Posted on 09/06/2019 8:22:08 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Executive Mansion,
Washington, September 4, 1864.
Eliza P. Gurney.
My esteemed friend.
I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God. I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay.
Your people--the Friends--have had, and are having, a very great trial. On principle, and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they can only practically oppose oppression by war. In this hard dilemma, some have chosen one horn, and some the other. For those appealing to me on conscientious grounds, I have done, and shall do, the best I could and can, in my own conscience, under my oath to the law. That you believe this I doubt not; and believing it, I shall still receive, for our country and myself, your earnest prayers to our Father in heaven.
Your sincere friend
A. Lincoln.
This is the guy that urged passage of the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address.
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
This is the text of the Amendment Lincoln was urging the Congress to pass.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
The Amendment makes slavery permanent, and Lincoln urged that it be passed. Both houses of Congress did in fact pass this amendment and sent it to the States to be ratified. Lincoln included a letter from the White House informing the governors that this amendment had passed congress. Three or four Northern states did in fact ratify this amendment.
just as it stretches present credulity to breaking, that Mr. Trump was not made president by God, historical credulity is smashed by any similar claim that God did not place Mr. Lincoln in the same office.
To say that he “urged passage” is a blatant lie.
Lincoln never favored the removal of slavery where it constitutionally existed;
Lincoln never accepted the spread of slavery to any of the territories;
meaning that Lincoln favored the path that would ultimately doom slavery and both sides knew it. This is why the South freaked out.
It was ALWAYS about the territories, for if a man was free in the territories, Constitutionally he must be free in all other states; and if a slave in the territories, he would eventually be a slave in ALL the states. This is why he insisted you cannot have a “house divided.” He was 100% right.
Quite true.
Burlingame’s superb two volume “Abraham Lincoln: A Life” makes the same point.
I cannot recommend it highly enough.
The “south” has to get past the fact that yes, there were economic elements to the divisions between the states, but were such economic divisions not related to slavery they would likely not have led to the civil war. They want to take slavery out of the civil war, as a major cause, but they can’t.
I have ancestors from Virginia who migrated to Indiana and later Illinois, because to obtain the land they wanted for raising their families in Virginia they had to compete with farmers growing cotton and tobacco with slaves. They did not want to join the slave owners. They were not Quakers but they opposed slavery. So they went west.
A couple generations later their young men would join the regiments formed up in Illinois to join the Union cause. One of them, a lad of only 17, died in the notorious Confederate prison camp at Andersonville. He died in one way by starvation, and in another way by suicide; knowing the guards would shoot him if he crossed a certain line, a line he deliberately crossed. To those involved on both sides, the starving men in the camp and the guards, it was considered an act of mercy.
If you have ever seen the pictures of the living starving people at the end of WWII in German prison camps - nothing but a little skin over the bones - you have an idea of what it was like at Andersonville.
No. I do not submit to attempts to remove slavery from behind the civil war.
To say that he didn't is a blatant lie. To say that he did is at most an exaggeration, but it is only that if all you have to go on is his first inaugural address.
If you know more background details of how the Corwin Amendment came to be passed, you find out Lincoln's fingerprints were all over the D@mned thing.
Do you know who the primary proponent in the Senate was? It was William Seward, who would soon be joining Lincoln's cabinet as Secretary of State. Do you think he and Lincoln had no contact between the election and the inauguration? Seward assured everyone that he could get it through New York, and Corwin assured everyone he could get it through Ohio.
You want it to be a lie, because there is no possible way to paint Lincoln in a good light regarding his support for the Corwin Amendment.
Funny you should mention the Andersonville prison conditions. I’m sure you would love to blame the south, but the blame rests squarely on the Union army’s scorched earth policy on the south. The Union armies cut off all ports, and decimated the south’s food chains and crops. Although the south pleaded for the Union to retrieve their prisoners, they refused to take them. Further, the Union prisoners were given first rights to what food there was, as the soldiers were at least able to forage. Maybe research Union prison camps mistreatment of Confederate prisoners and see the shocking difference in treatment of POWs.
Now as for your folly of the War for Southern Independance being “over slavery”, consider this. On the day Lincoln goaded the south into firing on Fort Sumpter, the Union had 8 slave states to the Confederate’s 7. When Lincoln declared war, 4 of the Union slave states joined the secession, leaving the Union with 4 remaining slave states. Now why would these 4 Union Slave states be fighting the Confederates? Also, Lincoln never freed a slave in his lifetime. His Emancipation Proclamation (you’ve obviously never read it, but you should) was a 100 day war measure, and only freed the slaves in the confederate states. Not in the 4 remaining Union Slave States. And it would be nullified if the Confederates rejoined the Union. That war was about the South maintaining the original constitution, which Lincoln repeatedly spat on. Lincoln is why our country is the despotic empire it is today.
Congratulations. You got virtually nothing right in that.
Yes prison conditions were bad whether in the north or the south, that is true.
Yes, the civl war was over seccession. And what was the background to seccession? It was the continued federal advance of laws to minimize and eventually abolish slavery.
Were slavery not in the background of it all, there would have been no emancipation proclamation, no need for it and no Constitutional admendments that closely followed after the Civil War.
Sad that you feel the need to gloss over the truth. (Cognitive Dissonance, perhaps?) The south never needed to secede to protect slavery. In fact, as the Corwin amendment (as but one of many examples) shows, the south would have had a better shot at maintaining slavery if they would have stayed in the union. The Confederacy also had a 5 year plan to end slavery on their own, were they to be recognized as their own republic.
The south attempted to leave the union in peace, but Lincoln repeatedly instigated them at at Fort Sumpter, until they fell for his ruse and forced the abandonment, with no casualties. Lincoln’s war was over unfair tariffs and the rights of the states. Period. See the Crittenden-Johnson resolution for yet another example. Specifically, the resolution stated that the war was being waged for the reunion of the states, and not to abolish the south’s “peculiar institution” of slavery. The resolution required the Union Government to take no actions against institution of slavery. It was named for Senators John J. Crittenden of Kentucky and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (who was later to become President).
The war was fought not for “overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,” but to “defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.” The war would end when the seceding states returned to the Union, slavery intact. (Plus, you still never read the full text of the worthless Emancipation Proclamation, did you?)
And you seem to have completely ignored that fact that the Union started the war with more slave states than the Confederacy had.
So again, I ask you, what were the FOUR REMAINING UNION SLAVE STATES fighting the Confederate states over?
On the contrary, by the time the Corwin amendment had passed out of the House and Senate the original seven Confederate states had already seceded and had adopted a Constitution that protected slavery to an extent the Corwin amendment didn't come close to matching.
The Confederacy also had a 5 year plan to end slavery on their own, were they to be recognized as their own republic.
This is new to me. Perhaps you can quote from this plan or provide details on its author and how it was going to accomplish its goal? Especially in light of the fact that the Confederate Constitution prohibited any actions to limit slavery.
The south attempted to leave the union in peace, but Lincoln repeatedly instigated them at at Fort Sumpter, until they fell for his ruse and forced the abandonment, with no casualties.
The ever popular "we were so dumb we fell right into Lincoln's trap" excuse. Never gets old.
Lincoln’s war was over unfair tariffs and the rights of the states. Period.
The Southern leaders of the time would have disagreed with you. There are numerous quotes making it clear their motivation was protecting their slave institution.
See the Crittenden-Johnson resolution for yet another example. Specifically, the resolution stated that the war was being waged for the reunion of the states, and not to abolish the south’s “peculiar institution” of slavery.
I don't think anyone who has studied the rebellion to any extent believes that the U.S. fought the war to end slavery. But the Confederacy certainly fought it to protect slavery.
And you seem to have completely ignored that fact that the Union started the war with more slave states than the Confederacy had.
And?
So again, I ask you, what were the FOUR REMAINING UNION SLAVE STATES fighting the Confederate states over?
Preservation of the Union and an end to the Southern rebellion.
“Preservation of the Union and an end to the Southern rebellion.”
Thank you for proving my point. The “Civil War” was fought over the Benjamins. Not slavery. Those 4 Union slave holding states had no worries about losing slavery now, did they? Poof! There goes the matrix....
Here is how Lincoln provoked the war.
And here is the story of the Confederate Emancipation.
https://libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/
And bonus facts for Lincoln apologists;
https://mises.org/library/lincolns-inversion-american-union#ref4
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
Here is how Lincoln provoked the war.
Like I said, the "we were so dumb we fell right into Lincoln's trap" defense. It grows more popular by the day.
Jefferson Davis was, as Livingston suggests, an “enlightened slaveholder.” He was well known as a kind master, even going as far as establishing a trial system on his plantation in Mississippi for punishment rather than resorting to the lash.
By that token the large majority of Southern slave owner where 'enlightened' slave owners. But they were still slave owners. Jefferson Davis didn't free a single slave he owned his entire life. He bought and sold slaves when it was advantageous to him to do so, split families when necessary, and considered them property, nothing more or less.
In 1864, Duncan F. Kenner, perhaps the largest slave holder in the South at the time and representative from Louisiana, approached Davis with a unique proposal. In order to gain the recognition of the British and French governments, something that had eluded the Confederacy since the beginning of the War, Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments that the Confederacy would abolish slavery...in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion.
What clause of the Confederate Constitution gave Davis the power to promise the European nations that? Or was is an elaborate hoax just to get recognition from Europe long after such recognition was possible?
And nowhere does the article confirm the 5 year plan. Where did that come from?
And bonus facts for Lincoln apologists;
https://mises.org/library/lincolns-inversion-american-union#ref4
Most amusing. But I find much if what Mises posts on the Southern rebellion to be very funny.
How did I come to that conclusion?
So again, I ask(ed) you, what were the FOUR REMAINING UNION SLAVE STATES fighting the Confederate states over?
“Preservation of the Union and an end to the Southern rebellion.” Your words.
Are you really that naive to think with all the genocide Lincoln was committing on the native Americans, he suddenly got the warm and fuzzies for black people? Sherman’s march to the sea devastated black civilians as well as white civilians. If you believe that, perhaps you need a shorter bus.
As for the ridiculously insulting “we were so dumb” thing you keep hawking, it’s obvious that you didn’t read the historical background of the events of Fort Sumpter I sent you. Also, keep in mind that the south made numerous attempts at peace with the north, before the war, and even when they were winning. They didn’t just attack out of the blue.
One of the first things the Confederacy did after it was formed was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly relations with the federal government. Lincoln wouldn’t even meet with the delegation, not even informally.
The Confederacy publicly offered to pay the federal government the Southern states’ share of the national debt, to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South, and to allow Northern ships free use of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy also hoped to establish good, extensive trade relations with the United States. But Lincoln refused to even consider any Confederate peace proposals.
As for the rest of your statements (all blatant denials), it’s clear that most Lincoln apologists have severe cognitive dissonance. Even when the very holes in your matrix are exposed.
Congratulations on creating two short sentences that prove only that you’ve got nothing.
You know nothing about the subject and have shown that, so I don't really feel that bad.
Yes. And?
Are you really that naive to think with all the genocide Lincoln was committing on the native Americans, he suddenly got the warm and fuzzies for black people?
"Genocide on native Americans"? Where did that come from?
Sherman’s march to the sea devastated black civilians as well as white civilians.
War is hell.
As for the ridiculously insulting “we were so dumb” thing you keep hawking, it’s obvious that you didn’t read the historical background of the events of Fort Sumpter I sent you.
Actually I did. You're not the first person to claim that Lincoln tricked the Rebs into firing first. I've seen those ridiculous claims before. The article you linked to makes some amazing assumptions and probably gives Lincoln more credit than he deserved for being able to sort out what exactly was going on. The one indisputable fact is that Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government and when it was apparent that Lincoln would resupply the fort rather than allow it to be starved into surrender the Southern forces chose to bombard the fort, thus initiating the war.
Also, keep in mind that the south made numerous attempts at peace with the north, before the war, and even when they were winning.
Another completely false claim.
One of the first things the Confederacy did after it was formed was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly relations with the federal government. Lincoln wouldn’t even meet with the delegation, not even informally.
Of course he wouldn't, no rational person would. They were there to get Lincoln's surrender to their demands, accept the legitimacy of the Southern acts of secession. How can anyone think that Lincoln would immediately give in?
The Confederacy publicly offered to pay the federal government the Southern states’ share of the national debt, to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South, and to allow Northern ships free use of the Mississippi River.
When? The letter that Jefferson Davis sent to Lincoln introducing his delegation made none of those offers. What document did?
As for the rest of your statements (all blatant denials), it’s clear that most Lincoln apologists have severe cognitive dissonance.
And you have clearly swallowed the Confederate Kool-Aid and have done no reading outside of lost cause literature and websites.
But one last question, which you have ignored. What gave Jefferson Davis the power to end slavery as he promised the European powers he would do?
“Preservation of the Union and an end to the Southern rebellion.” Your words.
Yes. And?
And you said it yourself. Your answer contained nothing about slavery. Because it couldn’t. Because slavery was not the cause of the war.
Are you really that naive to think with all the genocide Lincoln was committing on the native Americans, he suddenly got the warm and fuzzies for black people?
“Genocide on native Americans”? Where did that come from?”
You are unaware of the genocide of the native Americans during the Lincoln and Grant administrations???? Lincoln wanted to make America an all white country. Pesky indians were in the way of his railroad masters. Northern whites didn’t want black people around, competing for jobs, which was another reason Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and send black people elsewhere, to another continent. Look up the Illinois negro act of 1853, which Lincoln supported. Try denying that law away.
Sherman’s march to the sea devastated black civilians as well as white civilians.
“War is hell.” And people who commit war crimes go to hell. The mass destruction of property, food supplies, rape, and kidnapping of innocent civilians is well documented. Sherman and Sheridan did the same for the native Americans. All under Lincoln’s directive. Little wonder Hitler admired Lincoln so much.
As for the ridiculously insulting “we were so dumb” thing you keep hawking, it’s obvious that you didn’t read the historical background of the events of Fort Sumpter I sent you.
“Actually I did. You’re not the first person to claim that Lincoln tricked the Rebs into firing first. I’ve seen those ridiculous claims before. The article you linked to makes some amazing assumptions and probably gives Lincoln more credit than he deserved for being able to sort out what exactly was going on. The one indisputable fact is that Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government and when it was apparent that Lincoln would resupply the fort rather than allow it to be starved into surrender the Southern forces chose to bombard the fort, thus initiating the war.”
Facts are facts. And you are in denial.
Also, keep in mind that the south made numerous attempts at peace with the north, before the war, and even when they were winning.
“Another completely false claim.” Prove it.
One of the first things the Confederacy did after it was formed was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly relations with the federal government. Lincoln wouldn’t even meet with the delegation, not even informally.
“Of course he wouldn’t, no rational person would. They were there to get Lincoln’s surrender to their demands, accept the legitimacy of the Southern acts of secession. How can anyone think that Lincoln would immediately give in?”
There is noting illegitimate about throwing off a tyrannical government. We did it during the revolutionary war. Lincoln said as much himself in 1848 during his speech to the house of representatives, when Texas seceded from Mexico because Mexico outlawed slavery. “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. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 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. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.” I guess those tariffs changed his mind.
The Confederacy publicly offered to pay the federal government the Southern states’ share of the national debt, to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South, and to allow Northern ships free use of the Mississippi River.
When? The letter that Jefferson Davis sent to Lincoln introducing his delegation made none of those offers. What document did?
As for the rest of your statements (all blatant denials), it’s clear that most Lincoln apologists have severe cognitive dissonance.
“And you have clearly swallowed the Confederate Kool-Aid and have done no reading outside of lost cause literature and websites.” On the contrary. I have read both sides. Again, facts are facts. Backed up with data. Sorry that doesn’t jibe with your deity of Lincoln worship. (AKA Lincoln Kool-Aid). The Lincoln you worship never existed. He was a two faced liar who favored the railroads, was a white supremacist, spat on the constitution, illegally suspended habeas corpus, illegally started the ‘civil’ war, and turned this country into a despotic empire that dominates smaller countries to steal their assets.
“But one last question, which you have ignored. What gave Jefferson Davis the power to end slavery as he promised the European powers he would do?” Slavery was protected by, but not locked into the Confederate constitution.
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.