We have already established that this was a time when passions were at a fever pitch. Economic systems, like the slavery fueled South were not going to change overnight. My previous post described how the period from 1820 to 1860 was fraught with challenges, with new states coming into the Union,and whether they would be allowed to have slavery or not.
The Constitution had already established that there could no more importation of slaves after 1808. That was a 20 year concession made at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Slavery could not be ended overnight, or in one fell swoop.Nor, did the North desire it to be so. After all, the North did not want to have black people migrate northward. Plus the Federal government got the majority of its operating revenue from the South’s agricultural exports.Those taxes were the major source of government funding before there were corporate and personal income taxes, which would not happen for another 50 years(excluding the Civil War income tax, which was short lived, in the North).
Abraham Lincoln did not really care about the slaves, only about what the solution might be to what everyone realized would be a huge dislocation in the fabric of the nation and how it would operate going forward, should the institution of slavery be abolished. He was an early supporter of the nation of Liberia, to export blacks back to Africa. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it was not for slaves in the North, or in the border states, nor was it even for all of Louisiana. And until the 13th Amendment, it was not even legal for him to do so.
The states in the South saw an overreaching and interfering Federal government and reasoned they should be able to leave the Union the same way they came into it. After all, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence expresses that very thought.
Now as far as Jeff Davis goes, it appears that before the start of the Civil War, there attempts to peacefully negotiate the separation of the Confederacy from the Union, including the payment for Federally owned facilities. Lincoln did refuse that offer, which was made directly by Davis, a former US Senator from Mississippi.
Davis did not what Beauregard to fire upon Sumter, but only agreed when Lincoln moved to resupply the fort against the express wishes of the Confederacy for him not to do so.
Some can argue that was like lighting a fuse in a bomb factory. The result is a known quantity for that action.
When it is said not to push the US around, it can argued that the folks in the South WERE the US, just as much as those in the North.
And of course, war was extremely profitable to those engaged in the supply of weaponry and supplies, on both sides. So there were less than idealistic reasons for some to beat the drums in 1861.
As far as the military defeat of slavery, the ultimate defeat of slavery would have come with mechanization of the agricultural processes starting in the mid 1870s. The economics of the situation would have settled the issue with far less bloodshed than a war. And face it, was slavery really “ended” in 1865? We had apartheid in the South for 100 years after the Civil War, and the Northern powers did not give a whit for the rights of the black man until Lyndon Johnson came along and saw political power to be gained by it.
As for Thomas Jefferson, when he died in 1826, he was found to be in tremendous debt. He did not release his slaves becasue they had nowhere to go. They liked being at Monticello. When Jefferson’s heir released them, they refused to leave as Monticello was their home. They wanted to stay and work the land. That was a microcosm of what faced slaves— the fear of the unknown, and a society that could not and would not be structured to assimilate them.
The North gave a wink and a nod to the South’s Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and a two tiered economic system that stripped the black man of any economic power.
The victor writes the history, and history tells us that Lincoln was a saint. He was a decent fellow, but how was keeping States that already expressed a desire to part, worth a four year war that killed 600,000 men out of a population of 30 million a reasonable trade, for the hundred years that followed?
That is what troubles me. The human cost, then, and since then, was more than man could imagine. So how was it the right course?
That is still a valid question, and one which still animates us today, obviously.
Thank you for sharing your perspectives.
I wonder what Lincoln would have thought of today - where the GDP per capita is 48k and government reponsible for a quarter of it. Or to put it another way, 1/4th of the entire population of the united states dependent upon the government for their existence.
Even in the confederacy it was 60 percent to 40 percent. How much does the current population pay in taxes when you take in all levels of government?
We have the entire nation enslaved for the months of January, February and March.
Are we really so much better?
I'm really sorry, but whenever you see words like those, it should be proof-positive that the person saying them is a complete idiot, who has not the least idea of what he/she is talking about, and has been guzzling down pro-Confederate moon-shine-grade Kool-Aid by the gallons!
There were never any taxes on exports of anything from the United States.
FRiend, you just have to get stuff like that straight in your mind before you go around posting gibberish on these threads.
exit82: "Abraham Lincoln did not really care about the slaves, only about what the solution might be to what everyone realized would be a huge dislocation in the fabric of the nation and how it would operate going forward, should the institution of slavery be abolished."
Oh, dear, where ever did you learn such nonsense?
Of course Lincoln caaaaaaaaaared about slaves -- that's why he opposed slavery, duh.
But before 1861 Lincoln never ever proposed abolishing slavery in the South, he only hoped to prevent its expansion to the North and western territories.
So freedom for slaves came strictly as a result of the Slave Power's declarations of secession followed by starting and declaring war on the United States.
Yes, Lincoln favored freedom for slaves, plus some resolution of claims (40 acres and mule comes to mind, as does voluntary transportation to Africa), but none of that was even possible until after the Confederacy had started and declared war on the United States.
exit82: "The states in the South saw an overreaching and interfering Federal government and reasoned they should be able to leave the Union the same way they came into it."
All states admitted after 1790 were admitted only with approval from Congress.
Had secessionists sought and received Congress' approval for secession -- and negotiated resolutions for various issues -- there would be no war.
Indeed, as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) there could be no Civil War unless secessionists started it.
exit82: "Now as far as Jeff Davis goes, it appears that before the start of the Civil War, there attempts to peacefully negotiate the separation of the Confederacy from the Union, including the payment for Federally owned facilities.
Lincoln did refuse that offer, which was made directly by Davis, a former US Senator from Mississippi."
"Jeff" Davis? Jeffy baby? Your friend you call "Jeff"?
What is that?
Confederate President Jefferson Davis made no such offers -- zero, zip, nada -- to President Lincoln, directly or indirectly.
Nor could Lincoln have considered any such "offer", since that was beyond his Constitutional powers.
Any such offer would have to be made to Congress for negotiations and approval -- a fact which Davis as a recently resigned Senator well knew.
Which is precisely why Davis never did that.
exit82: "Davis did not what Beauregard to fire upon Sumter, but only agreed when Lincoln moved to resupply the fort against the express wishes of the Confederacy for him not to do so."
In fact, Davis ordered Beauregard to prepare for military assault on Fort Sumter before Lincoln had even been inaugurated.
All such actions and threats by the Confederacy were acts of war against the United States, a fact of which Davis was fully aware.
Of course, Davis hoped and expected that Lincoln would immediately surrender Sumter.
When it became clear Lincoln did not intend to surrender, Davis immediately ordered military action against it.
exit82: "When it is said not to push the US around, it can argued that the folks in the South WERE the US, just as much as those in the North."
Except there was no "push" from the Union -- only Lincoln's decision to resupply Federal troops in Federal forts, including Sumter and Pickens.
So Lincoln committed no acts of war before Sumter, but the Confederacy committed a long list of provocations, culminating in its formal Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.
exit82: "And of course, war was extremely profitable to those engaged in the supply of weaponry and supplies, on both sides.
So there were less than idealistic reasons for some to beat the drums in 1861."
I'd call that socialist rubbish which you doubtless picked up from some Communist professor somewhere.
Whatever else you might say about most Unionist and Confederates, they certainly fought for what in their own minds were the highest of ideals.
Why slime either one with a bunch of Communist-style propaganda?
exit82: "As far as the military defeat of slavery, the ultimate defeat of slavery would have come with mechanization of the agricultural processes starting in the mid 1870s.
The economics of the situation would have settled the issue with far less bloodshed than a war."
More rubbish, but certainly essential to pro-Confederate Kool-Aid drinkers.
In fact, the Confederacy made certain that slavery was the cornerstone of its new Constitution, and would eagerly have made every political and military effort necessary to keep slavery strong and profitable.
Under such conditions, there is no reason to think that even late 19th century mechanization would overthrow slavery.
Indeed, just the opposite: there is every reason to believe that slaves would quickly learn to build in factories, operate in fields and maintain in shops every machine of the 19th century -- or of today for that matter.
Any suggestion differently is just racism trying to disguise itself under false assumptions.
exit82: "The victor writes the history, and history tells us that Lincoln was a saint."
I'll start believing that when you can quote me even one reputable history book which says "Lincoln was a saint."
That's rubbish like so much else of your posting here.
exit82: "He was a decent fellow, but how was keeping States that already expressed a desire to part, worth a four year war that killed 600,000 men out of a population of 30 million a reasonable trade, for the hundred years that followed?"
If you absolutely must assign moral blame for those deaths, then all of them, every one, should be blamed on the Deep South Slave Power secessionist leaders, who started and declared war on the United States.
Blaming Lincoln for that war is like blaming Franklin Roosevelt for World War II, or George W for the War on Terror.
At some point you need to put down your Kool-Aid and look at real facts, FRiend.
Receiving the Peace Commissioners and negotiating with them would have meant recognizing the Confederacy, something the US government wasn't ready to do at the time. The secessionist states of the Deep South had already sent Secession Commissioners to the Upper South to stir up rebellion. As the Peace Commissioners were in Washington, Davis was also organizing a War Department and calling for an army. It would take a while to untangle the timeline, but I'm pretty sure Davis had other irons in the fire: most likely he had other, alternative plans in the works and wasn't relying on the Peace Commissioners.
Davis did not what Beauregard to fire upon Sumter, but only agreed when Lincoln moved to resupply the fort against the express wishes of the Confederacy for him not to do so.
So, you go against my "express wishes" and it's war (because it very much is war if Davis attacks the fort)? You're not doing Davis any favors here. The important thing here is how a leader handles a crisis -- an "eyeball to eyeball" situation, like the Cuban Missile Crisis a century later -- and Davis didn't handle his crisis well.
I always assumed that Davis acted to get out in front of the hot-heads in Charleston. There may be some truth in that, but looking at the timeline, I'm not so sure. Beauregard communicated that the fort was low on supplies and could be starved out, but this had no effect on the plans Davis had made.
About the time Davis made his decision, he and his appointees were told by an Alabama politician, "Gentlemen, unless you sprinkle blood in the faces of the people of Alabama, they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days." This message came from Virginia: "Strike a blow! The very moment that blood is shed, Old Virginia will make common cause with her sisters of the South." Who's to say that Davis didn't make his decision based on such advice?
When it is said not to push the US around, it can argued that the folks in the South WERE the US, just as much as those in the North.
I was being a little tongue in cheek with the "Don't push the US" around, but there is some truth in it. Confederate types keep saying how arrogant and overbearing the federal government was and is. Fine, but if Confederate leaders behaved with the same arrogance and haughtiness (as they did) they really can't complain about the federal government's inequities.
More modesty, a greater sense of one's own fallibility would have served Davis well. As it was, he was no improvement on anything one could have objected to in the federal government of the day.
I'm wondering, though, if part of the price for leaving is: you can't say "Hey we are the US too!" if you reject the country and leave it. If that was too high a price to pay, then there was something wrong with secession. What I'm trying to say is that if you're expecting to break an established tie with your country and you think there should be no price whatsoever attached to it, you may not be thinking clearly.
As far as the military defeat of slavery, the ultimate defeat of slavery would have come with mechanization of the agricultural processes starting in the mid 1870s.
Mechanical cotton harvesters didn't come into widespread use until after WWII. Presumably slavery could have been formally abolished before that (maybe around the turn of the century) but something similar to slavery could have endured for decades beyond formal emancipation.
When Jefferson’s heir released them, they refused to leave as Monticello was their home. They wanted to stay and work the land. That was a microcosm of what faced slaves— the fear of the unknown, and a society that could not and would not be structured to assimilate them.
The Hemingses, whom Jefferson freed in his will and who were in some way related to him, made it to Ohio not too long after they were freed. According to the letter of the law, they were required to leave the state or face re-enslavement (though enforcement of the law wasn't uniform).
I don't know when the other slaves were freed. Some were auctioned off to pay Jefferson's debts. Some were rented out by his daughter. So I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. After the Civil War, Monticello was rundown and there were a lot of people hanging about the place, but I don't know if any were descendants of Jefferson's slaves or how many former slaves may have left when they were emancipated or how many people may have drifted there on their way to somewhere else.
To be sure, slavery was a problem. Abolition would have brought more problems. But for many opinion leaders in the South, slavery was a solution. For some it was the best solution available to other problems. To others it was the best solution imaginable: a positive good.
The North gave a wink and a nod to the South’s Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and a two tiered economic system that stripped the black man of any economic power.
So that's the Northerners' fault? Y'all didn't have anything to do with that? Or you needed us forever after you to prevent it?
The victor writes the history, and history tells us that Lincoln was a saint. He was a decent fellow, but how was keeping States that already expressed a desire to part, worth a four year war that killed 600,000 men out of a population of 30 million a reasonable trade, for the hundred years that followed?
That is what troubles me. The human cost, then, and since then, was more than man could imagine.
Nobody seriously says that Lincoln was a saint. And nobody could imagine beforehand what the cost of the war would be. The idea that Lincoln is responsible for all those deaths because he didn't roll over and give the Confederates everything they wanted -- well, it looks pretty childish. It takes two sides to make a war, and it could be argued that the 1861 war was a "war of choice" for Jefferson Davis. The war didn't work out well for Davis, but he certainly had a role in its making.