Confusion

[tng6664]

I have a couple questions.They are ??? so before someone again thinks i'm waiting to shout a big HA! And also someone said"if you read more here,it's already been discussed"Ok ,well people join here daily or so,and don't know where to go find all the answers.Anyhoo.If slavery was the big deal behind all this, why was it i think lincoln said the states at the time could keep doing as they wished,He or they didn't want the other states to suceed to do the same?Why wasn't the freedom of slavery evrywhere immediately? why even in northern states was there still slavery untill the 13th ammnd. Why would grant say" if aboliltionists say he was fighting to free slavery he would offer his services to the south?Again these are questions i do not understand or have not found an answer.They are based on things i've read.I'm not saying they are true or not.If you can answer them with facts I thank you, as I'm curious and learning.

 

[matthew mckeon]

tng8884,
I totally hear you about not wanting to be "jumped on" and trust you are sincere that you have a few questions. A little constructive feedback. It would be easier to engage with you if you spend a little more time organizing your post and made it more readable.

 

[brass napoleon]

Lincoln understood he had no Constitutional authority to free the slaves where slavery already existed. He also understood that it would be a violation of states' rights and would lead to war. So, as much as he detested slavery, he promised not to do it. However, he was adamant that the SPREAD of slavery into the territories must stop, believing that stopping its expansion would lead to its extinction generations down the line. But the Southern politicians insisted that slavery must be allowed to expand so that it could be preserved through eternity. And thus war came.

As for Grant, your quote is one of those rumors that has never been substantiated and is probably false.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I have a couple questions.They are ??? so before someone again thinks i'm waiting to shout a big HA! And also someone said"if you read more here,it's already been discussed"Ok ,well people join here daily or so,and don't know where to go find all the answers.Anyhoo.If slavery was the big deal behind all this, why was it i think lincoln said the states at the time could keep doing as they wished,He or they didn't want the other states to suceed to do the same?Why wasn't the freedom of slavery evrywhere immediately? why even in northern states was there still slavery untill the 13th ammnd. Why would grant say" if aboliltionists say he was fighting to free slavery he would offer his services to the south?Again these are questions i do not understand or have not found an answer.They are based on things i've read.I'm not saying they are true or not.If you can answer them with facts I thank you, as I'm curious and learning.

First off,
Lincoln said the slaveholding states could continue to hold slaves.

True. Lincoln ran for office promising not to abolish slavery, but to keep slavery from expanding into the western territories. Lincoln couldn't have simply abolished slavery by saying so. The individual states had to decide to emancipate or not(as some had). Or there had to be a constitutional amendment.

In 1860, when Lincoln was running for office, the only politically feasible way to oppose slavery was to restrict it from the western territories. It was a core principle of the Republican Party of the time.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I have a couple questions.They are ??? so before someone again thinks i'm waiting to shout a big HA! And also someone said"if you read more here,it's already been discussed"Ok ,well people join here daily or so,and don't know where to go find all the answers.Anyhoo.If slavery was the big deal behind all this, why was it i think lincoln said the states at the time could keep doing as they wished,He or they didn't want the other states to suceed to do the same?Why wasn't the freedom of slavery evrywhere immediately? why even in northern states was there still slavery untill the 13th ammnd. Why would grant say" if aboliltionists say he was fighting to free slavery he would offer his services to the south?Again these are questions i do not understand or have not found an answer.They are based on things i've read.I'm not saying they are true or not.If you can answer them with facts I thank you, as I'm curious and learning.

Lincoln lacked the authority to immediately free all the slaves. He wasn't a dictator.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I have a couple questions.They are ??? so before someone again thinks i'm waiting to shout a big HA! And also someone said"if you read more here,it's already been discussed"Ok ,well people join here daily or so,and don't know where to go find all the answers.Anyhoo.If slavery was the big deal behind all this, why was it i think lincoln said the states at the time could keep doing as they wished,He or they didn't want the other states to suceed to do the same?Why wasn't the freedom of slavery evrywhere immediately? why even in northern states was there still slavery untill the 13th ammnd. Why would grant say" if aboliltionists say he was fighting to free slavery he would offer his services to the south?Again these are questions i do not understand or have not found an answer.They are based on things i've read.I'm not saying they are true or not.If you can answer them with facts I thank you, as I'm curious and learning.

Grant didn't say this.

 

[tng6664]

Did he not immediately free slaves in the states the union occupied?

 

[brass napoleon]

This letter from President-Elect Lincoln to future CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens sums it up well:

My dear Sir


Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. Yours very truly

A. Lincoln

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Stephens.html

 

[kansas]

From what i understand the near term objective was to make it plain to other countries that the war was part of an effort to free slaves, that was supposed to help prevent them from getting support from their own people to make a genuine effort to support the Confederate States. By not forcing the issue in states in the Union right away the slave owners remained as supporters of the Union rather than falling away to the rebels, since large numbers of Unionist lived in Confederate states as well as neutral states and even contested states it was a good idea at the time not to inflame the slave owners there as well, and try to keep them as supporters and possible voters. The other thing was this proclamation gave the military the right to take all slaves as contraband from Confedrate supporters, as well as spread as news to all slaves in Confederate states that the Union army would take them in if they ran away into Union lines or were captured from civilians or the Confederate army. Since they were free in The eyes of the Union they were just being held prisoner so to speak and could and would be freed any time possible. This robbed the Southern states of much needed manpower, caused problems to slaveowners as their assets were diminished, added a great deal to the manpower of the Union army, and caused a great deal of lesser troops to be spread out to enforce slave laws and keep folks from the fear of a slave uprising.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I have a couple questions.They are ??? so before someone again thinks i'm waiting to shout a big HA! And also someone said"if you read more here,it's already been discussed"Ok ,well people join here daily or so,and don't know where to go find all the answers.Anyhoo.If slavery was the big deal behind all this, why was it i think lincoln said the states at the time could keep doing as they wished,He or they didn't want the other states to suceed to do the same?Why wasn't the freedom of slavery evrywhere immediately? why even in northern states was there still slavery untill the 13th ammnd. Why would grant say" if aboliltionists say he was fighting to free slavery he would offer his services to the south?Again these are questions i do not understand or have not found an answer.They are based on things i've read.I'm not saying they are true or not.If you can answer them with facts I thank you, as I'm curious and learning.

The original 7 states that seceded did so to protect slavery. There isn't any real doubt, the published reasons they gave for secession state it openly. They weren't being tricky or underhanded. There are links at the top of this forum page with links to various documents about secession. Charles Dew wrote a short, but interesting book called "The Apostles of Disunion" that has a nice explanation of this event.

The Federal government, headed by Lincoln after March, 1861, fought to preserve the Union and prevent secession; which the federals defined as "rebellious combinations" to be suppressed. These "rebellion combinations" are better known as the Confederate States of America.

 

[brass napoleon]

Did he not immediately free slaves in the states the union occupied?

No, he did not. He waited a year and a half after the war started to free the slaves, even though the Abolitionists were jumping all over him to do it NOW. And even then, he didn't free the slaves in areas that were loyal to the Union. He did it only when and where he felt it would help the Union war effort.

 

[tng6664]

"It would be easier to engage with you if you spend a little more time organizing your post and made it more readable." More readable? Meaning what? I have a punctuation mark somewhere it shouldn't be or what?

 

[matthew mckeon]

Did he not immediately free slaves in the states the union occupied?

The slave states that had not seceded (Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland). Lincoln lacked the authority to free states by himself. He was not a dictator. In the early years of the war, he probably didn't want to alienate these Unionists by abolishing slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation, as you probably already know, freed slaves as a war measure. Which is why it targted only Confederate areas; as Commander in Chief, Lincoln could pursue measures to win the war.

Since the vast majority of enslaved people were held in the Confederacy, slavery was finished everywhere. It couldn't exist as a few islands in the middle of the country. If the Union won the war.

 

[tng6664]

So, you're saying slaves weren't freed in each state the union army took over? Not an argument as i said at the beginning, but i did read that.

 

[matthew mckeon]

"It would be easier to engage with you if you spend a little more time organizing your post and made it more readable." More readable? Meaning what? I have a punctuation mark somewhere it shouldn't be or what?

tng6664, your punctuation is fine, but I found your first post a little hard to read. I'm a crabby old teacher, so you'll have to forgive me.

 

[Glorybound]

"It would be easier to engage with you if you spend a little more time organizing your post and made it more readable." More readable? Meaning what? I have a punctuation mark somewhere it shouldn't be or what?

It's not a personal attack tng, please don't take it that way. I also have problems reading your posts, mainly because there are no paragraphs, or separation of thoughts. The contents of your posts tend to all run together like a "stream of conciousness" type of thing, that I believe someone has already mentioned. If you could put some space between questions or ideas it would help.

Lee

 

[tng6664]

Ok, i can accept this as i will admit.I do have a HS diplomat, I have further ed. in mechanics and welding.Not being a smarta** but the last 22 yrs. hasn't required much Writing. If I offend, it's not intended.

 

[matthew mckeon]

So, you're saying slaves weren't freed in each state the union army took over? Not an argument as i said at the beginning, but i did read that.

There's a timeline on this.

Slaves began to escape and head for the Union lines in bigger and bigger numbers. At first, some Union officers returned these people under the Fugitive Slave Law. After all, remember the Union was operating under the premise that the states hadn't, actually couldn't secede, the Confederacy was just a "rebellious combination."

However this policy wasn't very popular, and the slaves were being used by the Confederacy to assist their war effort. Benjamin Butler refused to return fugitive slaves by the end of 1861, by defining them as "contraband of war." Congress would later(someone help me with the dates) passed Confiscation Acts, which had the effect of freeing any slave that could make it to Union lines. Unionist slaveowners still could hold onto their human property, at least for a while.

 

[Glorybound]

Ok, i can accept this as i will admit.I do have a HS diplomat, I have further ed. in mechanics and welding.Not being a smarta** but the last 22 yrs. hasn't required much Writing. If I offend, it's not intended.

I didn't take offense at anything, just wanted to offer a suggestion or two about your posts. Glad to have you with us on the forum, carry on.

 

[tng6664]

As i said, i'm not waiting to go Ha! I don't care to get into who was right or wrong. At this point I'm having a hard time understanding, if it was all about slavery why were they freed or able to go freely immediately from the occupied states ? And it took several years later for something big enough to cause war to become law?