Did the north have the moral ground and 1860

[MobileBoy]

Matthew,
Lincoln stated on numerous occasions about the inferioirity of the negroe.It is clear from evidence he was a racist.On that count what historians says he wasn't?It is known accepted fact that he was.Certainly he wasn't as backward of other politicians of his day, but before the war he was never considered a devoted abolitionist by polticians or the hardcore abolitionist themselves.Many judge Southerners racial views through 21st century eyes,so why should Lincoln not face the same scrutiny?Lincoln was a very calculating intelligent man.Support for the war was waning before the EP.What better way to encourage support than to make it a holy war to free the slaves?Even better Lincoln full well knew Britain would never support the Confederacy once slavery became the issue of the war.The EP was a stroke of political genius.Throughout history combatants have used propaganda or a righteous cause to drum up support for war.It's not unreasonable to think this played heavy on Abe's mind.America has done it throughout history and no Lincoln isn't alone in that regard.

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

Are you of the opinion that Lincoln was considered a racist by those in his own time? You will be very disapointed to find out he was not. Check out the Lincoln-Douglass debates, his letters, his Cooper Union speech and the reason he was shot by Booth.

It takes a very selective, narrow reading to ignore Lincoln had no love for slavery from the very beginning of his political carreer. I will agree with you that he initially suffered from the typical predjudices of his time, but by no means does he come across as a typical racist.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

What better way to encourage support than to make it a holy war to free the slaves?

The EP did not convert the war into one to end slavery. Had Lincoln said any such thing, he would have been committing political suicide and caused mass desertions in his army. Although, in the end, it came to be viewed as such, it was intended to deprive the Confederate army of the manpower available in slaves.

The slaves knew that when the yankee army came, they wouldn't be stopped from leaving. They also knew that when that army went, they would be slaves again. Many of them followed the army, many of them moved through occupied territory for more favorable lands. Some stayed put. But enough of them went absent to begin to cripple army and plantation work needs.

[Battalion]

"Those side issues of [slaves], State rights, conciliation, outrages, cruelty, barbarity, bankruptcy, subjugation, &c., are all idle and non-sensical. The only principle in this war is, which party can whip."

William T. Sherman, 14 August 1864

***

"When the people of the South tried to rule us through the negro, and became insolent, we cast them down, and on that question we are strong and unanimous. Neither cotton, the negro, nor any single interest or class should govern us."

William T. Sherman, 12 January 1865

[unionblue]

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and out to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

A. Lincoln, March 4, 1861.

Unionblue

[whitworth]

The North had the legal high ground. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions declared that Confederate secession was null. Note that the Abolititionists played a very minor role, once the war started.

Lincoln was a lawyer who understood the Constitution and understood, far greater than his Confederate opponents, how to use the office of the Presidency and his power as commander in chief.

By 1862, Robert E. Lee, with all his great military experience, was amazed at the power of Lincoln, the federal expenditures and the number of troops raised to maintain the United States. The Confederates never quite understood the meaning of ....suppress Insurrections....until it was far too late.

[hawglips]

I can not comprehend how a war waged against self-determination for the sake of maintaining control over a those no longer consenting to being so governed can be defined as "moral."

Hal

[ole]

Originally Posted by hawglips

I can not comprehend how a war waged against self-determination for the sake of maintaining control over a those no longer consenting to being so governed can be defined as "moral."Hal

There is in "governemt" a certain amount of give and take. There is not, in government, an "I don't want to play." You are in or you are not, There was no self-deternination on the part of the "south." The idea that the south was interested only in returning to the tenets of The Declaration of Independance is quite specious.

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by ole

There is in "governemt" a certain amount of give and take. There is not, in government, an "I don't want to play." You are in or you are not, There was no self-deternination on the part of the "south." The idea that the south was interested only in returning to the tenets of The Declaration of Independance is quite specious.

I beg to differ, entirely.

As for the US government that sought to prevent self-determination in the name of 'union,' I see little difference between that government's prioritization of ideals and the next imperialistic regime's.

Hal

[trice]

Originally Posted by hawglips

I can not comprehend how a war waged against self-determination for the sake of maintaining control over a those no longer consenting to being so governed can be defined as "moral."
Hal

Many Southerners in 1860 believed there was no "right of secession". One example of this would be Colonel Robert E. Lee, who wrote a letter to his son that lays out his belief that no such "right" existed and that the Founding Fathers -- some of whom he had met -- never intended such a "right" to exist.

When you come down to cases, there is no reason to believe war would have broken out in the Spring of 1861 unless the South chose to start it -- and plenty of evidence that the Confederacy started the war out of a cold-blooded calculation that it would benefit them.

From 1858 on, there is plenty of evidence that the Fire-Eaters (Rhett, Pollard, Yancy, et al) deliberately sought to split the Democratic Party for the 1860 election in order to elect a Republican President. Why? Because the people of the South were unwilling to secede as things were, and they figured that would do the job for them. So in 1860, they fought to stalemate the party conventions and make a Republican (who ended up being Lincoln, to their surprise) President.

Having accomplished that goal, they were able to stampede the Deep South into secession. But then they discovered that the Upper South was not following them out. So in order to bring the rest along, they attacked Ft. Sumter.

This was a conscious decision. Jefferson Davis believed the Confederacy could not survive without the numbers and industry of NC, TN, and particularly VA. Richard Pryor of VA, Fire-Eater, Congressman and newspaper editor, was in Charleston to harrangue the crowds to "strike a blow!" so that Virginia would follow them out (This is what most people would describe as treason and fits the definition in the Constitution.)

Attacked, the North suddenly got infuriated. Studies have long noted that opinion in the North was very divided, with the biggest group thinking there was no "right of secession", but that they had no "right" to compel the seceding states to remain. I read one that tracked editorials in newspapers to see when this changed: it was the day news of Ft. Sumter arrived. Suddenly, the North was angry and willing to fight.

Lincoln then called for 75,000 Militia for 90 days, about all he could do by law with Congress out of session. Nobody seems to note that Davis had called for 32,000 long-term (1 year) troops before Lincoln was even inaugurated, or called for another 32,000 long-term troops as soon as he attacked Ft. Sumter. Just why is Lincoln's call in April a cause of the war, but Davis' call for troops in February and March not a cause of the war?

By starting the shooting, Davis and his government got what they wanted. VA seceded, NC seceded. TN voted it down, but Governor Harris railroaded the vote through in a second plebiscite in June and then suppressed dissent with state troops.

The men who led the South into secession were not noble idealists -- unless you think re-opening the Atlantic slave-trade, conquering Cuba, Mexico, Central America and whatever else they could grab was particularly noble. The cry of "state's rights" referred to the right to own slaves -- not some egalitarian concept. They were not outraged by the concept of a tarriff -- they simply wanted *different* tarriffs that benefitted them, and the establishment of new tarriffs was one of the first pieces of business in Montgomery for the Confederacy.

The "Lost Cause" myth of later days tried to pretty these things up because the Confederacy had *lost*. If you go back and look at the 1850s, the election of 1860, and the formation of the Confederate government in 1861, you will find they stated openly all the things I have mentioned. They are in the pamphlets, the editorials, the stump speeches, and the resolutions of the legislators.

I have read several of the resolutions passed by the seceding state legislatures to present their reasoning for the act of secession. They are all quite clear: the issue they were seceding over was slavery, the right they wanted was slavery, the property they needed to protect was the slave. Texas also mentions the failure of the Federal government to protect them against Indian attack as well, although 1/8th of the Federal Army was in Texas trying to do just that in 1860. Still, the greatest grievance for Texas was also slavery.

Realistically, the South started secession and the war to continue, expand, and protect slavery. The North started fighting the war because they had been attacked. Neither is a great moral high ground, but if you have to choose between the two you cannot favor the South unless you see slavery as morally upright. The right of a people to defend themselves against attack, however, is considered "moral" by most people.

Regards,
Tim