Read the Book Before You Comment

[Rebforever]

For books like this, one doesn't need to read it to know what it says. Like Mark Jenkins said, one doesn't need to taste garbage to know that it's garbage.

R

Thanks for your response. However, with so much objection from those that haven't read the book, I think I would like to read it. Another trip to the Library.

 

[dlofting]

Think maybe we were "sucked in"by a cute avatar.

 

[rpkennedy]

Thanks for your response. However, with so much objection from those that haven't read the book, I think I would like to read it. Another trip to the Library.

You're certainly free to do so. It should be found amongst the other fantasy books.

R

 

[NedBaldwin]

We have seen most of these silly questions before.
But not sure if I have seen anyone ask this one:
"If the Union wanted to end slavery, why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment"
Awesome idea. Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

 

[John Hartwell]

We have seen most of these silly questions before.
But not sure if I have seen anyone ask this one:
"If the Union wanted to end slavery, why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment"
Awesome idea. Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

Is this not assuming, once again, that the Union went to war to free the slaves?

The answer is in the question ... "If the Union wanted to end slavery..." There wasn't the will in the Union to try. Look how hard it was to get the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 ... (the whole point of the movie Lincoln). How much harder would it have been before the southern congressmen had bolted?

jno

 

[Rebforever]

You're certainly free to do so. It should be found amongst the other fantasy books.

R

So, you have read "fantasy" books but try to talk others out of it! Shame on you!!

 

[Rebforever]

We have seen most of these silly questions before.
But not sure if I have seen anyone ask this one:
"If the Union wanted to end slavery, why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment"
Awesome idea. Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

Well the first sentence has been decided to be true by most everyone here one time or another.
From the book per page 2.

"This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery."

I thought this had been decided by both sides of the argument.

 

[Rebforever]

Welcome. The short answer:

It's not peer-reviewed, it's endorsed and marketed by members of a known hate group with a modern political agenda, it's reviews and summary use ahistorical phrases invented in the mid-twentieth century, and it's premise flies in the face of not only a century-and-a-half of scholarship, but of the statements of the people who actually started and fought in the war. In short, we dismiss it because it's modern political revision and not at all about the war.

Can you name those people you mention and furnish a reference for your statement? I suspect an opinion here.

 

[Rebforever]

Based on the way the issues are framed in the questions you pose, I would not buy the book. The questions are based on false premises.

I would add this.

(1) The predominant interpretation among historians concerning the causality of the War was phrased this way by history scholar Elizabeth Varon: there's emerged in recent years a strong consensus, which scholars call the fundamentalist school, that slavery was the root fundamental cause of the civil war and that the political antagonisms between the North and South flowed from the fact that the North was a free labor society while the South was a slave labor society which remained committed to slavery and indeed to extending its domain.

The fundamentalist school can be simplistically stated as, "no slavery, no war." That is, it is hard to make the case that there would have been a war in 1861 without there being a slave labor South and a free labor North.

This does not mean war was inevitable. The conflict between slave labor and free labor did not have to necessarily lead to war. But slavery was the essential ingredient in the conflict. Take that away, there is no secession, and without secession, there would not have been a war.

It is useful to note that under the fundamentalist school, it is the conflict between free labor and slave labor that is the underlying root of the North/South divide. That is, the fact that the North was a free labor society is as essential in the sectional divide as the fact that the South was a slave labor society. There would not have been a war if both sections were pro-slavery or both were anti-slavery. As I see it, it is overly simplistic to say that slavery, by itself, caused the war. It is the conflict over slavery - more precisely, the conflict between the slave labor South and free labor North - that puts the sections on the path to war.

Now, although the conflict over slavery led to secession, and secession led to war, that does not fully explain the sentiment to preserve the Union. And this is an important point to discuss. The factors which led secessionists to dissolve the Union and create the Confederacy (ie, preservation of slavery) are not the same as those which motivated Unionists (whose goal was the preservation of the Union). Therefore, any complete and comprehensive discussion of war causality must include a discussion of "why Unionism," in my opinion.
*******
(2) As most people commonly put it, then, the white South seceded to preserve slavery, while the North fought to preserve the Union. That is, the Union did not go to war to end slavery. Unionists believed that the secessionists were traitors who annulled an election they did not like, and became an economic, military, and geo-political threat to the Union. Unionists would have believed this whether the white South seceded to preserve slavery or any other reason.

Questions like "If the war was about slavery, why did Lincoln not free the slaves in the North?" are "bad questions." They are based on the premise that, if the war was "about slavery," and if secessionists left the Union to preserve slavery, then it must be true that the Union fought the war to end slavery. But it is not true. Unionists wanted to preserve the Union, but it is the conflict between slave labor and free labor that caused the two sides to be antagonists in the first place.

EDIT: Having said that, the North did come to understand that to win the war, and to preserve the Union, slavery had to be abolished. And indeed, during the war, hundreds of thousands of slaves were freed (in Confederate AND Union states), and the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was passed and eventually ratified.
********
(3) These are some thoughts on Lincoln's view of the role of slavery in the Civil War:

On March 4, 1865, in Washington, D.C., Abraham Lincoln gave his second inauguration speech. He might well have used the speech to gloat. By then the Union was on the brink of victory over the Confederate States. Indeed, just one month later, on April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his forces to Union General Ulysses S. Grant in Appomattox, Virginia. That was the beginning of the end of the Confederacy.

But Lincoln did not say much about the status the war, probably out of confidence for the Union's position. He did state that "(t)he progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all." And with that, Lincoln went into the main body of his oration.

Lincoln gave a speech whose tone was neither boastful nor celebratory, neither glorifying nor romantic about the Union's winning war effort. Rather, his talk was somber, poignant, melancholy, and reflective. In fact, it was almost confessional. We have sinned, he said, and the wages therefrom have been enormous.

He noted that when the war began, "all knew" that the "peculiar and powerful interest" in slaves "was somehow the cause of the war." But "neither (side) anticipated that the cause of 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." That is, no white person thought the war would result in the demise of slavery. Men on both sides thought the war would be brief and easy. This turned out to be a gross miscalculation, perhaps even, delusion.

Because God, said Lincoln, had "His own purposes." God brings "woe unto the world because of offenses… (and) if we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses," then "He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came."

Notably, Lincoln cites both the North and the South as the recipients of this horrible penance. Slavery was not simply the South's sin; it was America's sin. And the price America paid, said Lincoln, was just: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

Interestingly, Lincoln's view of the war as God's judgement for the sins of slavery is not well known by most people outside of the academy. Or so it appears to me. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and its talk of a "new birth of freedom," has achieved a kind of iconic status. (In the past, some schools required students to memorize the Gettysburg Address.) Many people are aware of the second Inauguration Address's call for "malice toward none" as the Union procured its victory over the Confederate enemy. But Lincoln's somber reflection of slavery as sin, and war and its attendant suffering as God's righteous judgement for that sin, has not achieved the same status or attention. This, despite the fact that our country has a strong Judeo-Christian tradition, in which Lincoln's discussion of the role of God in man's affairs should resonate (as opposed to a totally secular view of the war)

I do not have enough information or data to speculate about why this is so. But it does seem to me that many Americans are much more comfortable with delving into the glory and heroics and strategies of war, and celebrating the end of bondage, than they are with engaging in a somber reflection of human failing, commemorating these sins of the past, and (for believers) pondering the role of God in the events that befall man.

This is from Lincoln's second Inauguration Address, given from the front of the White House:

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it.

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 cause of 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.

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.​

- Alan

Alan, you are using during and after the war topics to prove a point. I will post the following, even though it is from Wiki, that shows what lincn's thoughts are about before the war started.

"
Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time:

Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Legal status of the South: He asserted that as he had just taken an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution", this oath enjoined him to see that the laws of the Union were faithfully executed in all states—including those that had seceded.
Use of force: Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South, unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" belonging to the federal government, and to collect legal duties and imposts. However, if the South chose to actively take up arms against the Government, their insurrection would meet a firm and forceful response.
Secession: Referring to words in the preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln stated that the Constitution was established "to form a more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had effected. Since the Union established under the Articles was explicitly perpetual in name and text, thus the Union under the Constitution was equally perpetual. He added that even if the Constitution were to be construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties, meaning all of the states, North and South.
Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.
Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.
The postal service: The U.S. Mails would continue to operate throughout the South, "unless repelled."
Federal offices in the South: With no professional civil service in operation during this period of American history, Lincoln promised that he would not use the spoils system to appoint Northern office-holders to federal offices, such as postmasterships, located in the Southern states. Instead, said he, he would "forego the use of such offices" rather than force "obnoxious strangers" upon the South.
Lincoln concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for calm and cool deliberation in the face of mounting tension throughout the nation. He assured the rebellious states that the Federal government would never initiate any conflict with them, and indicated his own conviction that once "touched" once more by "the better angels of our nature," the "mystic chords of memory" North and South would "yet swell the chorus of the Union."

So how does one cover this up?

 

[Carronade]

If the Flat Earth Society puts out a book purporting to prove their point of view, you don't have to read it to know that it's nonsense.

The actual Confederates were perfectly honest about their motivations. Their speeches, declarations of causes of secession, etc. are replete with statements like "Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of Negro slavery." Even when they mentioned issues like tariffs or public spending, they characterized the dispute as between them and the "non-slaveholding states".

People being embarassed about it today doesn't change the facts of the past.

 

[Rebforever]

If the Flat Earth Society puts out a book purporting to prove their point of view, you don't have to read it to know that it's nonsense.

The actual Confederates were perfectly honest about their motivations. Their speeches, declarations of causes of secession, etc. are replete with statements like "Our cause is thoroughly identified with the institution of Negro slavery." Even when they mentioned issues like tariffs or public spending, they characterized the dispute as between them and the "non-slaveholding states".

People being embarassed about it today doesn't change the facts of the past.

As old as I am, one still cannot judge a book by the cover!

 

[James B White]

So how does one cover this up?

Who is trying to cover it up? It's okay to tell the northern view too, I just don't think it should be the only side told. Lincoln was trying to appease the south that slavery was safe if they stayed in the union, but they were so concerned about slavery they seceded anyway. That's why the war was about slavery, and why the book in the OP is yet another example in a long line of recent nonsense that tries to erase the southern viewpoint from history and pander to the Lincolnite view.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

We have seen most of these silly questions before.
But not sure if I have seen anyone ask this one:
"If the Union wanted to end slavery, why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment"
Awesome idea. Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

That's actually the very question that many in France and Britain asked (or asked why it was not simply done by Executive order), not realizing the many roadblocks in the way of those routes.

 

[jackt62]

We have seen most of these silly questions before.
But not sure if I have seen anyone ask this one:
"If the Union wanted to end slavery, why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment"
Awesome idea. Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

Up until 1863, it is extremely doubtful as to whether there would have been support for such an amendment even in the northern states alone.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Up until 1863, it is extremely doubtful as to whether there would have been support for such an amendment even in the northern states alone.

In dont think there was any doubt in the the states that had voted heavily for Lincoln in 1860.

The point of my sarcastic comment last night was that it is silly to ask why something wasnt done that actually was done.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Well the first sentence has been decided to be true by most everyone here one time or another.
From the book per page 2.

"This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery."

I thought this had been decided by both sides of the argument.

I havent read the book, so i am not commenting on it.
I did read the opening post in this thread, which is what i commented on and what you just said is not in that post.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Is this not assuming, once again, that the Union went to war to free the slaves?

The answer is in the question ... "If the Union wanted to end slavery..." There wasn't the will in the Union to try. Look how hard it was to get the 14th Amendment passed in 1865 ... (the whole point of the movie Lincoln). How much harder would it have been before the southern congressmen had bolted?

jno

But we do know that Congress passed the 13th amendment, so asking "why didn't it just pass a Constitutional amendment" is just silly.

 

[wilber6150]

Well the first sentence has been decided to be true by most everyone here one time or another.
From the book per page 2.

"This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery."

I thought this had been decided by both sides of the argument.

100% corect, the North didn't go to war to end slavery or free the slaves, though a small minority might have had that aim as well... But, that is not saying that slavery was not threaded thru almost every other cause of the war, or that the main difference that drove the two sides apart was slavery..It also doesn't mean that the South didn't go to war to preserve slavery from being intefered with by free states.

 

[Rebforever]

Who is trying to cover it up? It's okay to tell the northern view too, I just don't think it should be the only side told. Lincoln was trying to appease the south that slavery was safe if they stayed in the union, but they were so concerned about slavery they seceded anyway. That's why the war was about slavery, and why the book in the OP is yet another example in a long line of recent nonsense that tries to erase the southern viewpoint from history and pander to the Lincolnite view.

Have you read the book as the OP request?

 

[Rebforever]

100% corect, the North didn't go to war to end slavery or free the slaves, though a small minority might have had that aim as well... But, that is not saying that slavery was not threaded thru almost every other cause of the war, or that the main difference that drove the two sides apart was slavery..It also doesn't mean that the South didn't go to war to preserve slavery from being intefered with by free states.

Did you read the book per OP?