Posted on 05/20/2014 8:57:04 AM PDT by Sioux-san
Look, I am tired of the romanticized view of that crime known as the “Civil War.” The facts are well known to anyone who gets beyond school book history and books written by followers of Harry Jaffa, which is where I think all of us started. As for alignment, I’m aligning with the facts, not some myth manufactured to make dictatorship, lawlessness, and war crimes look noble.
Owning slaves has gone on since Biblical times. To the victor, the spoils, including human prisoners. Kill them all or enslave them as chattel - that was the choice. Human trafficking was big biz with the muslims in later times along with warring African tribes (sometimes one and the same). It goes on to this day in many of the more “vibrant” areas of our earth. As more and more of these people immigrate to America, we are seeing the human trafficking and slavery in our big cities.
And no, I don’t consider it Tyranny for owning slaves way back when in America - I just consider it wrong.
Yes, it was complicated. Few people here seem to know that.
Uhh, no. There was little if any mechanization of cotton picking till well into the 20th century. And it was the mechanization of cotton processing via the cotton gin that made slavery wildly profitable and ensured conflict would result.
Very few of the Southerners owned slaves.
Not exactly. About 1/3 of all southern families owned slaves. Percentage of southern families that owned slaves in 1860 varied from 12% to 23% on the Border to 46% in SC and 49% in MS.
Since by definition those families were the more prosperous and therefore influential, they dominated the culture and politics of their states.
http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
So has tyranny.
And no, I don’t consider it Tyranny for owning slaves way back when in America - I just consider it wrong
Why not? If we accept the definition as "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control" the what is slavery if not that? Slaves had no power, had no say, had no rights, had no privileges, had nothing other than continued slavery for themselves and their children. Their entire future was at the whim of their master, whose arbitrary decision could make their life bearable or a living hell. Sounds like tyranny to me.
God bless the modern Christian Conservative South! It is now our last hope.
If you reside below the Mason-Dixon like that is the correct appellation.
Who started the bloody thing?
And really, there are people South of the Mason-Dixon line who wouldn't agree with you.
Not really. When people argue what a war is about, what they're generally discussing is the cause of the war, not its ends or means.
Although very generally one of the major ends of any war is ending whatever its cause was.
I'm always amused by those who talk about whatever the "cause" of the war was, as if those involved came out of the war in 1865 with exactly the same goals and purposes as when the war started in 1861.
If there is one thing a truly existential war, as this one was, is effective at, it's changing those involved.
The attitudes of Lincoln (and most other Unionists) towards slavery were utterly different in 1863 (much less 64 or 65) than they were in 1862.
As can be seen by the passage of the 13th Amendment by 2/3 of the Senate in April, 1864, though failing to get 2/3 in the House that year.
In 1861 it is unlikely 1/3 of Senators would have voted for 13A.
And of course in 1865 it passed both houses and was ratified by the states. IOW, the vast majority of Americans (in Union states) were solidly abolitionist by 1865 at the latest.
Four years earlier, as others have pointed out, abolitionists were wildly unpopular in most of the North.
I’ve seen many, many claims that emancipation was a last-minute desperation measure on the part of Lincoln and the Union that I compiled the following timeline of emancipation actions over the course of the war.
To my mind it shows pretty clearly that emancipation started the month after the war, and was pretty much an ongoing process till December, 1865. 13A, BTW, freed slaves only in KY (~50k) and DE (<200). All other slaves were freed previously, either by state action or the Emancipation Proclamation.
13A did not (mostly) free slaves. What it did was forever end the institution of slavery.
1861
May: General Butler refuses to return three slaves being used to build CSA fortifications to their owner. Concept of “contraband of war” originated.
August: Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.
September: “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations
November: Nathaniel Gordon convicted and sentenced to death in NYC for slave trading (classified as piracy)
1862
February: Nathaniel Gordon executed
March: Washington, DC slaves freed by Congress, with compensation
Return of any escaped slaves to their owners prohibited by Congress
April: Congress offers compensation to any state that emancipates
May: Lincoln publicly entreats border states to free slaves
Slavery prohibited in all territories
July: Lincoln appeals again to the border states
September: Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
1863
January: Final Emancipation Proclamation
Thereafter, slaves freed wherever Union armies conquer
July: WV slaves freed by state action
1864
January: 13th Amendment introduced
March: AR slaves freed by state action
April: 13th Amendment passes Senate
June: Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Law
September: LA slaves freed by state action
November: MD slaves freed by state action
1865
January: MO slaves freed by state action
13th Amendment passes House
February: TN slaves freed by state action
April: Lee surrenders
Slaves freed throughout entire former Confederacy
December: 13th Amendment ratified
Slaves in KY (50,000) and DE (200) freed
Institution of slavery ended.
I can hear the sad violin, poor boy.
Thanks the the Harry Jaffa tip.
I absolutely agree, which is why I find the actions of the southron slavers so deplorable.
The “claims”, as you put it, are scholarly consensus. Even the “Jaffaites” clearly acknowledge that Lincoln and the Republicans viewed the primary issue as keeping the South under the Federal government, while slavery was at most secondary issue. I don’t think that there is much dispute that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation to prevent European governments from recognizing the Confederacy. As you know, the Proclamation didn’t free any slaves. Moreover, encouraging a servile insurrection was part of the war strategy, as it had been a part of the antebellum abolitionist program. Interestingly, the slaves weren’t interested in a Haiti-style uprising.
Still, I found your timeline interesting. So, here is a small detail for you to check: the District of Columbia Emancipation Proclamation was signed April 16, 1862, not in March. You might also note that the Act included $100,000 for sending former slaves to Liberia if they wished to go (I don’t think any took Lincoln up on that, though).
What we need today is an Emancipation Proclamation freeing taxpayers.
Although the South had the legal right to leave, I don’t have any particular affection for the government of the Confederacy. You might, perhaps, treat this as something more serious than sports and actually look at what Lincoln did. If you complain about Obama, you should be outraged at what Lincoln did to trash the Constitution.
The South did in 1861. Badly enough to start a war over.
The poster tossing off verbiage like “myth manufactured to make dictatorship, lawlessness, and war crimes...” and “trash(ing) the Constitution” lectures me to be more serious?
“Seriously”?!
;’)
I don't know why you would say that. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued any hope of British intervention had literally sailed. The Trent Affair was the nail in that coffin. And davis's hopes that "King Cotton" would save his bacon never panned out.
As you know, the Proclamation didn’t free any slaves.
Au contraire, it freed most of the slaves.
Yes, very seriously.
You may know that The Emancipation Proclamation applied to
only southern blacks. Northern slaves were still not free!
And the South was not under control of the US, so it freed no one, technically.
I think you will find you are wrong about the “recognition issue”.
The Proclamation only purported to free slaves in the Confederacy (”states currently in rebellion”). As Richard Hofstadter put it, Lincoln only “freed” the slaves over which he had no power. It left slaves in Maryland and other places where Lincoln actually had the power to free slaves untouched. BTW, I don’t think this means Lincoln didn’t want to end slavery; it is just a reflection of the fact that slavery was a purely secondary concern for his administration during the war. For all the evil Lincoln did, it would have been far better if he had survived the war because he would have pursued less destructive policies than the radical Republicans. That would have benefitted all Americans, but especially blacks and Southerners. I also think that the post-war period would have been less corrupt under Lincoln.
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.