Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument.

[Greywolf]

That is not necessarily correct. We know that only at most an estimated 15% supported the Abolition Movement. I have seen nothing that accurately breaks down the other 85%. Most likely the majority considered it someone else's problem while the remaining small number supported slavery.
As to "Doughface Lincoln", I have never heard him referred to as a Southern sympathizer before: I expect that this will come as a great surprise to some of our membership.
As for slavery, there can be no doubt of Lincoln's well-documented abhorrence of the practice.

He like 95% of white Americans was a racist, we have plenty of his speeches to back that up, plus his dabbling in colonization. But you are correct he didn't care for slavery.

 

[Greywolf]

No, but I think your analogy, giving credit to Whites for Freeing the Negro is irrelevant Edited. Blacks fought for their Freedom. Blacks were recruited, to save White Lives. Two different Concepts.

Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?

 

[Greywolf]

No, but I think your analogy, giving credit to Whites for Freeing the Negro is irrelevant Edited. Blacks fought for their Freedom. Blacks were recruited, to save White Lives. Two different Concepts.

Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?

 

[Tailor Pete]

Who is going to send their son to fight and die over the path of a railroad? Congress was willing to fund two TRR's one from the South and one from the North. Southern politicians were quite articulate of why they wanted to secede and they never mentioned California or a TRR.
Leftyhunter

@leftyhunter, you miss the point. This wasn't a move made openly, but one done in the smoke filled back rooms of industrial America. If this theory is to be believed, it must be understood that the TRR wasn't a cause, but a desire pushed through by politically motivated people who used the South's weakness to their advantage.

 

[WJC]

What would you call a politician who vowed to leave Slavery alone, where it stood. And to enforce the FSL. Eric Foner says Lincoln is more of a Pro Slavery Democrat Politically. He was against Immediatism. Wanted a slow gradual Emancipation of at least, 50 years. He extended DCs Abolition thru the weekend, so his Friend could remove his Slave, before enactment. Then, felt sorry for the Whites who had lost their Labor. All of this adds up to be Pro Slavery. His Words.

Thanks for your response.
My reading of Foner indicates that he believes Lincoln's position was one that Southern slaveholders should have found agreeable compared to the other option: immediate emancipation. That does not, as I understand it, mean that Lincoln was "Pro Slavery". He was not.
Lincoln agreed not to disturb slavery in the States where it then existed. But he intended to outlaw it in the Territories. He did not, in 1861, support immediate emancipation as he felt- as many did- that over time slavery would end on its own.
If you can cite where Foner has a different view please share it with us.

 

[WJC]

He like 95% of white Americans was a racist, we have plenty of his speeches to back that up, plus his dabbling in colonization. But you are correct he didn't care for slavery.

Thanks for your response.
Racism was not limited to American Whites, or even to Whites. Colonization seemed to many an appropriate solution with precedents in the Holy Scripture. Interestingly, when the Lincon Administration contacted Central American countries with largely Black or mixed- Black populations about resettling Freemen, they were rejected. The non-White governments (themselves ex-slaves) were prejudiced against Black former slaves from the U. S.!

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter

Things tend to cut a lot of different ways. Bradley T Johnson, Marylander wrote:

"'on April 15th President Lincoln issued his proclamation, calling on the States for 75,000 militia "to maintain the Union and to redress wrongs already too long endured." He did not specify the wrongs nor the period of endurance. "

Politicians have a way of saying things that will get people worked up.
A politician probably would not say: "Hey, Bub, y'know them Southrons we been wantin' to be rid of...well they done left on their own..wanna go get 'em?"

 

[uaskme]

Thanks for your response.
My reading of Foner indicates that he believes Lincoln's position was one that Southern slaveholders should have found agreeable compared to the other option: immediate emancipation. That does not, as I understand it, mean that Lincoln was "Pro Slavery". He was not.
Lincoln agreed not to disturb slavery in the States where it then existed. But he intended to outlaw it in the Territories. He did not, in 1861, support immediate emancipation as he felt- as many did- that over time slavery would end on its own.
If you can cite where Foner has a different view please share it with us.

Makes no difference if he, or others despised Slavery or not. His and the vast majority of Northerners, decision to do Nothing, about Slavery, was just as Supportive, to Slavery, as someone who thought it was a Positive Good. So, by default, he and the 85% of Northerners who wanted to leave it alone, were Pro Slavery. I will give you the 15% who wanted Immediate Abolition. That 85% was far more concerned about CW, and the Social and Racial consequences about ending Slavery, than they were about giving Negros rights.

Eric Foner is a Lincoln Apologist. However even he, recognizes how conservative Lincoln was on the Slavery Issue. Lincoln wanted the South subjugated, so he could get what he wanted, for his Section. That was a far greater concern of his, than ending Slavery. Slavery was alway something to be negotiated.

 

[CSA Today]

Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter

Substitute prospect of government dominance by the North for "big government" and you have the reason.

 

[Andersonh1]

Such as? Not tariffs because who is going to have their son die to pay a few cents less on an item. Not states rights since no one can identif what state right was lost that can never be reclaimed. Not a TRR since Congress was about to fund two TRR's just before the ACW started.
Not big government since big government didn't even start until the election of FDR seventy odd year's latter.
Leftyhunter

And not slavery, because there was so little of it in Maryland. So now that we've eliminated all the reasons for secession sentiment, what's left?

 

[ebg12]

There can't be anything in his speech about what the South was "fighting for" because at the time there was no war.

Are you saying, then, that there was no confederate states at ALL until the shot at fort Sumter, and any declaration of "secession" by any Southern State was not valid until the shot at Fort Sumter?

 

[uaskme]

Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?

It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR, which the Single Causer would have us to believe had Nothing To Do With It. In order to settle the West, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It. In order to get to California, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It.

Also the Rich Aristocrat Yankee, which the Single Causer denies, Yankees had any Aristocrats, were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.

So, the Poor Northerners were fighting while the Rich Played. But were quite Busy. Northerners were Blessed to have Western Lands and the ability to Borrow Money to pay for their Mercenaries, the poor Immigrants and Blacks for Yankee substitutes. Other Facts, the Single Causers with soon deny.

 

[uaskme]

Just imagine if all those northern men were conscripted. Male population of the north was roughly 11 million, knock out 4 or 5 million either too young, old, or infirmed and you still have enough to easily roll over the 2 million at most the csa could field. I think old Shelby was right, the north did have one arm behind it's back. Why they could have easily put a 100k army in coastal NC or SC to drive inland, gave grant another 100k, added another 100k army to help Sherman, and get this...still have plenty of men left over. The question is why not? Why did it have to drag on si long?

It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR, which the Single Causer would have us to believe had Nothing To Do With It. In order to settle the West, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It. In order to get to California, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It.

Also the Rich Aristocrat Yankee, which the Single Causer denies, Yankees had any Aristocrats, were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.

So, the Poor Northerners were fighting while the Rich Played. But were quite Busy. Northerners were Blessed to have Western Lands and the ability to Borrow Money to pay for their Mercenaries, the poor Immigrants and Blacks for Yankee substitutes. Other Facts, the Single Causers with soon deny.

 

[CSA Today]

You

You believe what a Southern, South Carolinian newspaper said?

Kevin Dally

It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR, which the Single Causer would have us to believe had Nothing To Do With It. In order to settle the West, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It. In order to get to California, which the Single Causer would have us to believe, Had Nothing To Do With It.

Also the Rich Aristocrat Yankee, which the Single Causer denies, Yankees had any Aristocrats, were busy getting Richer, for their War Efforts.

So, the Poor Northerners were fighting while the Rich Played. But were quite Busy. Northerners were Blessed to have Western Lands and the ability to Borrow Money to pay for their Mercenaries, the poor Immigrants and Blacks for Yankee substitutes. Other Facts, the Single Causers with soon deny.

Amen to that.

 

[WJC]

It went on so long, because the Confederates were fighting for their and their families lives and INDEPENDENCE.

Or, alternatively, because U. S. citizens were fighting to preserve the American Experiment, which they felt was important not only to themselves and their posterity but to the people of the world. To them, it truly was a struggle to assure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

[Andersonh1]

Or, alternatively, because U. S. citizens were fighting to preserve the American Experiment, which they felt was important not only to themselves and their posterity but to the people of the world. To them, it truly was a struggle to assure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Hyperbole by Lincoln. The United States would have been just fine with eleven fewer states.

 

[ebg12]

Makes no difference if he, or others despised Slavery or not. His and the vast majority of Northerners, decision to do Nothing, about Slavery, was just as Supportive, to Slavery, as someone who thought it was a Positive Good. So, by default, he and the 85% of Northerners who wanted to leave it alone, were Pro Slavery. I will give you the 15% who wanted Immediate Abolition. That 85% was far more concerned about CW, and the Social and Racial consequences about ending Slavery, than they were about giving Negros rights.

Eric Foner is a Lincoln Apologist. However even he, recognizes how conservative Lincoln was on the Slavery Issue. Lincoln wanted the South subjugated, so he could get what he wanted, for his Section. That was a far greater concern of his, than ending Slavery. Slavery was alway something to be negotiated.

see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil...the north turned a blind eye to slavery and was guilty by association.....allowing slavery to continue (except the Quakers in Pa that were involved in the Underground railroad and were outspoken against slavery as being immoral).

 

[WJC]

Yankees didn't have one hand behind their back. The other hand was building the TRR

The actual building of the transcontinental railroad did not begin until 1863 and then was done by three private companies using civilian contractors and workers.

 

[WJC]

Hyperbole by Lincoln.

Thanks for your response.
Perhaps. But it was "hyperbole" that many sincerely agreed with.

 

[WJC]

The United States would have been just fine with eleven fewer states.

Thanks for your response.
Until the next time a faction lost an election or didn't 'get their way' on some government policy and decided to 'take their football and go home'.