Posted on 08/18/2017 10:51:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ditto. Ongoing industrial revolution and advances in technology would have been the end of slavery.
Ditto. Ongoing industrial revolution and advances in technology would have been the end of slavery.
At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
Washington, D.C.
March 4, 1865
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
And governments would NOT have to impose draconian laws like Minimum Wage.
Actually Lincoln did nothing to precipitate the Civil War (or War for Southern Independence if you prefer).
Most of the Confederate States seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated because of the republican party's platform plank to keep any potential states created from the western territories as free states. The rebellion became a shooting war when the federal government refused turn over federal military property to the State of South Carolina. The Confederate Army then opened fire on Ft. Sumpter to take it by force of arms.
I’m still waiting for them to get around to Voltaire, Comte, Hegel, Darwin, and Marx.
‘He needlessly precipitated a war that killed a large percentage of the young male population.’
yeah, he never should have forced those eleven states to secede from the Union...
‘Slavery would have been outlawed in the south any way in 10-15 more years.’
do you seriously think the slaveowners who pushed so hard to expand slavery westward, thought the death of slavery was imminent...?
‘Ongoing industrial revolution and advances in technology would have been the end of slavery.’
so I’ll ask you too; you think the pro slavery crowd thought slavery was dying, when they made such a big stink about expanding it westward...?
So I’ll ask you...do you think slavery would still be going on in 2017 without the loss of 700,000 lives?
1. There were 8 times as many anti-slavery associations in the south than the north.
2. Outlawing slavery was already being widely discussed in state legislatures.
3. Only 3% of white southerners owned slaves. They were really expensive (young male was around $100,000 in todays money) so only the rich could afford them. One of the flash points was slavery but the main issue was state’s rights. The 97% who didn’t own slaves did not fight for rich people to own slaves - not by a long shot. They fought for states rights.
Slave owner does not = ‘southerner’. It is important that you disabuse yourself of that notion.
Then what % were Northerners?
Watch out; Abe!
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.