Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
You may also know that every Confederate force (including Robert E Lee’s) operating in Union states or territories kidnapped free (Black) people there and sent them back to Democrat slaver territory to be slaves. Most were treated much worse than in Chambersburg. This was a war crime and would surely be one today.
Are you a comedian in your spare time?
This may be of interest to you, although long.
“The exhausted condition of the Treasury” on the eve of the Civil War.
Civil War History - June 1, 2009
Jane Flaherty
________________________________________
The Civil War fiscal crisis began before April 12, 1861. The U.S. Treasury tottered in a state of “utmost confusion” months before Edmund Ruffin shot at the troops holed up in Fort Sumter. Traditionally the “dynamic center” of government, the Treasury now faced “being placed before the world in the aspect of a mendicant.” The department's secretary, John A. Dix, notified Congress on February 11, 1861 that “little more” than $500,000 remained in the central depository in Washington. Demands for $2 million “unanswered” requisitions had accumulated in the department, with $6 million more due to public creditors in early March. Dix predicted a $21.6 million shortfall by the end of the fiscal year. Staff in most executive departments could not draw their salaries that January. Members of Congress had gone unpaid since the start of the session the previous December. Worse yet, according to Dix, “The War and Navy departments have calls for large requisitions [that] have been delayed on account of the exhausted condition of the Treasury.”
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/civil_war_history/summary/v055/55.2.flaherty.html
Still playing pilpul with the lost causer I see. It can’t be very satisfying dealing with one so obdurate.
Carry on. ;’)
As is Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, whose new Communist government has never recognized the US right to be there.
And yet the US continues to man, resupply and reinforce our troops there at will.
No US action in that regard is an act of war against Cuba, but any Cuban military assault on US troops in Guantanamo is an act of war against the United States.
So the analogy with Fort Sumter, and all other Federal properties in Confederate states, is exact.
DiogenesLamp: "You also seemingly ignore the fact that they tried to talk compensation with Lincoln, but he refused to discuss the matter."
The US Constitution clearly gives Congress authority over Federal properties.
If Jefferson Davis was serious about any negotiations, he would have sent emissaries to Congress.
But of course, Davis was not serious.
DiogenesLamp: "There you go again with that 20% of the population "attempting to destroy" the other 80%.
Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? "
The fact that it took four long years to defeat that 20% demonstrates conclusively they were a considerable force.
Had the Confederacy gained the full support of all Border State populations, the ratio of Union/Confederate instead of being 4 to 1 would have been 2 to 1, and if the Confederacy's slaves remained loyal, then the ratio would be almost one to one.
The results would certainly be not just Confederate victory, but Confederate domination over whatever little was left of the former United States.
Of course, Lincoln recognized the strategic-existential threat, and soon found there were many more Unionists in slave states than some had realized.
I agree with you about that. The concept of "secession" by states has become hopelessly tangled up with slavery and the 1860's. And, that raises the question, "Can you accept that reality?" Can you accept that it is now fruitless to advocate in favor of any kind of state secession? There isn't a state in this country that is prepared to give up the USA.
My understanding of the Principles involved in the founding of this nation shows secession or division is indeed a legitimate solution. In fact, I fail to see how you can support the founding of this country while opposing the founding of another and from appeal to the very same foundational principle.
None of our Founding Fathers suggested that the overthrow of an existing government in a geographical area was a matter to be taken lightly or that it should be considered by folks who weren't prepared to fight and perhaps lose everything, including their lives, their property and their sacred honor. Ordinarily, existing governments don't give up their powers without a fight. No one is saying that you cannot overthrow an existing government. But, you must expect a fight.
As a matter of fact, Many of our early population left Europe because they had differences of opinions that could not be reconciled with the existing civil or religious structure. They in effect, left to create a different country where their opinions and ideas were accepted.
Except for people who are incarcerated, every American retains a right to leave this country. No one is challenging that right.
This is freedom of will at it's basest level. That people can decide rightly or wrongly upon the course they wish to take in their lives.
With all due respect, I think it is you who is challenging the right of people to decide "rightly or wrongly the course they wish to take in their lives." If you accept your own argument, then the people of the United States have an inherent God-given right to maintain a huge, bloated government if that's what they want.
You seem to suggest that if you, you personally do not agree with some of the current, existing policies of our government, then you retain some sort of God-given right to leave without really leaving in any geographical sense and that it doesn't really matter what your neighbors might want. That doesn't seem workable to me.
Believe me, I understand your desire for less government and more personal liberty. I don't think you're going to get any of that by reliance upon ugly memories of state secession or by an individual's right to leave without really leaving.
No, I'm more or less retired now and I'm not going to bore you with the details of some of the things that I have done.
Preferably before they started winging shots....
I am coming to love it less and less with each passing year. I love what was good and wholesome about it, but it has been evolving into something Nazi-ish, and therefore becoming more and more abhorrent.
Those that have not been noticing the changes might still be happy with and love their country, but those of us that have been seeing the changes are beginning to have trouble recognizing this nation as one worthy of love.
Things aren't nearly as bad as you make them out to be.
DiogenesLamp: "That is factually wrong on the face of it."
I will stand corrected on the day that you produce a verified quote from any legitimate Founder who said that secession "at pleasure" was A-OK with him.
But no such quote exists, because that was not their view.
They considered their Union "perpetual" until or unless dissolved by 1) mutual consent, or 2) oppression & usurpations, meaning a major breach of compact.
They did not consider secession "at pleasure" legitimate.
DiogenesLamp: "We received no "mutual consent" from the British, so stop wasting my time with bullsh*t."
Sorry, but it's your mind that's "wasted".
The two situations were totally different.
With the Brits, there was no duly ratified constitution with the 13 colonies.
There was no American representation in Britain's parliament.
British troops were garrisoned in American cities, occupying American homes... etc., etc.
There was a long list of legitimate grievances which the colonists had for years attempted to negotiate, without success.
By stark contrast, in December 1860 the southern Slave-Power still dominated Federal government just as it had for nearly all of the republic's existence.
No wrong was done the South, no breach of compact, and no "mutual consent" for secession.
And so Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secession, provoked war, started war, declared war and sent military aid to the Union state of Missouri -- all before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
That is a succinct description that speaks right to the heart of it. That is exactly what the "appeal to the wickedness of slavery" is.
Didn't they rule Lincoln's actions were justified as a necessity of war? Funny how that works. You win, the Courts back you up. :)
That is the proper context to view any of Lincoln's alleged "trampling", none of which was ever officially rebuked by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
When a President kills 600,000 people, you got to be a pretty gutsy court or congressman to call his action's into question. Wasn't he thinking of arresting Justice Taney?
Those that have not been noticing the changes might still be happy with and love their country, but those of us that have been seeing the changes are beginning to have trouble recognizing this nation as one worthy of love.
You may be ahead of other folks in your feelings about the USA. On the other hand, you may just be out of synch with most people. I do think that you try harder than most to find a rational path to working out differences and I commend you for that.
Always there will be things that we can criticize and I hope that you don't let that fact interfere with either your ability to succeed here in this country or your need to find a little happiness so long as you're still living here.
(If all I wanted was a weaker government, I would have moved to Mexico a long time ago.) ;-)
Most people do not consider the US Constitution in any way inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence.
But regardless, the Constitution replacing the old Articles of Confederation is our current government's Founding Document, and any interpretation of it must begin with Founders' original intent.
Without reference to original intent, you have no basis on which to measure anything except your own personal definitions of words, definitions which can easily turn the Constitution into total mush.
Our Founders' original intent was that disunion must be by mutual consent or material breach of compact, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject.
DiogenesLamp: "I shot down that garbage argument in the last message.
Secondly, you can't override a principle rooted in the power of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" with acts of men."
You shot nothing except your own mouth off, FRiend.
Your arguments are false.
The US Constitution overrides your personal opinions every day, every hour, every minute of the day.
Your personal opinions count for nothing beside the original intent of our Founders' Constitution.
For better or for worse, that's the ratified law -- as modified by subsequent amendments -- on which our republic is based.
And most people would not concede a discrepancy between Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Since the Union was planning on keeping slaves in slavery, giving them votes would have simply given more votes to their masters. The idea of an Australian Ballot hadn't arrived here yet.
Stop pretending the Union wasn't planning on keeping them in slavery during the first two years of the war.
I am not going to let you take credit for something you had no intention of doing in the first place, and only did out of spite when you did finally do the right thing.
The Union was fighting for dominance, not freedom. Get the History correct.
In 1860, just as in 1788, every American understood that slavery was a precondition for Union.
It was part of the deal, without slavery there would be no Union, and that is why until the mid 1850s there had never been an anti-slavery political party.
Republicans were the first specifically anti-slavery party, but no leading Republican in 1860 imagined that slavery could be abolished by Federal government in states where it already existed.
The Republican platform and goal in 1860 was to limit the expansion of slavery into western territories which didn't want it, or into Northern states via the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.
But once the Deep South declared secession and war on the United States, then everything changed.
Now slavery could become -- just as the Brits had done during the Revolutionary War -- a weapon against the Confederacy.
Every slave freed by the Union Army was one less worker for the Confederacy, and one more potential soldier for the Union.
It was a two-fer, a win-win for the Union.
As for Southerners not trusting Lincoln, they should have trusted him much more to obey the Constitution in the face of their rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason.
Then war might be avoided, and slaves freed peacefully.
Funny you should mention such a thing. I have been reading some posts from a guy from 2005 that mentions a group of people doing this very thing. Apparently it was a common practice to seize free blacks in Illinois and take them to the south to be sold into slavery.
Would that be "War crimes" do you think?
The Illinois Legislature, while Abraham Lincoln was a member of it, passed very cruel laws as relating to blacks. It passed laws aimed at preventing them from settling in Illinois, and for treating them horribly when they did.
I said: “If Poland were truly “no threat” to the Soviet Union, then Stalin would have no need to “trample” anything in 1939.”
To which you said: “Two totally different situations and people involved, not comparable in any way.”
I wasn’t serious. The reason I made the post was to see if illogical statements seem as shallow when I make them as when . . . let’s just say, as when others make them.
Dimbulb is more agitated about things that could have been or should be rather than how things were, are, or could be.
PeaRidge: "You are correct.
That diagram only shows the point of collection of the tariff charges.
The only diagram that would have any relevance here would be point of consumer payment or consumption of goods."
My post #590 addresses this issue with the best data I can find.
Around 1859 cotton represented 54% of US exports, tobacco another 4%.
The rest was Northern and western agricultural and manufactured products.
So it's clear the South contributed more than it's "fair share" to total US exports, but it's not clear if the resulting imports were really paid for by Southern cotton growers.
To cite a simple example: suppose a Southern cotton grower buys a machine (i.e., railroad or steamship equipment) manufactured in the North.
Now suppose that with money earned building this machine, the Northern employees go out and buy something imported from Europe, on which they pay a duty to Uncle Sam.
So, who do we say ultimately "paid the duty", those northern employees, or the Southern cotton grower?
Seems to me that for you to claim the cotton grower was somehow wronged because Northerners used some of his money to buy imports, and paid a duty, is a bit... well... far fetched.
Do you disagree? "
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.