Lincoln Lincoln Debate Just Starting!

[pattyjo]

Lincoln despised slavery , He did everything humanly possible to eradicate it

 

[pattyjo]

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves".(Letter to Henry L Pierce)
"If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong".(Letter to Albert G Hodges)
"I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist". (Collected Works of A Lincoln)
"Whenever I hear a man argue for slavery, I have a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
"No man is good enough to govern another"(Collected Works of A Lincoln)

 

[Diana9]

I for one welcome this debate. Let it fly! Let all the wackos come out from behind religion and other hot button issues they can no longer hide behind into the clear light of public scrutiny and be done with it.

 

[BillO]

I for one welcome this debate. Let it fly! Let all the wackos come out from behind religion and other hot button issues they can no longer hide behind into the clear light of public scrutiny and be done with it.

Here's your sign.

 

[K Hale]

Dilorenzo and LewRockwell.com

What happened to serious historical discussion?

It got assassinated.

 

[cash]

1. Slavery existed legally before Lincoln took office and did not exist legally after his term in office ended by assassination.

The 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until 8 months after his death, so slavery did exist legally after his assassination.

Bennett is simply wrong. It was said of his book that the only way to get Lincoln more wrong would be to misspell his name. DiLiarenzo is another one not to take seriously. It was said of his book that it should get a negative rating in reviews signifying one is dumber after reading it than before reading it (provided one believes what DiLiarenzo wrote).

Bennett ignores the fact that Lincoln was a major factor driving the passage of the 13th Amendment, and it was Lincoln's moral courage in seeing the war through to the end and guaranteeing a Union victory that made it possible to free the slaves.

But it's a worthy question to ask--who freed the slaves? The answer is a complex one. The slaves themselves played a part in their own freedom. The abolitionists played a role, Congress played a role, the Radical Republicans played a role, and Lincoln had a huge role. The Union Army played a large role as well. And let's not forget the role played by Robert E. Lee. If he weren't such a good general the war would probably have ended much sooner, and it would have ended with slavery intact.

 

[jgoodguy]

The 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until 8 months after his death, so slavery did exist legally after his assassination.

Bennett is simply wrong. It was said of his book that the only way to get Lincoln more wrong would be to misspell his name. DiLiarenzo is another one not to take seriously. It was said of his book that it should get a negative rating in reviews signifying one is dumber after reading it than before reading it (provided one believes what DiLiarenzo wrote).

Bennett ignores the fact that Lincoln was a major factor driving the passage of the 13th Amendment, and it was Lincoln's moral courage in seeing the war through to the end and guaranteeing a Union victory that made it possible to free the slaves.

But it's a worthy question to ask--who freed the slaves? The answer is a complex one. The slaves themselves played a part in their own freedom. The abolitionists played a role, Congress played a role, the Radical Republicans played a role, and Lincoln had a huge role. The Union Army played a large role as well. And let's not forget the role played by Robert E. Lee. If he weren't such a good general the war would probably have ended much sooner, and it would have ended with slavery intact.

Thanks for the correction on the 13th. The 13th was intended as I understand it to prevent a future resurgence of slavery and new civil war. The evil had to have a stake put through its heart.

I agree with your assessment of the complicated nature of its ending. Indeed R.E. Lee may have had more with the ending than anyone else by extending the war, though the nature of alternative time lines are such that this is not a certainty.

 

[wilber6150]

The 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until 8 months after his death, so slavery did exist legally after his assassination.

Bennett is simply wrong. It was said of his book that the only way to get Lincoln more wrong would be to misspell his name. DiLiarenzo is another one not to take seriously. It was said of his book that it should get a negative rating in reviews signifying one is dumber after reading it than before reading it (provided one believes what DiLiarenzo wrote).

Bennett ignores the fact that Lincoln was a major factor driving the passage of the 13th Amendment, and it was Lincoln's moral courage in seeing the war through to the end and guaranteeing a Union victory that made it possible to free the slaves.

But it's a worthy question to ask--who freed the slaves? The answer is a complex one. The slaves themselves played a part in their own freedom. The abolitionists played a role, Congress played a role, the Radical Republicans played a role, and Lincoln had a huge role. The Union Army played a large role as well. And let's not forget the role played by Robert E. Lee. If he weren't such a good general the war would probably have ended much sooner, and it would have ended with slavery intact.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your Lee statement.. If the Confederay was defeated earlier then the seceeded states would have been returned back to the Union with slavery intact.. Did I paraphrase that correctly? Thats is a very interesting take on the situation that I hadn't thought of before thank you for bringing that up...

 

[OpnCoronet]

An earlier ending of the war(before the Emancipation Proclmation) would have prevented immediate emancipation, but the fact that Lincoln had long been in negotiations with Border State leaders, to enact compensated and gradual emancipation, even before he considered his Proclamation(in fact it was the results of those negotiations that settled Lincon's mind on Emancipation Proclamation).
Remember Lincoln only countenanced the existence of slavery, as an necessary expedient until slavery eventually would become extinct and to do that the institution would have be put clearly on a path to extinction. From his actions with the Border States leaders concerning slavery, he was already busily trying to build that path.

 

[lakertaker]

Came across this Lincoln letter of August, 1855. It was written to a long-time friend, Joshua Speed, from Kentucky (who happened to be a slave owner). Provides some evidence to dispute the recent claims that he had no friends from the South, and he was ambivalent on the slavery issue. He also suggested that the slave traders ("a detested, odious class") were fooling the Southerners and running the political show).

You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable letter of the 22nd. of May I have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave– especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.​

I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgement and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave state unfairly – that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members, in violent disregard of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly demand it's repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded. You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no Nebraska express astonishment or condemnation? Poor [Andrew] Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely undeceived.

That Kansas will form a Slave constitution, and, with it, will ask to be admitted into the Union. I take to be an already settled question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet in utter disregard of this - in the spirit of violence merely – that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building. I shall not be among the mourners for their fate.

In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am very loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day – as you could on an open proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your measure– whatever it may be – a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Appropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day or two Douglas' orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous [sic] against it, but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was perfectly astonishing.

You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slave-holders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in any slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics; they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes.

You enquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was at Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do more than oppose the extension of slavery.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.21

Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter, I hope more of her sympathy than I have of yours.22​

 

[KeyserSoze]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your Lee statement.. If the Confederay was defeated earlier then the seceeded states would have been returned back to the Union with slavery intact.. Did I paraphrase that correctly? Thats is a very interesting take on the situation that I hadn't thought of before thank you for bringing that up...

No. Lincoln made it clear at the Hampton Roads Conference in January 1865 that slavery in the South was dead. The Emancipation Proclamation would not be rescinded and the blacks returned to slavery. He did hold out hope of some sort of financial compensation but that was about it.

 

[jgoodguy]

No. Lincoln made it clear at the Hampton Roads Conference in January 1865 that slavery in the South was dead. The Emancipation Proclamation would not be rescinded and the blacks returned to slavery. He did hold out hope of some sort of financial compensation but that was about it.

From the wiki on the Hampton Roads.

Lincoln's position

President Lincoln's positions were these:[3]

• He disapproved of the joint attack on the French in Mexico.
• He wished for "the voluntary abolition of slavery" by the southern states.
• He refused to consent to any treaty with the Confederate government.
• After their surrender, he was in favor of re-admitting representatives of the Southern States to Congress.
• He favored the payment by the Federal Government of a fair indemnity to the former slaveholders, that is payment to the ex-owners for the freed slaves.[4]
• He would not weaken the Emancipation Proclamation.
• The complete restoration of the Union must be the final result of the war, or the war would continue to be fought.

The Confederates insisted on independence, and no agreement was reached.[5]

I see the normal chicken and egg problem with Southern Independence. Independence was desired, but as always the purpose of that independence was to practice slavery.

 

[ForeverFree]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around your Lee statement.. If the Confederay was defeated earlier then the seceeded states would have been returned back to the Union with slavery intact.. Did I paraphrase that correctly? Thats is a very interesting take on the situation that I hadn't thought of before thank you for bringing that up...

Lincoln himself said as much. This is from his second inauguration speech:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. ​

​

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the causeof the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. ​

The "fundamental and astounding result" that Lincoln refers to is the end of slavery. Lincoln says that neither side thought that the war would be as long or as harsh as it turned out to be. He also says that nobody expected that slavery - the cause of the war - would end before the war itself ended. Basically, he's admitting that he thought that the war would be shorter, less deadly and less ruinous, and would not result in the end of slavery.

But as the saying goes, "Men plan, God laughs."

- Alan

 

[OpnCoronet]

Still before the war was barely a year old, Lincoln was already warning slaveowners(border states) that the mere friction of war, would destroy the institution, whether they liked it or not, and if anything of their investment was to be saved, compensated emancipation was the best that could be expected and that sooner rather than later.
Lincoln was as surprised as anyone about the length and growing violence of the war, but he clearly anticipated the end result of the war, no matter how long or violent, because he had always been aware of the connection of slavery to secession and war.