Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: x

“I have 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.......... In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” Slavery where it existed was OK. Not paying duties and imposts not so much.


23 posted on 02/02/2013 9:26:28 PM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: yadent
Slavery where it existed was OK. Not paying duties and imposts not so much.

There wasn't anything the Republicans could do about slavery in the slave states, and trying to do anything about it would have split the country.

What Lincoln and the Republicans were concerned about was the spread of slavery -- and the break-up of the union. Giving guarantees to slaveowners in the slave states if it would preserve the union was an acceptable policy for them.

How was the federal government's presence felt in 1860? How did most people interact with it? The mails, the courts, the customhouses, maybe the land offices in the West.

Maintaining forts, delivering the mails, collecting import taxes were ways that the federal government could maintain that the union was intact, and work or wait to resolve the situation. So it's not surprising that the collection of import duties, like the delivery of the mails was mentioned in Lincoln's inaugural address.

The idea that "it was all about tariffs" was something that developed after the war when it was clear that support for "slaveowners' rights" wasn't an appealing issue to most people.

But if you really want to say that the Civil War was all about money and power that would apply to both sides. Don't pretend that there weren't strong economic motivations on the secessionist side that were even less legitimate than what you ascribe to Lincoln and the unionists.

24 posted on 02/03/2013 11:38:44 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson