Posted on 05/20/2014 8:57:04 AM PDT by Sioux-san
Not much media coverage, not much fanfare, not much reflection. A war that carved over 600,000 lives from the nation when the nation’s population was just 31 million. To compare, that would equate to a loss of life in today’s population statistics, not to mention limb and injury, of circa 6 million.
We are in the month of May, when 150 years ago Grant crossed the Rapidan to engage Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Lee stood atop Clark’s Mountain and watched this unknown (to the eastern theatre) entity lead a massive army into Lee’s home state. Soon there would be the Wilderness, where forest and brushfires would consume the wounded and dying. Days later, the battle of Spotsylvania ensued, in which hand-to-hand combat would last nearly 12 hours. Trading casualties one for one and rejecting previous prisoner exchange and parole procedures, Grant pushed on, to the left flank. The Battle of the North Anna, then the crossing of the James, and thus into the siege of Petersburg. This was 1864 in the eastern theatre.
Today there is hardly a whisper of the anniversary of these deeds, sacrifices, and destruction. Why?
One can suppose that the weak treatment of history at the alleged higher levels of education in this country contributes to the lack of attention. “It was about slavery; now on to WWI.” The War between the States was so much more complicated than the ABC treatment that academia presents. And as the old saying goes, the more complicated the situation, the more the bloodshed...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Funny enough, we’re now within a couple weeks of the 70th Anniversary of DDay, and I haven’t heard a peep about any commemorations.
So the neglect doesn’t seem to be limited to the Civil War.
You are correct, sir. Though I can't really consider it a serious discrepancy. :)
I will modify my timeline accordingly.
the Act included $100,000 for sending former slaves to Liberia if they wished to go
Actually, it provided $100 to be paid to each ex-slave that agreed to emigrate, to Liberia, Haiti, or wherever.
It also provided up to $300 per slave as compensation to his previous owner. This was the only compensated emancipation law ever passed in the USA.
Interestingly, Lincoln had proposed a compensated emancipation law for DC when he was a congressman back in the 40s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Compensated_Emancipation_Act
The South didn’t go to war to defend slavery. In his First Inaugural Address Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, which had passed the Congress AFTER 7 Southern states had left:
Lincoln stated:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution 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. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Lincoln and his administration, then, were quite willing to make the Union “safe” for slavery forever. If slavery had been the issue for the South, the seven states would have returned because they had been given a complete, crushing win on the issue.
Slavery was a cause of tension among the states, but the South’s concerns over the tariff (which had a long history as a source of strife and had lead SC years earlier to contemplate nullification or leaving the Union (Jackson threatened to invade)and federal corporate welfare for Northern Industry, as well as other federalism concerns, were the main drivers. There was no “cause”, however. Federalism, tariffs, slavery, and other issues were all bound together in a way that led the vast majority of Southerners to want independence.
From Simon Wiesenthal’s website. This organization’s POV, not necessarily “just the facts.”
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394663#20
20. Did the Allies and the people in the Free World know about the events going on in Europe?
Answer: The various steps taken by the Nazis prior to the “Final Solution” were all taken publicly and were, therefore, reported in the press. Foreign correspondents commented on all the major anti-Jewish actions taken by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia prior to World War II. Once the war began, obtaining information became more difficult, but reports, nonetheless, were published regarding the fate of the Jews. Thus, although the Nazis did not publicize the “Final Solution,” less than one year after the systematic murder of the Jews was initiated, details began to filter out to the West. The first report which spoke of a plan for the mass murder of Jews was smuggled out of Poland by the Bund (a Jewish socialist political organization) and reached England in the spring of 1942. The details of this report reached the Allies from Vatican sources as well as from informants in Switzerland and the Polish underground. (Jan Karski, an emissary of the Polish underground, personally met with Franklin Roosevelt and British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden). Eventually, the American Government confirmed the reports to Jewish leaders in late November 1942. They were publicized immediately thereafter. While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.
21. What was the response of the Allies to the persecution of the Jews? Could they have done anything to help?
Answer: The response of the Allies to the persecution and destruction of European Jewry was inadequate. Only in January 1944 was an agency, the War Refugee Board, established for the express purpose of saving the victims of Nazi persecution. Prior to that date, little action was taken. On December 17, 1942, the Allies issued a condemnation of Nazi atrocities against the Jews, but this was the only such declaration made prior to 1944.
Moreover, no attempt was made to call upon the local population in Europe to refrain from assisting the Nazis in their systematic murder of the Jews. Even following the establishment of the War Refugee Board and the initiation of various rescue efforts, the Allies refused to bomb the death camp of Auschwitz and/or the railway lines leading to that camp, despite the fact that Allied bombers were at that time engaged in bombing factories very close to the camp and were well aware of its existence and function.
Other practical measures which were not taken concerned the refugee problem. Tens of thousands of Jews sought to enter the United States, but they were barred from doing so by the stringent American immigration policy. Even the relatively small quotas of visas which existed were often not filled, although the number of applicants was usually many times the number of available places. Conferences held in Evian, France (1938) and Bermuda (1943) to solve the refugee problem did not contribute to a solution. At the former, the countries invited by the United States and Great Britain were told that no country would be asked to change its immigration laws. Moreover, the British agreed to participate only if Palestine were not considered. At Bermuda, the delegates did not deal with the fate of those still in Nazi hands, but rather with those who had already escaped to neutral lands. Practical measures which could have aided in the rescue of Jews included the following:
Permission for temporary admission of refugees
Relaxation of stringent entry requirements
Frequent and unequivocal warnings to Germany and local populations all over Europe that those participating in the annihilation of Jews would be held strictly accountable
Bombing the death camp at Auschwitz
What legal power did he have to free any slaves? At the time Lincoln was operating as a dictator. He was arresting newspaper editors, unlawfully suspending habeas corpus so that his military could show up in the middle of the night and “disappear” people (yes, that happened), and he even deported an Ohio Congressman for opposing his policies. There is also evidence that he contemplated arresting the USC Chief Justice for a ruling against Lincoln’s lawless behavior. So, if Lincoln had wanted, he could have actually freed a lot of slaves, but he didn’t want to. There is one exception, though, the slaves in DC were emancipated.
There is no question that Lincoln wanted slavery to end, but neither before the war, nor during, was he willing to spend much political capital on it.
I wasn’t meaning to suggest that it was anything other than a detail. But, it seemed to me that since you had gone to the trouble of putting the timeline together, which was probably no little work, I might as well offer a small suggestion.
Again, you're making my point. As I said in an earlier post, the issues divining North and South (slavery, tariffs, etc.) were played out primarily between elites in the two regions. Few white Southerners had an economic interest in slave holding, as the plantation aristocracy did.
The bitterness between the two regions arising from the tariff crisis of the 1830s lingered long after their effects were diminished by lowered tariffs. The issues of slavery and of tariffs (which were discriminatory in effect, if not in law, against the South) were considered by many Southern elites (and commoners) to be separate manifestations of a common grievance against the North, namely unilateral abrogation of a compact agreed upon at the Nation's founding that one state would recognize the legislative sovereignty of other states.
As for the declarations of secession by the individual states, some (e.g., South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas) mention slavery in the context of justifying their response to the unilateral abrogation of property rights by some Northern states, and others (e.g., Georgia and Louisiana) make no mention of specific grievances.
“, and because they saw no way for the two races to live together in peace and equality.”
Those exact sentiments can be found in Lincoln’s own words when he met a delegation of blacks at the White House in 1862. A famous meeting although the substance rarely seems to get mentioned.
Lincoln told his black visitors that he believed that blacks should be relocated to Central America for the benefit of both races. Congress appropriated money for this and Lincoln attempted to put his plan into practice.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/address-on-colonization-to-a-deputation-of-negroes/
“Any reasonable person reviewing the history of the 1850s will agree that slavery was at the root of the hostility between the sections.”
I think the evidence shows that Henry Clay’s (Lincoln’s idol) “American System” and its implementation had far more to do with the matter than slavery. Most Northerners only cared about slavery in the sense that they didn’t want slavery in their states because they didn’t want blacks in their states, which is why Northern states actually passed laws against even free blacks entering their states.
I certainly agree that slavery was in the mix, and the abolitionists, though small in number, were very articulate and had the means to disseminate their views widely.
You obviously have a serious interest in this topic and know quite a lot. You might enjoy reading Otto Scott’s “The Secret Six” (about the abolitionist backers of John Brown), DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln”, and Charles Adams’ “Those Dirty Rotten Taxes” (tax lawyer and historian looking at the role taxation has played in civil unrest in the US). I’m sure any of them would be inexpensive at ABEbooks.com, and they would provide some additional food for thought.
Thanx
Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes
~Abraham Lincoln
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/address-on-colonization-to-a-deputation-of-negroes/
“August 14, 1862
This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House.
They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration.
E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them.
Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where?
Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.
Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.
In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose....”
These arguments about the “causes” of the War tend to go in circles.
Secession was much like a divorce. The “cause” is that the two mates have grown to hate and despise each other. Unwinding the “real causes” under that hatred is not at all easy, and is more or less irrelevant anyway.
The actual demolition of the Democratic Party by southerners, which ensured Lincoln’s election, was not over the issue of whether slavery would be protected in the states. Even the Republican Party recognized it had no right to interfere within a state. The precipitating issue in the destruction of the united Democratic Party was a southern demand that a Federal Slave Code be passed, enforcing slavery in all territories.
IOW, contrary to southern mythology since the war, the issue was one of the South demanding expansion of federal power, not of resisting its expansion.
When northern Democrats balked, southerners walked out. Twice.
So the Corwin Amendment merely made explicit what almost everybody assumed at the time was already in the Constitution. It studiously avoided the issue of slavery in territories, the actual issue in the 1860 campaign.
Lincoln openly and strenuously opposed any regression on the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories.
As so often, the best explanation of the issue was from Lincoln.
“You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.”
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Letter to Alexander H. Stephens” (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
Stephens, in February made the CSA veep, had been a friend of Lincoln when they served together in the House in the 40s.
In March the new veep made his famous Cornerstone Speech, in which he essentially agrees with Lincoln’s statement above.
Well, if you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation, it says right there: " by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion"
So, if Lincoln had wanted, he could have actually freed a lot of slaves, but he didn’t want to.
I always find you Lost Causers funny when you accuse Lincoln of being a dictator, then complain that he wasn't more dictatorial.
There is no question that Lincoln wanted slavery to end, but neither before the war, nor during, was he willing to spend much political capital on it.
And yet, somehow, at the war's end the slaves were free.
I certainly agree with you on this. There was a great divide between the elites and the common folks in both the North and the South regarding justifications for fighting the war. And many memoirs of soldiers in every war reveal that their foremost concern is the safety and well-being of their comrades-in-arms, not some abstract ideology or moral cause.
Interestingly, there were more free blacks residing in the South in 1860 than in the North. Of course, almost all of the blacks in the North were free, and only about 7 percent in the South were free. Any the vast majority of newly free blacks in the South after 1865 remained there, many continuing to work for their former masters as wage labor.
Ah, the Corwin Amendment. The south rejected it because it wouldn't guarantee slavery in the territories, which was the platform Lincoln was elected on. Lincoln, in turn, rejected the Crittenden Compromise, which was basically the same except that it guaranteed slavery in the territories.
And yet, just a few weeks before his assassination, he was talking about giving blacks the vote. It’s safe to say his views evolved over the course of the war.
Well, if you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation, it says right there: “ by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion”
An Obamaesque reading of the Constitution. The point that Lincoln was a dictator isn’t original with “Lost Causers” (which epithet shows you really don’t want to think). It is a point that was made during Lincoln’s administration, after, and later by NEW DEAL (i.e. liberal) historians such as Clinton Rossiter.
And, just to help you out, nothing I wrote was a complaint that Lincoln didn’t “free” more slaves. It was an accurate observation that where he had the power to actually set slaves free, he didn’t (with the exception of DC).Lincoln opposed slavery, but it was a ways down his list of priorities. He also wanted to send blacks back to Africa (the DC emancipation had money in it allocated for that, and sending black back to Africa was always something Lincoln favored.
Actually most were sharecroppers. And a generation or two later they would flee the south by the millions.
Which brings us back to the original question of what power he had to set the slaves free in areas not in rebellion. Lincoln's view can be seen in the lines you quoted above about the Corwin Amendment: "“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution 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. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Lincoln didn't think he had the constitutional authority to end slavery in areas not in rebellion. That's why he pushed for the 13th Amendment.
Thanks for posting.
Read the whole thing. I think that at the time every word he said was indisputably true. Arguably, much of it is still true today.
The relevant issue is that when Lincoln discovered a general absence of enthusiasm among black Americans for being “colonized,” the issue was dropped. The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, does not mention it.
Lincoln and the government actually endorsed and partially funded one attempt to “colonize” an island off the coast of Haiti with freedmen. Didn’t turn out well.
Ran across a fascinating article on the subject, by a descendant of the promoter.
http://thompsongenealogy.com/2011/12/bernard-kock-colonized-cow-island-with-freed-slaves/
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.