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.
I would disagree with that Hanny.
I doubt if Lincoln thought the CSA would collapse in the next three months(Antietam to Jan. 1st), and that Lincoln was basically saying:"quit now or you'll lose your slaves when we win"
The EP meant that, as long as the North won, American slavery after two centuries was finished. As Lincoln wrote elsewhere, in the mind of the Federals, slavery was bound up with secession. Slavery was wrong, but, to Lincoln, it was also what was wrong with the South, i.e. leading to secession and civil war. Preservation of the Union and of slavery were incompatible.
There is no law saying you have to agree with that reasoning, but its how Lincoln and other Unionists reasoned.
I think were arriving at the same conclusion but getting there a little differntly, my understanding of the path is that the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress ment any slave, and all proprty, of any individual was liable to confiscation not only for the period of insurection as had been the case pre war, or in the case of being proven in a court of law to have been used in the war effort early part of the war, but now permanent confiscation of negro slaves of any individual of a state in rebelion, as the last Confiscation Act was then if force, Congress had failled to get through an emancipation with compesation where it did control, ie all states not in rebelion, so the concept of Congress passing any such measure to end slavery, if the seccedded states came back into the Union as a result of the EP, is a complete non starter, that leaves the presidents authority. As a war measure, ie in effect only for the duration of the war, Lincoln frees the slaves for all time, he knows post war that this will not stand up against the provisions of due process of law regarding proprty transfer in the constition, and his only way of getting this is by a Constitional amendment, which at that time simply does not exist, the Border and some Northern states defeated the Radicals atmept to end slavery where they control it, add to them the Southern States and slavery remains alive and well in 62. My understanding is that of Military need driving the EP, as Stanton, elaborated: "The population of African descent that cultivate the lands and perform the labor of the rebels constitute a large share of their military strength, and enable the white masters to fill the rebel armies and wage a cruel and murderous war against the people of the Northern States. By reducing the laboring strength of the rebels their military power will be reduced." Lincoln was absolitly clear that what he did was on the grounds of militry need to restore the Union and not for moral grounds. What you give greater emphasis to is the moral argument of making them free, which i disagree is what motivted lincoln for making it, but do agree that it is given as a general reason of moral high ground by the North. The main problem with this line of argument is the sclae of loss of life of the negro during the war, no one knows the extent of the loss of life, not because no one cared, but that the sclae was beyond measure, but around 10% of the negro 1860 population was lost, or 2 to 3 times the combined white loss of life.
what Linoln was telling individuals, because thats who is in rebelion, was as we agree "quit now or you'll lose your slaves when we win", what lincon did not know was how that was going to occur, or when the war would end, but that when it did one way or another the lose of slavery was going to be a pre requistion, but he did know that should they quit now and come back into the Union, he had no way to make that happen either. Lincoln was not only fighting the South he was fighting the Radicals, neither were on his side, the Radicals wanted to end slavery and adminster the conqured States under Laws of war as per between independednt nations, Lincoln did not and fought them to see if Congress which they controlled or executive order would shape the post war South.
So what did it mean to be emancipated?,Gen Order No. 17, dated headquarters Department of the South, Hilton Head, S.C., March 6, 1863:
All able-bodied colored men between the ages of eighteen and fifty, within the military lines of the Department of the South, who have had an opportunity to enlist voluntarily and refused to do so, shall be drafted into the military service of the United States....
One chief reason why slavery was chastized pre war was that it seperated familys, yet the war did so far more effiecently, the US sanitary commision found mortality rates in the contraband camps, and published them, they make horrific reading, comparable to Uk Boer war mortality rates, and some less effiecent Nazi death camps.
Jefferson Davis, address to the Confederate States Congress, 7 December 1863; Official Records: Armies, Series IV, Volume II, Part I, page 1047.
Nor as less unrelenting warfare been waged by these pretended friends of human rights and liberties against the unfortunate negroes. Wherever the enemy have been able to gain access they have forced into the ranks of their army every able-bodied man that they could seize, and have either left the aged, the women, and the children to perish by starvation, or have gathered them into camps where they have been wasted by a frightful mortality. Without clothing or shelter, often without food, incapable without supervision of taking the most ordinary precautions against disease, these helpless dependents, accustomed to have their wants supplied by the foresight of their masters, are being rapidly exterminated wherever brought in contact with the invaders. By the Northern man, on whose deep-rooted prejudices no kindly restraining influence is exercised, they are treated with aversion and neglect. There is little hazard in predicting that in all localities where the enemy have gained a temporary foothold the negroes, who under our care increased six-fold in number since their importation into the colonies by Great Britain, will have been reduced by mortality during the war to no more than one-half their previous number.
Information on this subject is derived not only from our own observation and from the reports of the negroes who succeed in escaping from the enemy, but full confirmation is afforded by statements published in the Northern journals by humane persons engaged in making appeals to the charitable for aid in preventing the ravages of disease, exposure, and starvation among the negro women and children who are crowded into encampments.
Does it make a difference in how we get to the same conclusion?, well yes it does. When the Uk chose to instruct the RN to harry any ship engaged in the international slave trade, and to end slavery except in its colonies, they did so to destroy economic rivals access to cheap labour with could only replace itself by fresh imports, what the Uk did about slavery was an economic neccisty to destroy economic rivals and insure economic superiorty for the Uk, now its nice to claim we did it on moral grounds but im afraid its not so, the impertaive of all societys based on commerce is profit not morals. Its nice to claim the EP was done as part of a moral crusade, but thats a distortion at best and justy plain wrong at worst, as wrong as saying the Allies went to war to prevent to Shoah.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I would add Rose, that slaveowners considerably overestimated the bonds between slave and free, when tens of thousands escaped when the opportunity presented itself.
I know some posters have recounted family histories of loyal servant-slaves. While these instances may be true, the large numbers of blacks who "self emancipated" during the war years (The NPS estimated ten thousand escaped slaves passing through Fredericksburg VA during just a few months), obviously felt differently.
I gather Rose ment the relationship at a personal level, ie the house negros and or those that devolped a working relationship, overseer, 70% or so of all oversers were negros, but in any event the relationship mbetween some slaves and some whites was extremly strong, pre and post war, while between most slaves and white folk almost non existant to very limited, and im sure the short sharp brutal existance of a VA cane cutters time was not spent wondering about the white folks being happy.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Dear Hanny,
You're got a lot in your post, so forgive me if I don't address everything.
1. The Rationale for the EP.
The EP was a war measure, under President Lincoln's conception of his war powers. The disruption of slavery(which was occuring already) undercut the Southern war effort.
2. Slavery is a moral and political wrong. Lincoln had opposed slavery all his adult life. He, and others, deplored the cruelty and oppression of slavery itself, but also argued it warped the society around it in ways that inconsistent with a free republic.
3. Influence on England and France. While many segments of English society, especially the middle and working classes, were anti-slavery, the domestic considerations were paramount for the North.
4. The logic of events. In the early months of the war, Lincoln was trying to contain the rebellion: compromise with the border states, reassure Southern unionists that he didn't mean to disrupt slavery, where it existed, schemes of gradual compensation in the loyal slave states. When Union commanders like Fremont overstepped, Lincoln checked them, sharply. By the middle of 1862, it was clear that Southern unionists were a chimera, the border states were firmly in the Union camp, and the war, already long and costly was going to get longer and costlier. Lincoln was not trying to contain, but to win.
By Lincoln's reasoning, the Union would be not repaired status quo ante, but be reborn, shorn of the slavery (a cancer, in his words) which caused the trouble in the first place.
5. Reality on the ground. By the middle of 1862, slavery was beginning to dissolve, especially in areas near the Union army, as the slaves voted with their feet not to be slaves anymore. Abolitionists black and white were demanding blacks be enrolled in the army, because they understood the link between military service, with its hardships and dangers and citizenship.
As to the hardships, and awful conditions some freedpeople endured, that does not change the above.
As to relationships between slaves and owners, if seems to me that any relationship based so entirely on domination, exploitation and total control would have a hard time growing any real, as opposed to pretended affection.
As to owners of one slave being nicer than owners of many, I don't see why that would be so. In many ways it could be tougher for the slave, since he has no friends or family, and a much smaller psychological space after from his master.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 08-03-2006 at 06:39 PM.
Dear Hanny,
As to relationships between slaves and owners, if seems to me that any relationship based so entirely on domination, exploitation and total control would have a hard time growing any real, as opposed to pretended affection.
As to owners of one slave being nicer than owners of many, I don't see why that would be so. In many ways it could be tougher for the slave, since he has no friends or family, and a much smaller psychological space after from his master.
So sad that you are so biased as to refuse to consider there might be exceptions to your perception.
Will Posey "So sad that you are so biased as to refuse to consider there might be exceptions to your perception."
You're right, I am a sad case. Its depressing! You are also right that there would be many exceptions. People are people and you can't sum them up in a sentence or two.
Will Posey: "So sad you are so biased as to refuse to consider there might be exceptions to your perception."
You're right, I am a sad case. It's depressing! You're also right that there were exceptions. People are people and can't be summed up in a sentence or two.
Dear Hanny,
You're got a lot in your post, so forgive me if I don't address everything.
No problem, ill pick up on only those we disagree to any extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew Mckeon
2. Slavery is a moral and political wrong. Lincoln had opposed slavery all his adult life. He, and others, deplored the cruelty and oppression of slavery itself, but also argued it warped the society around it in ways that inconsistent with a free republic.
Where in the Bible does it say slavery is imoral?, i can see where God directly speaks to Mosses and regulates and aproves it for Mosiac law. I can see where the 13 colonies, all but one slave states, enter into a Union that protects slavery with laws, so im afraid you posting as if i accept your posistion, which i dont, as being accurate.
Lincoln while in private practice fought and won cases to return slaves to their owners, he never once argued that slavery was wrong or defended a slave agianst his master in any court, and only spoke against slavery in any form from, in late life when he was more aware of it as an instition and its effects, yes he came to the posistion you mention, but he did not start with it but arrived at it, from one of complet ambivalence to the slave and his condition.Lincoln got nominated in Chigago because he was not associated with the anti slavery section of the Republican party,
While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.Lincoln, speech delivered at Charleston, Illinois on 18 September 1858
Lincoln addressed a delegation of free Blacks at the Executive Mansion with these words:
...[W]hy... should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave the country? This is, perhaps, the first question for consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.
You here are freemen, I suppose... but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys.... Owing to the existence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery.
I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition — the country engaged in war — our white men cutting one another's throats — none knowing how far it will extend — and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other.... It is better for us both therefore to be separated....Lincoln, speech delivered at the Executive Mansion on 14 August 1862
The issuance of Lincoln's Proclamation brought no change in his position:
I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.
I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal....
Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable. Lincoln, address delivered at Washington, D.C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew Mckeon
3. Influence on England and France. While many segments of English society, especially the middle and working classes, were anti-slavery, the domestic considerations were paramount for the North.
Not so, he left out a para in the EP calling for a mass rising of servile Insurection to be aided by the Union Arms, a crime punishable by death on the US statutes for instigating btw, he did so soley he said, because of the influence such an action would have on forgien attitudes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew Mckeon
4. The logic of events. In the early months of the war, Lincoln was trying to contain the rebellion: compromise with the border states, reassure Southern unionists that he didn't mean to disrupt slavery, where it existed, schemes of gradual compensation in the loyal slave states. When Union commanders like Fremont overstepped, Lincoln checked them, sharply. By the middle of 1862, it was clear that Southern unionists were a chimera, the border states were firmly in the Union camp, and the war, already long and costly was going to get longer and costlier. Lincoln was not trying to contain, but to win.
By Lincoln's reasoning, the Union would be not repaired status quo ante, but be reborn, shorn of the slavery (a cancer, in his words) which caused the trouble in the first place.
Well that comes back to Congress declaration of war and what its war aims were, and how it evolved into something else, as you say not a return to the Uniuon as it was, but as it should be, acording to the Republicans, so yes thats the Black Republicans logic very accuratly as you describe it in your post, but also there is the logic of those who said that this indeed was why they left in the first place, there could not be Union with such people as them, they believe so differntly than do we, and they are not bound by the Constition, or the laws of the land, but act acording to a higher law, so the logic you decribe is a two edged sword as it validates the Southern postion as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew Mckeon
5. Reality on the ground. By the middle of 1862, slavery was beginning to dissolve, especially in areas near the Union army, as the slaves voted with their feet not to be slaves anymore. Abolitionists black and white were demanding blacks be enrolled in the army, because they understood the link between military service, with its hardships and dangers and citizenship.
If that is so, can you post the numbers of former slaves who have entered Northern control by mid 62?, i believe you will find your about 18 months ahead of the data to support yourself, Does not the law of the land make all free citizens liable for militia service, the CSA had 100k of free negro citizens of mil age, but did not accept them for service, in the northern states, it was unlawfull to grant citizenship to a negro on emancipation in all but 3 states, while in the South only SC did not as a stutaory right, grnat citizenship on emancipation.
As to the hardships, and awful conditions some freedpeople endured, that does not change the above.[/quote]
I would be less quick to say that, unless you happen to live through such a phase of human experience, its simply not possible to grasp the effect it had on them, ask a statician if 10% loos of life in a population is an aceptable ratio, and he will say compared to what?, and for what end purpose.
By no means was exploitation economicly, and political and social equility, created by the WBTS, for the negro, and if you think im being harsh with you, try an online search for how Blacks teach the WBTS to Blacks in the USA, in Colleges etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew Mckeon
As to relationships between slaves and owners, if seems to me that any relationship based so entirely on domination, exploitation and total control would have a hard time growing any real, as opposed to pretended affection.
Ok, but then how do you explain the vast literature, both black and white that describes it to exist, pre war, during war and post war?, and then expalin why this changed for negro sharecroppers post war.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Dear Hanny,
In this post, I'm going to reply to part of your last post, and make another post later.
In your statement about the lack of Biblical disapproval of slavery, all I can say is, Lincoln and many others thought slavery morally wrong. No doubt you think so as well. I think you don't have to look any ****her than the Golden Rule for Biblical authority.
However most white abolitionists, including Lincoln, held racist beliefs. They still disapproved of slavery and took action against it. In the political campaigns you quote Lincoln in, the opposition was making crude racial insults, and Lincoln famously remarked that while he didn't want to make blacks slaves, he didn't want to make (a black woman) his wife. In this he was like nearly all antislavery people.
Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, in the sense he demanded the immediate end to slavery, but he was anti-slavery, and his strategy(prewar), was the limit the expansion of slavery, which he felt was eventually lead to its extinction.
In your paragraph starting with "Well, that comes back to..." If I am following you correctly you're saying that the EP proves the South was right to secede since the Republicans did have designs on slavery. Lincoln and the Republicans did have designs on slavery in 1860: limiting it to the states where it already existed. It was the peaceful way out of the slavery controversey, it didn't hurt anyone, except the poor people who continued to be held in bondage, and it didn't hurt them any worse. It was gradual, and constitutional. With secession, all bets were off.
As early as the 1840s, John Quincey Adams was stating that the exercise of the president's war powers could result in "interfering with slavery in every way it could be interfered with."
I haven't checked on the numbers of black people leaving slavery, I'm basing what I said on the work of Dr. Barbara Fields. I'm check into that. I am also leaving your last point was now and will reply later.
Not so, he left out a para in the EP calling for a mass rising of servile Insurection to be aided by the Union Arms, a crime punishable by death on the US statutes for instigating btw, he did so soley he said, because of the influence such an action would have on forgien attitudes.
Most interesting. Would you please source this for us?
When he said this?? Something in the Papers of Lincoln maybe?? I have that set, but never seen any allusion to having the EP call for servile insurection.
I know there was some fear that when issued the EP might cause servile insurection, North, South, and in England.
Chuck in IL.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
