Lincoln Lincoln Question

[archieclement]

Guess it would be do you think Lincoln foresaw his election starting a war and did he want the war?

I ask because one of his campaign promises seemed to be prohibiting the expansion of slavery......considering this promise is coming on the heels of the Dred Scott decision, its basically unconstitutional short of changing the law which he knew would be impossible with the senate.

So was he simply blowing smoke making empty campaign promises he knew were false, or did he foresee or want a war that would allow the changes that never would have occurred in peacetime during his administration? And would think its safe to assume he would have been able to foresee at the very least the promise would be viewed as inflammatory in the south.

I'll concede it could have eventually happened peacefully, but think its stretch to think the change in attitudes would have happened within the next 8 years without a war.

 

[JOHN42768]

I dare say not. Only a madman would want to start a war. Lincoln was certainly not a madman. The campaign promises are no different then throughout History. Much is proposed, but as to it happening depends on the events of the time. The War was inevitable as both sides had strong mindsets that were 180 degrees apart. Yes there were people who hoped to gain from the conflict as always

 

[archieclement]

Interesting

Just have always wondered since one of his key issues he campaigned on would have seemed blatantly unattainable under normal circumstances.

 

[Jimklag]

Guess it would be do you think Lincoln foresaw his election starting a war and did he want the war?

I ask because one of his campaign promises seemed to be prohibiting the expansion of slavery......considering this promise is coming on the heels of the Dred Scott decision, its basically unconstitutional short of changing the law which he knew would be impossible with the senate.

So was he simply blowing smoke making empty campaign promises he knew were false, or did he foresee or want a war that would allow the changes that never would have occurred in peacetime during his administration? And would think its safe to assume he would have been able to foresee at the very least the promise would be viewed as inflammatory in the south.

I'll concede it could have eventually happened peacefully, but think its stretch to think the change in attitudes would have happened within the next 8 years without a war.

No and no. He meant what he said about the expansion of slavery. Nothing in the Dred Scott decision precluded legislation outlawing slavery in new territories. Andrew Jackson had ignored John Marshall's court decision on Indian removal and Lincoln himself would ignore Taney in the future. As Jackson said about Marshall, "He has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." The same could be said about Dred Scott.

 

[archieclement]

No and no. He meant what he said about the expansion of slavery. Nothing in the Dred Scott decision precluded legislation outlawing slavery in new territories. Andrew Jackson had ignored John Marshall's court decision on Indian removal and Lincoln himself would ignore Taney in the future. As Jackson said about Marshall, "He has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." The same could be said about Dred Scott.

"Nothing in the Dred Scott decision precluded legislation outlawing slavery in new territories" technically true, but the reality was with the senate, no legislation outlawing slavery in the territories was a possibility with the current attitudes that would prevail during a Lincoln peacetime administration........

 

[Jimklag]

"Nothing in the Dred Scott decision precluded legislation outlawing slavery in new territories" technically true, but the reality was with the senate, no legislation outlawing slavery in the territories was a possibility with the current attitudes that would prevail during a Lincoln peacetime administration........

Free states being admitted would have changed the makeup of the Senate.

 

[archieclement]

Which the once again would take senate approval, and the current attitude of half the senate was to not do anything that would upset the balance...............theres a reason they tended to admit 2 states at a time...........

 

[matthew mckeon]

The main plank of the Republican Party was restricting the expansion of slavery. The conventional wisdom was that would eventually kill off slavery, "eventually" being several decades. I don't know if that was true or not, but everybody thought it was true.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lincoln believed that whole heartedly, but he was hardly the only one. The nation was to be for and by free men and free labor, according to the Republicans, and plenty of others cared little about slavery, but thought the West and the future of the country belonged to free men and not slave holders and slave labor.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I don't think that Lincoln or the Republicans in general thought it would lead to secession, let alone civil war. Lincoln seemed to think and act, as if secession fever would pass, and cooler heads prevail. Southern threats to secede were called in one newspaper a "gasconade" basically just hot air. Which definitely not how it turned out.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Yesterday I read John C. Calhoun's address to the Senate in 1850, where he openly calls for the slave states to leave the Union because of the anti-slavery "agitation"(his word) in the free states.

He may be over stating the intensity of anti slavery sentiment in the free states, but he correctly notes that the slave states were becoming a demographic minority, and with the admission of more free states, a minority in the Senate. He called this "destroying the equilibrium" between the sections, although it was just more people moving to the free states, then the slave states.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I don't think that Lincoln or the Republicans in general thought it would lead to secession, let alone civil war. Lincoln seemed to think and act, as if secession fever would pass, and cooler heads prevail. Southern threats to secede were called in one newspaper a "gasconade" basically just hot air. Which definitely not how it turned out.

Of course I don't think many people thought it would led to war, or thought the CW would be anything like it actually was.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Which the once again would take senate approval, and the current attitude of half the senate was to not do anything that would upset the balance...............theres a reason they tended to admit 2 states at a time...........

Since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the idea that their would be a balance between slave and free and the 36 38 line across the nation settled everything was taken pretty seriously. But that had broken down in the 1850s.

 

[archieclement]

Since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the idea that their would be a balance between slave and free and the 36 38 line across the nation settled everything was taken pretty seriously. But that had broken down in the 1850s.

Hadnt the only time it broke down was KS? And that was intended at the time to be Neb Free and KS slave.......don't think the southern part of the senate would have let that happen again......Until slavery became obsolete and they were willing to scrap it themselves, don't see them allowing the balance to change

 

[wausaubob]

Except was the 1820 compromise anything more than Gerrymandering on a national scale to guarantee not balance but Democratic dominance?

 

[wausaubob]

The secessionists knew that if secession was postponed for as little as 10 years immigration would make the north totally dominant both in terms of politics and military power. One or two Republican administrations would create a permanent viable alternative to the Democratic party in the West and Midwest particularly.
Kansas was not a fluke, it was just an extension of what was taking place in Illinois, Missouri and throughout the west.

 

[archieclement]

The secessionists knew that if secession was postponed for as little as 10 years immigration would make the north totally dominant both in terms of politics and military power. One or two Republican administrations would create a permanent viable alternative to the Democratic party in the West and Midwest particularly.
Kansas was not a fluke, it was just an extension of what was taking place in Illinois, Missouri and throughout the west.

But how would it have mattered? Yes the northern bloc could have became more populous and stronger politically and militarily. The senate was expressly created to counter that, to keep bigger states from running roughshod over smaller states......

As long as the south had choose to stand pat in the senate, the balance wouldn't change, KS had gave the north a slight majority in the senate, but the supreme court with Dred Scott had already tipped its hand with congress had no authority to limit it, a simple law change would simply be stuck down as unconstitutional, it would require changing the constitution to overturn the court, an amendment........there was 34 states in 1861, 15 were slave states..........that left the north 11 states short of a 2/3 rds majority to pass an amendment. any new state couldn't be guaranteed to be free with slavery being allowed in the territories, and the 15 slave states still could filibuster any addition of just free states.....

Without the war, I'm not seeing how he could have kept his campaign platform of limiting the expansion of slavery in either the territories or in additional states, just don't see the tools in the toolbox to do it.........not within a 4 or 8 yr Lincoln peacetime administration.

Even if in 5 years their had been a huge moral revival and economic change in the south where the south became open to voluntarily giving up slavery, the election of Lincoln had been so contentious to the south, I doubt it would have happened as long as he was in office.......

 

[jackt62]

No, Lincoln would certainly never have wanted a war. The distinct question as to whether he foresaw his election bringing on a war is more complicated. Certainly, Lincoln and the Republican party knew that their position about expanding slavery was anathema to the south, and the vocal threats of secession were probably taken seriously. But whether secession would then lead to outright warfare required a series of additional actions that might not have been foreseen prior to the election.