Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The irony is, Lincoln came to adopt Brown's thinking and language.
"The sins of this guilty land must be purged with blood"
Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address:
Describing "American slavery" as an offense, he continues, that if every drop of blood drawn by the lash must be repaid with a drop drawn by the sword, the judgement of the Lord are righteous.
Lincoln's address, in which he refuses to gloat over overdue victories, tells his listeners that they are responsible for "American slavery" and that they are undergoing a heaven sent scourging. Let's just say I can't see a modern politician making a similar point.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I never saw that relation before.That is pretty fascinating isn't it?
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
Yet others knew what the relation was long before Lincoln or any of his administration recognized it.
Hence my quote below from Frederick Douglass:
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I don't want slaves. (They would cost too much to feed) What I would really like to know is this: When a State was admitted into the Union, and it's Constitution openly stated that slavery was permitted in that State- Yet the State WAS admitted into the Union, How was slavery illegal at that point in history?
I liken slavery, (as a law, not a moral.) to speed limits on the Interstate system. I remember when the speed limit was 70mph. Then one day, above 55mph would get you a ticket. Now, I can again drive 70mph. (Not insinuating that slavery is coming back.) I wonder how many million dollars were collected in fines for something that is now legal.....
When the Triangle Trade was abolished (legally), The New England merchants could no longer make money off the slave trade. Abolish it!
Somewhere it boils down to 'the root of all evil'- love of money.
I know someone can find something to contridict!
Olereb-
It's awesome that you don't want slaves--but do you have a choice in the matter?
Slavery was protected by the Constitution, so slavery was not illegal in any of the states that chose to indulge. However once slavery was abolished, the former slaves became free men, and could not be enslaved again. In your example, once the speed limit had been lowered, it wasn't going up again.
Slavery was excluded by the Northwest Ordinance of 1785 from what we would call the Mid West.
The slave trade was abolished because it was appalling, not because it was unprofitable. An illegal slave trade was carried out up to 1860, despite efforts, mostly by the British navy, to curtail it. Slavers intercepted by the US Navy and tried in southern courts could rely on acquital.
Virginia supported the ending of the international slave trade in part because its slaveowners found it profitable to sell slaves into the deep South.
Are you claiming that the curtailed income of northern merchants and shippers caused them to become antislavery?
I see crop up now and again that the north made war on the south because of economy. I hold that the south separated because it feared for its traditional economy. I see no evidence whatsoever that the north had any interest in the south's economy except in their ability to purchase manufacturies. The abolitionists harped on moral grounds. Nobody else cared.
I hope that didn't sound too contentious. Just trying to keep the tread going.
Regards, Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I don't want slaves. (They would cost too much to feed)
Actually, they grew their own food so feeding them was relatively cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
What I would really like to know is this: When a State was admitted into the Union, and it's Constitution openly stated that slavery was permitted in that State- Yet the State WAS admitted into the Union, How was slavery illegal at that point in history?
I'm not sure what your point is. The Thirteenth Amendment made it illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olerebel
When the Triangle Trade was abolished (legally), The New England merchants could no longer make money off the slave trade. Abolish it!
Slave trading was still highly profitable. It was abolished because of moral arguments against it.
Dear Alabaman,
That's a great question. Lincoln never belonged to any church, although he attended church with his family. According to William Herndon, his law partner, he once authored an essay claiming religion was false: the trouble is no one has ever seen this essay, or heard of Lincoln writing it, except Herndon.
I've read that Lincoln was a deist, like some of the Founding Fathers, believing in Providence and destiny, but not thinking that God took a direct hand in human affairs. In reading Lincoln, there is little mention of God in many of his speeches, although they often have the Biblical sound. In his 2nd inaugural address, however, he speaks of God being invoked by both sides, but in a sense discounts this: "the Almighty has his own purposes." which I think of as a dismissal of politicians claiming to be enacting God's will. But that address goes on to invoke a harsh, but just God directing human history.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
