The Southerners feared,and I believe rightly, that they were going to be deprived of their legal property without compensation.And they were.

Far better and cheaper it would have been had the abolitionists passed a law declaring the end of slavery in the United States with the provision that slave owners would receive fair compensation.I think the Southerners fought as much against the arrogance of the bog city self-righteous New Englanders as anything. And just who built most of the ships anyway.

The issue of “ex post facto” laws is addressed in the Constitution,I think.

Declaring a heretofore legal activity suddenly illegal and confistcating the property related without payment is itself unethical.

Senator Feinstein would like to confiscate,no doubt without payment, all firearms from private citizens.Various political entities have taken the home of one person and awarded the property to another on the premise the new “owner” will pay higher taxes.And then the new business fails anyway so the original person is deprived of their property AND the government ends up with less money as well.

Be very careful about using the giant club of the government to force YOUR wishes.

I will continue to hold my opinions and criticize or praise actors of the political stage here on FR regardless of your opinions.

If you feel strongly enough then you are free to request Mr. Robinson or the moderators ban me and all those who dare disagree with you.

29 posted on 01/19/2013 9:32:28 AM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

That is of course why the seceding states all or at least almost all referenced the dispute over slavery as the primary cause for secession. While AFAIK none referenced tariffs.

Also, do you seriously contend that secession was really justified over import taxes that applied equally to northern buyers of imported products?


30 posted on 01/19/2013 9:35:42 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Far better and cheaper it would have been had the abolitionists passed a law declaring the end of slavery in the United States with the provision that slave owners would receive fair compensation.

Better, yes. Cheaper, not so much.

The fair market value of all slaves in 1860 was in the vicinity of $3B. At a time when the 1860 federal budget totaled $60M.

IOW, buying all the slaves would have cost 50x the annual federal budget.

The war cost a multiple of that, but not a huge multiple. Estimates vary, but the USA and CSA probably spent directly something like $8B, with pensions and other benefits for veterans and devastation to the south probably running the eventual total cost of the war up to around $20B.

Multiple attempts were made by Lincoln and others over the course of the war to get Union slave states to agree to emancipation with compensation subsidized by the federal government. They always refused, despite the reasonably obvious indicators that the institution was going down the drain.

Also, the federal government did in 1862 free DC slaves with (partial) compensation.

31 posted on 01/19/2013 9:46:48 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Doesn`t negate the South`s Nullifications and certainly did not give one man the right to void the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus , send 600,000 to their deaths, burn cities,and create a massive centralized statist govt.

York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

So as Williams already stated slavery would have died an economic death and the immutable laws of economics prove as much therefore I fall into the category of Natural law, inalienbale rights and the enlightenment. Can we assume then you prefer Lincoln`s methods of creating a centralized govt., habeas corpus and laws when felt like it and it`s results we see today, run amuck Statism.


32 posted on 01/19/2013 9:52:58 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
therefore I fall into the category of Natural law, inalienbale rights and the enlightenment.

Unfortunately, all of these are completely in opposition to slavery.

The Declaration of Independence, in particular, does not say men have a right to set up whatever government they please.

They have a right to rebel when their inalienable rights are infringed. By that basis, the slaves of the South had a right to rebel. The whites of the South, whose inalienable rights had not been infringed, did not.

According to the Declaration, the moral right to rebellion exists when it is to promote inalienable rights. A rebellion specifically intended to protect and extend the denial of those rights to others, in at least two states a majority of the population, was not justified by the principles of the Declaration.

33 posted on 01/19/2013 10:03:07 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham; Jim Robinson
Oh BS!!

What does Barbara Streisand have to do with this?

You so conveniently forget that slavery was legal under the Constitution and some of the Founders were slave-owners.

I forgot nothing but your point is irrelevant.

I believe Thomas Jefferson was a prominent one,yet we quote Jefferson's views on many other points of freedom.The ownership of arms comes to mind.(Which I would be surprised if Jefferson promoted amongst his slaves!)

Actually jefferson was a very minor participant in the founding of our country. He was hired because he was a gifted writer and showed his strength on the DOL. He was also a committed Francophile who would rather we patterned our country after France. He had no participation in the formation of the Articles of Confederation and openly eschewed the Constitution.

The Southerners feared,and I believe rightly, that they were going to be deprived of their legal property without compensation.And they were.

Thank you for making my point. The southron slavrocrisy availed themselves of their constitutional rights when it suited them, and then abandoned them whenever they didn't get their way. Cowardly. Feckless. Traitors.

Far better and cheaper it would have been had the abolitionists passed a law declaring the end of slavery in the United States with the provision that slave owners would receive fair compensation.

That was one of the potential solutions presented and summarily dismissed by the slavrocrisy.

I think the Southerners fought as much against the arrogance of the bog city self-righteous New Englanders as anything.

And the unionists fought against the bog(sic) self-righteous slavers. So what?

And just who built most of the ships anyway.

Irrelevant.

The issue of “ex post facto” laws is addressed in the Constitution,I think.

Irrelevant.

Declaring a heretofore legal activity suddenly illegal and confistcating(sic) the property related without payment is itself unethical.

What does that have to do with anything?

Be very careful about using the giant club of the government to force YOUR wishes.

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

If you feel strongly enough then you are free to request Mr. Robinson or the moderators ban me and all those who dare disagree with you.

I believe that is is an established courtesy to "ping" a party if you quote or name them. This is jimrob's house and his rules. All I was saying is that he probably wouldn't appreciate FReepers soiling FreeRepublic's reputation by besmirching one of America's greatest presidents. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong. ;-)

34 posted on 01/19/2013 10:07:45 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

You do realize that the confeds created a more centralized, statist government than the one they rebelled against, right?


35 posted on 01/19/2013 10:10:31 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

So Lincoln being your champion of natural law disregarded them all in order to save them. The South`s idea of permanent slavery would have died a natural economic death as the laws of economics and liberty would have slowly overwhelmed them.

Lincoln was merely the first Saul Alinsky.
Create a crisis and capitalize on it. Pass the Morrill Tariff and the Permanent Slavery Amendment days apart knowing the South would balk and by hook or by crook Lincoln would reach his ends, create centralized Statism by taxation or by force.

If slavery were the only issue the South merely had to return to Congress and ratify the North`s Permanent Slavery Amendment which Lincoln endorsed:

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has
passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,
including that of persons held to service. Holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no
objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”


36 posted on 01/19/2013 10:14:56 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Cuba already had slavery, and indeed didn’t give it up till 1886.”

Nor did the United States until after the war. The war was an apostate puritans’ honor killing. The Salem witch trials writ large, but this time in the service of secular power.


37 posted on 01/19/2013 10:16:53 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

>>Nor did the United States until after the war.

I got so tired of this repeated canard that I put together the following timeline of emancipation. It shows that all but 50,000 of the 4,000,000 slaves (98.75%) were freed before the war ended. The rest were in the process of being freed by 13A, which was passed by Congress in January and by the end of the war had been ratified by all but 6 of the states needed for ratification.

1861
May: General Butler refuses to return three slaves being used to build CSA fortifications to their owner. Concept of “contraband of war” invented.

August: Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.

September: “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations

November: Nathaniel Gordon convicted and sentenced to death in NYC for slave trading (classified as piracy)

1862
February: Nathaniel Gordon executed

March: Washington, DC slaves freed by Congress, with partial compensation to owners
Return of escaped slaves to their owners prohibited by Congress

April: Congress offers compensation to any state that emancipates

May: Lincoln publicly entreats the border states to free their slaves
Slavery prohibited in all territories

July: Lincoln appeals again to the border states

September: Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation

1863
January: Final Emancipation Proclamation

July: WV slaves freed by state action

1864
January: 13th Amendment introduced

March: AR slaves freed by state action

April: 13th Amendment passes Senate

June: Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Law

September: LA slaves freed by state action

November: MD slaves freed by state action

1865
January: MO slaves freed by state action
13th Amendment passes House

February: TN slaves freed by state action

April: Lee surrenders

December: 13th Amendment ratified
Slaves in KY (50,000) and DE (<200) freed


38 posted on 01/19/2013 10:34:14 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Actually Jefferson was a very minor participant in the founding of our country.

This statement is tremendously silly; almost as silly as the claims being made by the slavers on these and similar threads.

Had Jefferson's influence been merely limited to the propagation of ideas already codified in Virginia, he would still have been an important founder, even if he had not written the Declaration.

The importance of the Declaration itself really can't be understated, and it was more than simply an elegant regurgitation of ideas already ascendant in the Enlightenment.

You forget he was governor of [by far] the most powerful and important state of the Union during the Revolutionary War.

You also forget the influence he had on Madison, who was central to the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and on Monroe.

The resistance of his Party to the demons of the darker nature of the Federalists was also important, and would not have been successful without his prestige.

Only Washington is more important to the founding of America than Jefferson. Without Washington, there is no USA. But Jefferson's presidency is part of a Founding that was still going on in 1800; and his first term was as successful as that of any American President. Serious historical arguments should not throw the baby of the American Founding out with the dirty bathwater of Jefferson's often contradictory actions and words on slavery.

39 posted on 01/19/2013 12:20:28 PM PST by FredZarguna (Keep digging. It just gets funnier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Williams also stated slavery would have died an economic death being that no slave owner would have the ability to modernize ie, cotton gins, harvesters,weaving mills etc, and keep slaves, pay for their housing, food,medicine,education,etc.

Williams claims in this regard are silly and have not been backed up by any economic history. Slavers always find new, and often more profitable ways to employ slave labor.

I am speaking from experience: during the last three decades, American agriculture has been falling behind Europe in the mechanization and automation of farming, despite an enormous lead which we held and greatly expanded after WWII and well into the 1950's. Why? Because of the availability of what is essentially slave labor imported from Mexico which, like slavery, will need to be paid for for generations after all of us are dead. By contrast, European farmers have no access to such labor and their farms use more robots and more sophisticated computer systems than ours.

American laborers are the most productive in the world by far. Yet it is more profitable to relocate manufacturing to China. Why? Because no one is productive enough to complete with slave labor.

Jefferson Davis's great dream post Southern independence was to create a Slave Empire that would subjugate the inferior races of Central America and possibly extend into South America, an opinion he expressed publicly and on several occasions, and which was enshrined as a foundational principle in the Constitution of the "Confederate States of America." Does this really sound like the vision of a man who believed slavery was finished?

Please be serious.

40 posted on 01/19/2013 12:33:25 PM PST by FredZarguna (Keep digging. It just gets funnier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

In the last days of the CSA, as in early 1865, the CSA Congress debated initiating (very) gradual and compensated emancipation on the theory that doing so might allow for foreign recognition and aid.

Leaving aside that no European power was stupid enough to intervene at this stage of the (lost) war, it is interesting what the congresscritters had to say.

Even when faced with the stark choice between (possible) independence if they agreed to free the slaves in the future, and pretty much guaranteed loss of both independence and slaves if they “stayed the course,” Congress just could not face emancipation.

The most common point made was that they had sought independence to protect their peculiar institution, and what point was there to gaining it if they gave up in the process that for which they fought? A paraphrase, but not far off.

IOW, they were willing to lose everything rather than agree to free their slaves. Doesn’t sound to me like people interested in finding a way out of slavery.


41 posted on 01/19/2013 1:50:07 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Ulysses S. Grant considered the Civil War God’s punishment for what the United States did to Mexico in the Mexican-American war


42 posted on 01/19/2013 1:53:15 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Proves the point. Anyway, it will all come out in the wash, and even before then the Beast on the Potomac will eventually go the way of the Politburo. Perhaps within our lifetimes.


43 posted on 01/19/2013 1:59:31 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Livingston writes articles with titles like "Secession: A Specifically American Principle." But here he says this:

It has been said that the constitution of the Soviet Union was the first to recognize explicitly the legal right of secession in a modern state. Strictly speaking this is true. Article 17 of the Soviet Constitution declares that “the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R. is reserved to every Union republic.” A right of secession was not written into the U.S. Constitution ...

Ooops.

Livingston is a Philosophy Professor at Emory. It's sad that he spends his time on stuff like this, but I guess that too much philosophy can do that to people.

44 posted on 01/19/2013 1:59:42 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

“Ulysses S. Grant considered the Civil War God’s punishment for what the United States did to Mexico in the Mexican-American war”

I’ve seen that before. I can’t remember where, perhaps excerpts from his post war memoirs. He had a great deal of respect for the Mexican mestizo rank and file soldiers. For their officers and government, not so much.


45 posted on 01/19/2013 2:02:22 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

You should go to Mexico City and visit this castle.

The Niños Héroes (in English: Boy Heroes), also known as the Heroic Cadets or Boy Soldiers, were six Mexican teenage military cadets. These cadets died defending Mexico at Mexico City's Chapultepec Castle (then serving as the Mexican Army's military academy) from invading U.S. forces in the 13 September 1847 Battle of Chapultepec, during the Mexican–American War. One of the cadets, Juan Escutia, wrapped himself with the Mexican flag and jumped from the roof of the castle to keep it from falling into enemy hands.

46 posted on 01/19/2013 3:02:43 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
There is probably no more emphatic -- or hilarious -- way to drive home the truism that politics makes for strange bedfellows than to watch the multiculti diversity drones go at it so enthusiastically between the sheets with the slavemasters in the claim that the "Civil War was not about Slavery."

Standing just West of the Emmitsburg Road looking towards Cemetery Ridge I had the very great displeasure of hearing an employee of the US Parks Service at Gettysburg inform my daughter's third grade field trip that the "Civil War was not about Slavery." I proceeded to demolish that jackass, and referred him, chapter and verse, to contemporary sources. Maybe today's Southerners don't know what the war was about, but Southerners who published newspapers and ran the government -- and military -- in the 1860's most certainly did. They didn't get their hands bloody over abstract questions of Nullification, and they didn't march their sons off to war because of the Tariff.

47 posted on 01/19/2013 7:03:40 PM PST by FredZarguna (Keep digging. It just gets funnier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn

It was the pressure of morality on the slave power that led them to seek to insulate themselves from morality by insurrection.

Stephen’s ‘Cornerstone’ speech is seen as the reaction of the slave power to moral persuasion.

They were not going to get rid of slavery without a fight, and not going to permit anyone to get rid of slavery without a fight.

And so they started a fight. Virginia’s deal was they wouldn’t pretend to secession unless a fight had started, and so it was necessary for the slave power to get a war started. So rather than wait, they started it themselves.

And then the slave power lost the war. 600,000+ deaths of the war are evil, and the guilt belongs to the people who started the war.


48 posted on 01/20/2013 2:19:38 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The southern states pretended to secession before the Morill tariff was passed. In fact, if the south had not withdrawn its senators, the tariff could not have passed.

When you assert that secession occurred after the tariff you invert time, or lie.

The Tariff was signed into law by Buchanan, before Lincoln took office.


49 posted on 01/20/2013 2:26:36 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

In practice the pretended confederacy was far different. Jeff Davis never got around to appointing anyone to the confederate counterpart to the Supreme Court. In practice it was a military dictatorship, ameliorated by Union occupation of key areas and anarchistic tendencies of state governors.


50 posted on 01/20/2013 2:30:48 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 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