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.
What Lincoln was doing was ensuring his re-election.
Will: Welcome aboard. You're now in the initiation and hazing phase of your membership. Do not be discouraged. Simply explain your offering and, right or wrong, you will still be welcomed. Please keep on expressing yourself.
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
Nice point Neil.I don't think the Southern ideals of government were the pure vision of the foumding fathers.I just basically mean take the Declaration of Independence and the South seemed the closer to the ideal.
__________________ "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
In what way was the South closer to ideal expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
Sincerely,
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
The catch phrase of "moral high ground”. is a modern day word speak developed by some political talking head. It's pabulum for the new history socially sensitive types to elevate causes they think are more important to the present than the past perceived as having the same equivalency.
We don't expend enough energy trying to understand the social and economic dynamics of slavery and racism to appreciate the acceptance and complacency surrounding the issue.
Slavery for most people, who claimed to be annoyed by it, was an abstract issue of ideology. Put a black face, or a threat of paying taxes to reconcile the abuse of generations against this feel good issue, and most good will anti slave types suddenly lost interest in the subject. It was too hard, or they were ****ed if they'd get saddled with a black neighbor.
The North got rich on slavery. Southerners can forgive that hypocrisy. The coastal trade carried cotton and finished products, the mills of New England process cotton, and yankees quietly invested in the slave trade right up to the Civil War itself.
It is true that "Southern" and "Northern" interests were reaching a fatal impasse on defining rights of property and citizenship. It all boiled down to whether or not the US was a slave state or a free state. There was a point of accommodation from the national perspective. "If" slaveholders would relent and limit the slaveholding demanse to the deep south of 1850 the majority was willing to concede its economic necessity and give slavery the time to evolve.
For and abolitionist or slave that smacks of political treachery. But they were a political minority; and the majority appeared to have been willing to consider that option to war.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
On the issue of slavery, Lincoln was not someone who originally felt strongly one way or the other. Rather he was a political opportunist (or a masterful politician, depending on one's politics of the day) who saw the chance to rise within a new political party that happened to espouse a cause which only a MINORITY of the country supported.
One must employ an objective perspective about historical views during the 19th century about that institution.
In 1860 slavery was directly responsible for a political situation which saw a major party split hopelessly into two rival factions, which then enabled a minority third party with a strong regional base to gain the White House, on significantly less than 50% of the plurality of votes cast. LET US NOT FORGET, LINCOLN GOT 39% OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN 1860, HARDLY A "MANDATE" FOR AN ANTI-SLAVERY PLATFORM.
Moving on to the Emancipation Proclamation, much has been made of the fact that Lincoln only freed the slaves in the States currently in rebellion, that he specifically excluded those living within States loyal to the Union. While factual Lincoln gets an unfair press on this issue. It can be argued that under US law Lincoln didn't have ANY authority to emancipate slaves living in States which continued to accept the Constitution as "the law of the land".
Again, it is a fine legal point, but the only territory which Lincoln could "free" the slaves was those States which had passed Articles of Secession, the effect of which was repudiation of the US Constitution. Now, this brings up the interesting question that, if true, how could Lincoln then "square the circle" by claiming the Articles of Secession were not valid. However, Lincoln is not the first politician who has argued one side of the question, and then "flopped over" and argued the other side when it suited his purposes to do so.
Reputable Historians today concede that Lincoln's portrayal as the "Great Emancipator" are false. For example, Allan Nevins wrote: "The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false."
For his time (not ours in the 21st century) Lincoln was actually quite enlightened in his views on slavery. However, again, he cannot accurately be portrayed as being an adherent of "racial equality" or an advocate of universal "civil rights". Thus he must be denied the "morality mantle" usually bequeathed to such adherents in the 21st century. I make this statement based on the following:
1) Lincolns own words that " he would have freed not one slave if he could have preserved the union without it". Let us not forget that Lincoln also stated that he had no plan to interfere with the Institution of Slavery in states where it currently existed. He also alluded that he had no legal right to do so even if so inclined.
2) In my research, I have never found Lincoln stating that he felt the freed slaves should live on equal terms with his own race. If I am mistaken in this, and someone can provide the documentation to show me my error, I would truly welcome it.
3) Lincoln actively proposed the deportation of the slaves from United States territory. Destinations proposed by Lincoln included Africa and Brazil. I believe, and I admit I have slept since I first found this tidbit so my memory could be in error, that the US Congress did eventually provide funds for Lincoln’s relocation project. Again, if I am wrong, I invite someone to provide me with the documentation showing my error.
4) In several instances, Lincoln is on record as stating that he considers the slaves to be subservient to the white race. Examples where this sentiment can be found include his debates with Stephen Douglas and correspondence with various newspapermen, including Horace Greeley. Also, his (Lincoln's) first inaugural address is not exactly a "clarion call" for equality, otherwise, he could not have proposed the retention of the institution in the South.
Having bashed Lincoln in my preceding paragraphs, let me now attempt to overcome any charges of bias which may be leveled at me. As stated at the beginning of this post, an individuals actions must be viewed in the context of their times. The one action Lincoln achieved that should be beyond dispute is that he did save the Union. For that accomplishment alone, he should be praised and his status be forever enshrined as one of our greatest Presidents. But to judge Lincoln, and other politicians, North and South by our present standards versus the standards of the age they inhabited cannot be countenanced.
That is why to try and advance the theory, however well intentioned, that the North had the moral high ground going in the 1860 election, is wrong but based on today’s standards do I believed they obtained the moral ground during the war, Yes they did.
"The North and got rich on slavery. Southerners can forgive that hypocrisy. The coastal trade carried cotton and finished products, the mills of New England process cotton, and yankees quietly invested in the slave trade right up to the Civil War itself.
"Southern" and "Northern" interests were reaching a fatal impasse on defining rights of property and citizenship. It all boiled down to whether or not the US was a slave state or a free state. There was a point of accommodation from the national perspective. "If" slaveholders would relent and limit the slaveholding demanse to the deep south of 1850 the majority was willing to concede its economic necessity and give slavery the time to evolve.
For and abolitionist or slave that smacks of political treachery. But they were a political minority; and the majority appeared to have been willing to consider that option to war.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
The Emancipation Proclamation or EP as we are referring to was as I have been told a War Powers Act. Besides that I believe it was one of the greatest political moves of the entire war. Mr. Lincoln was not a country bumpkin as some may think. This was a read and calculating man who, and some of my southerners may disagree with me, one of the greatest allies the south could have had after the war if not for his death.
The EP of course did not free all the slaves. It was limited in its scope but had great consequences on the south and the black within.
In the book “The Confederate War” by Gary Gallagher, he refers several points in which the some members of the Confederacy also looked at a gradual EP but this came to no avail until the later stages of the war. The Mississippian (Alabama) Weekly Mail Sept 9th 1863. Also noted in the Gray and the Black pp 30-31. is also reference in which it stated “ The proper course lay in the governments (Confederate) thwarting Lincoln by taking immediate steps for emancipation or liberation of the Negros itself Let them be declared free, placed in the ranks and told to fight for their homes and country”
Mr. Gallagher also points out another aspect of the war and that is the entrance of England and/or France. He stated that they were a lot closer to entering that most realize. That fact had been debated quite strongly in the British Parlemental circles. Even with the state of slavery.
The 13 Amendment did not pass in Congress earlier than it did: there was too much anti-black sentiment and lack of political support. However with the successful impact of Unionist black soldiers and the murder of Lincoln it passed.”
It still does not excuse the fact that the passing of such an amendment would, at least I believe, had a greater impact on the north and to those with northern sympathies in the south. I also think that it may have done more on the civil rights front.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
An enormous and much appreciated effort, Buffalo-Guard. I looked for some bones to pick and found only one relatively insignificant one: your use of the word, "deport." It was to have been a voluntary, funded exmigration to a country or countries that would be their own.
Henry Clay was among the originators of the idea. Lincoln thought a black, offshore nation was a logical, albeit impractical, solution to what he saw as a major problem: co-existence of races. He believed co-existence was and would continue to be a severely taxing source of social conflict.
Involved in a war, he gave up on the idea and confessed that he did not have another. He apparently simply resigned himself to let matters take their own course after the war.
You've covered old ground with a refreshing, concise overview. I sincerely appreciate that.
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
Dear Buffalo Guard:
"On the issue of slavery Lincoln did not feel strongly at all." That is false. Lincoln was consistently antislavery his entire adult life and stated that often. "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." and many similar statements. Recognizing that slavery was constitutionally protected, before the war he concentrated on restricting slavery from the West.
As far as Lincoln motivated primarily by personal ambition, and adopting his beliefs(such as opposing slavery, or preserving the Union) solely for personal advantage, that's spite, not research or study speaking. Was he more ambitious than Jefferson Davis? George Washington? George Bush(either one)? Did those gentlemen choose their beliefs with an eye for personal advancement?
Criticizing anyone from the 19th century on their racial views is as easy as it is misleading. I guess the question is, given the beliefs you were raised with, what do you do with them?
In any case, compare Lincoln with the vicious and crude racism of his political opponents in 1860 and 64.
Frankly, I'm confused by your purposes. You started the thread yourself, then post a screed beginning with the statement "something someone said I agree with" which is highly critical of the statements you yourself began with. Also these statements you've posted don't sound like your own words, but transcriptions of some sort of written material. Name your sources.
Lincoln may not have thought the Negro was "equal" to the white man, but he did abhor slavery. Tho ever the practical man, he would 'not interfere with in where it existed' if that would preserve the Union. However, as his "House Divided' speech made clear, he didn't think think the Union could stand half-slave and half-free.
"When he [Douglas] invites any people willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us."
--From the August 21, 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa, Illinois
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
