Posted on 01/19/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by kosciusko51
One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?
As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.
1. The South seceded over states' rights.
Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well both sides in the dispute acknowledged and practiced the principles of sovereignty and imminent domain. To the extent that those two principles are legitimate South Carolina was clearly acting on a basis other than just might makes right. The fort was in their territory. A libertarian might deny the legitimacy of notions like sovereignty and imminent domain, but I prefer to judge the two parties by the standards they both professed.
By what right did the US evict the British army from Detroit?
“How could Lincoln free the slaves in the Confederate states before the end of the war? He had no control over them”
Is this a serious question? Lincoln’s army was in the process of conquering the South. That’s how. He already had control over a decent portion of the rebellious territory the moment emancipation was proclaimed. Which explains why some 50,000 souls were manumitted immediately. As for the rest, their time would come.
You are trotting out a tired, specious criticism. Since the proclamation is full of the sort of compromises and legalisms that accompany all political acts, it’s easy to parse it. To understand it, you’d have to drudge through all the archaisms of its historical context, which is complicated. So I can understand people being flippant about it.
However, a cursory examination of history would inform them that Lincoln still operated under the authority of Dred Scott, and that no avenue but that open to him as commander in chief was available for action on the slavery issue. Consequently, he couldn’t do anything about slaves within the Union. History would also inform them that Lincoln did control territory in the South as of January ‘63, and that much more of the South would be conquered as the war continued. I’d expect you to know as much, but since it’s apparently slipped by you, I suggest if nothing else doing a quick google search.
2)Was the Civil War still on-going?
3)Since the South hadn't surrendered a case can be made that the EP had no effect. It was a proclamation, not a law.
You mean the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION??.......
there ya go.
In your post you have McWinney claiming that slavery died out in the north because of the weather. Sorry but that is simply wrong.
I was speaking of the 1800s when the Civil War occurred not the 1700s.
Check your post #83. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point, but it looks to me like you are discussing the use of slavery in the south versus the disuse of slavery in the north. This northern discontinuation of slavery works itself out in the 17th and 18th centuries. It didn't happen right before the WBTS.
The North had more railroads with the same gauge whereas the South only had multiple gauge railroads from plantation to port cities. Industry is what helped the North win the war whereas the lack of industry defeated the South. Lack of port cities in their hands were also a factor.
True. It is also worth mentioning that the South had a general lack of railroad trunk lines. The North had built trunk lines with corporate welfare from the government - a sore spot with southerners who felt that they were paying tariffs that were all being spent in the north.
I agree about the ports. In fact I think the loss of their ports was one of the three things that ultimately doomed the South. The other two reasons were their insane foreign trade policies and the ill advised policy of allowing representatives from captured districts to continue to sit in the Congress and vote.
What industry was in the South before the CW?
The South had quite a bit of industry and the upper South was industrializing quickly in the late 1850's. Much of Southern industry was destroyed during or closed after the war. There was a huge iron works at Richmond for example which made most of the canon used by the Confederate army during the war. The Yankees just closed it so it wouldn't compete with northern industry (Seward and Stanton were both steel magnates).
Not so. The EP did not free a single slave. It wasn't meant to. The purpose of the EP was to keep the British and the French from recognizing the Confederacy.
Not only did slaves in captured areas remain slaves, but many were actually rounded up and concentrated into so-called "contraband camps" where they were pressed into unpaid labor for the Union.
The Cuban government has long demanded that the US vacate Guantanamo Bay and the US has refused, citing its agreement with a government that was overthrown in a revolution, an agreement the Cubans have repudiated. Would the Cubans be justified in shelling the base?
“True. It is also worth mentioning that the South had a general lack of railroad trunk lines. The North had built trunk lines with corporate welfare from the government - a sore spot with southerners who felt that they were paying tariffs that were all being spent in the north.”
The South had no real railroad network except the Nashville-Chattanooga Line. Most Southern RRs were only intended to connect towns to the coast for transporting cotton and other agricultural goods.
“I agree about the ports. In fact I think the loss of their ports was one of the three things that ultimately doomed the South. The other two reasons were their insane foreign trade policies and the ill advised policy of allowing representatives from captured districts to continue to sit in the Congress and vote.”
A lack both of ports and a maritime tradition.
“The South had quite a bit of industry and the upper South was industrializing quickly in the late 1850’s. Much of Southern industry was destroyed during or closed after the war. There was a huge iron works at Richmond for example which made most of the canon used by the Confederate army during the war. The Yankees just closed it so it wouldn’t compete with northern industry (Seward and Stanton were both steel magnates).”
A lot of industrial expansion was launched during the war as Richmond embarked on a rough, wartime socialism. Old, abandoned facilities like the famous Catherine Furnace near Chancellorsville were brought back into operation.
The United States did similar things in WWII by reopening abandoned mines and whatnot.
1. January 1863
2. Yes the War was still going on.
3. The E. P. only had effect in the North since the Southern States had succeeded.
So, I think your premise is correct - he only freed the slaves in the North.
Yes.
"Did the Emancipation Proclamation free all the slaves in the United States? Many people think it did, but the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves in the United States and here is why. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves because it related only to areas under the control of the Confederacy. The South broke away from the North, and President Lincoln couldn't make slave owners living in the Confederate states of America obey the Emancipation Proclamation. After the Civil War ended and the South became part of the United States again, the South had to obey Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't include slaves in the border states and in some southern areas under the North's control, such as Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. Although no slaves were actually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it did lead to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment became a law on December 18, 1865, and ended slavery in all parts of the United States."
See:Here
The EP explicitly covers only slaves in seceded areas. It did not cover any slaves in the north and did not actually free any slaves at all. It wasn't meant to. As late as January 1865 Lincoln was still open to the idea of a compensated emancipation and offered 400 million dollars for that purpose at the Hampton Roads conference.
"Did the Emancipation Proclamation free all the slaves in the United States? Many people think it did, but the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves in the United States and here is why.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves because it related only to areas under the control of the Confederacy. The South broke away from the North, and President Lincoln couldn't make slave owners living in the Confederate states of America obey the Emancipation Proclamation. After the Civil War ended and the South became part of the United States again, the South had to obey Lincoln.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't include slaves in the border states and in some southern areas under the North's control, such as Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. Although no slaves were actually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it did lead to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment became a law on December 18, 1865, and ended slavery in all parts of the United States.""
Read more Here
McWhinney said that is was more cost effective to have slaves in the Southern states due to the type of crops they grew and the advance of industrialization in the North. So yes, slaves were scarce in the North before the CW began.
My point was that it was not due to the moral superiority of Northerners as some would suggest.
Besides Tredegar Iron works were there any other major industries?
Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri were officially slave states. Other states also tolerated some degree of slavery. New Jersey for example still had a few (I think four) "indentured servants for life" as late as the 1870 census (which is after the 13th amendment had passed). There was a large open air slave market in Washington itself (which Lincoln had voted against closing when he was a congressman).
Did he have any legal power over the seceded area? They were in legal terms no longer part of the United States.
I do know no slaves were freed and I do know his first choice was to send them back to Africa. Not practical.
Agreed.
...were there any other major industries?
Ship building and textiles, though both proved inadequate for their war needs. There was also an iron works at Birmingham. Here is a not so bad wiki page on the topic: Economy of the Confederate States of America.
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, and four others did not declare secession until after the 1861 Battle of Fort Sumter:
Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia — after which, they were less frequently called "border states". Also included as a border state during the war is West Virginia, which broke away from Confederate Virginia and became a new state in the Union"
NO. But of course he would say yes.
I do know no slaves were freed and I do know his first choice was to send them back to Africa. Not practical.
Right. Insane is what it was. But that was Lincoln's life long vision for solving the negro question. And let's be clear, the real problem for Lincoln and others of his ilk was never slavery per se but what to do with all the negros.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.