Kennedy Lied, People Died-and the Media Covered it Up

bookmark

Really? That's more or less what he did to pass the current 13th amendment. (Through the Senate anyway) Well, hand waving along with bribes, threats and coercion of Southern states by use of the Army, but yeah, he more or less singlehandedly amended the Constitution.

More sloppy thinking by Diogenes. Lincoln played a major role in the abolition amendment, but no, he didn't do it all by himself. He did fight for that amendment, and it's not likely he would have fought very hard for the Corwin Amendment. Notice what Lincoln said 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.

Not exactly fighting words, or an indication that Lincoln really believed in and would fight for such an amendment.

That makes no sense in light of Lincoln's efforts to protect slavery by amending the constitution. Even if you are correct that 3/4ths of the states wouldn't ratify it, it still speaks to Lincolns' intent.

The Corwin Amendment was something Lincoln gave half-hearted support to in order to stop or turn back the secessionist tide and prevent war. It wasn't an expression of his deepest beliefs and it wasn't taken seriously by the secessionists.

You cannot rationally claim the war was about ending something the very man who launched the war was trying to further protect just a month earlier.

I never said the war was fought to end slavery. I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.

Force has been the justification and imprimatur of virtually every government and empire since day #1. Emphasize even the phrase, “Full force (of the law).” Whether it is right or wrong tends to depend upon your point of view over what is being “forced.”

As for how long it would’ve taken for enough people in the South to decide ending slavery was preferable, it’s hard to say for certain. There was already outside pressure, of course. The U.K. was supposedly standing ready to help the CSA, but only if they got rid of slavery at once. Here again, they could’ve had their country independent of the USA over this one thing, but that was a no-go. Another example of why the CSA was too much an amateur hour in the realm of nation creation.

Setting that aside for a moment, even if slavery were abolished by their own accord within a 20-50 year period, it’s almost certain that the CSA would’ve still kept ex-slaves in a second class status. Enfranchisement en masse ? No way. It would’ve been a great deal like the post-Reconstruction to 1960s Jim Crow era stuff, they’d have either had the choice to leave the CSA for the USA (probably risk getting killed crossing a VERY heavily fortified border along the Ohio River or inland, had the southern counties of IL-IN-OH seceded) or agreeing to an odious sharecropping arrangement, which was de facto slavery (or such as how some mining companies exploited their workers by not even paying them cash, but in scrip, and only able to redeem them at their ludicrously expensive company stores - a de facto version of White slavery, usually of newly arrived European immigrants).

So, again, this was a raw deal almost any way you slice it, at least for Blacks (and Native Indians who would’ve also been added to the mix via CSA annexations).

But to answer your question, was the war worth it in the end ? That it would lead to a massive Federal leviathan ? Absolutely not. If you were a slaveholder who saw his property destroyed ? No way. But if you were a slave in the Deep South who gained his freedom and (albeit briefly) enfranchisement ? The answer is self-evident. They and their ancestors had been waiting since slavery was enshrined in the old colonies for that day to come.

Not exactly fighting words, or an indication that Lincoln really believed in and would fight for such an amendment.

Acquiescence to a pro-slavery amendment pretty much contradicts the theory that "Slavery is so evil we must launch a massive war to stop it!"

Lincoln's position was "If you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery", which makes it sound very much like the continuation of Slavery was not a bone of contention for the USA, therefore it is deceitful to claim the war was fought over it.

If Slavery was not the bone over which the two sides fought, then what was? What was the sole non negotiable for Lincoln? It was economic independence. That is the one thing he would never allow.

I said slavery was a cause of the war -- the cause in different ways, some indirect and some quite deep.

How can it be the cause of the war when it was offered up on a silver platter by Lincoln a month before the war started? As Charles Dickens noted at the time. "Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North." (and he wasn't writing to the public, but was instead writing in a private letter to someone else.)

The Truth is that the North would have tolerated slavery in the South for the next several decades, so long as the South remained in the Union. They could not legally dislodge it even if they had tried. There simply wasn't enough anti-slavery states to vote it out.

As for how long it would’ve taken for enough people in the South to decide ending slavery was preferable, it’s hard to say for certain. There was already outside pressure, of course. The U.K. was supposedly standing ready to help the CSA, but only if they got rid of slavery at once. Here again, they could’ve had their country independent of the USA over this one thing, but that was a no-go. Another example of why the CSA was too much an amateur hour in the realm of nation creation.

If they sought independence to gain economic advantage, as I believe they did, then giving away their economic engine to achieve independence completely defeats that purpose altogether.

Setting that aside for a moment, even if slavery were abolished by their own accord within a 20-50 year period, it’s almost certain that the CSA would’ve still kept ex-slaves in a second class status.

As did the rest of the nation for most of the subsequent history.

or agreeing to an odious sharecropping arrangement, which was de facto slavery (or such as how some mining companies exploited their workers by not even paying them cash, but in scrip, and only able to redeem them at their ludicrously expensive company stores - a de facto version of White slavery, usually of newly arrived European immigrants).

Interesting that you say this, because quite a few people have noticed the North's treatment of Immigrants, Coal Miners and Factory workers was not greatly different from that of Slavery.

So, again, this was a raw deal almost any way you slice it, at least for Blacks (and Native Indians who would’ve also been added to the mix via CSA annexations).

That was going to be baked into the USA cake no matter how it was sliced.

No way. But if you were a slave in the Deep South who gained his freedom and (albeit briefly) enfranchisement ? The answer is self-evident

No doubt, but they comprised about 13% of the population, and we should look at the whole people, not just a part. Some Northern men might have felt sympathy for these people, but would the average Northern man want to have sacrificed his Father, his brother or his Son for no better result than to improve the lot of people he mostly hated anyway? Is another 40 years labor for people you hate worth the bloodshed of your own family?

What did the Northern man get for his sacrifice? Potential Competition for his labor?

Of course this largely expanded labor pool did benefit one particular group of people. More or less the same class of people who today keep calling for more and more immigration to drive down labor costs.

Lincoln's position was "If you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery", which makes it sound very much like the continuation of Slavery was not a bone of contention for the USA, therefore it is deceitful to claim the war was fought over it.

What was the country arguing about throughout the 1850s? The expansion of slavery.

What did secessionists fear most? The extinction of slavery.

Slaveowners knew that the election of a Republican candidate who ran on a free soil platform and didn't get any votes in most of the slave states would mean the eventual end of slavery. They did not trust any concessions Republicans would make. And Northerners were getting tired of making concessions.

As Charles Dickens noted at the time. "Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North." (and he wasn't writing to the public, but was instead writing in a private letter to someone else.)

What's next for you? Citing Ezra Pound's understanding of what started the Second World War? Creative writers aren't the people we usually go to when we want to understand history and politics.

The Truth is that the North would have tolerated slavery in the South for the next several decades, so long as the South remained in the Union. They could not legally dislodge it even if they had tried. There simply wasn't enough anti-slavery states to vote it out.

That's certainly possible, maybe even likely. But slave owners feared that slavery was threatened and under attack. They believed slavery would be safer outside the union and their own power would be greater in a country of their own.

Slaveowners knew that the election of a Republican candidate who ran on a free soil platform and didn't get any votes in most of the slave states would mean the eventual end of slavery.

And how did they know this? I've run the numbers several times. Let's see. 11 Confederate states, would require a Union of 44 states to outvote them. 33 in favor of Abolition needed to override the 11 opposed.

Couldn't have a Union of 44 states until 1896 at the earliest. Add to the "no" vote, the five Union slave states, and it couldn't be done at all. (Would require a Union of 64 states.)

So what you are telling me is they couldn't count to 44?

That's certainly possible, maybe even likely.

It is a virtual certainty. You could not override the "no" vote of the 11 confederate states along with the "no" vote of the five Union slave states. It couldn't be done.

Add to this Lincoln's offer of the Corwin Amendment, and you couldn't even attempt to create an amendment to ban slavery. So the truth that most Union apologists absolutely refuse to face is that eliminating Slavery was effectively impossible by any "legal" means at their disposal. The Union would have continued being a slave holding Union, and so it is extremely deceitful to claim they were fighting for something that was legally impossible within the constraints of the Union.

The Union wasn't fighting to stop slavery. The Union was fighting to stop the Southern states from being independent of Northern economic Control.

You claim to believe that the slave states were on the verge of becoming some economic superpower, yet you don't believe that they thought that way themselves -- that they wanted to expand slavery, and felt that it was their right, and resented and attacked any attempt to block the expansion of slavery into the territories?

Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward). They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession. They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.

What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.

You didn't need a constitutional amendment to make things hot for the slaveowners -- not as they saw it themselves, anyway. Southern Democrats had been an important power in US government before Lincoln. They knew how to wield power and the knew what it would be like if they lost power to non-slaveowners and those who weren't sympathetic to the interests and wishes of slaveowners.

You claim to believe that the slave states were on the verge of becoming some economic superpower, yet you don't believe that they thought that way themselves -- that they wanted to expand slavery, and felt that it was their right, and resented and attacked any attempt to block the expansion of slavery into the territories?

Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward). They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession. They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.

What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.

You didn't need a constitutional amendment to make things hot for the slaveowners -- not as they saw it themselves, anyway. Southern Democrats had been an important power in US government before Lincoln. They knew how to wield power and the knew what it would be like if they lost power to non-slaveowners and those who weren't sympathetic to the interests and wishes of slaveowners.

One major Civil War writer did an essay in a group of essays I read called “The Confederacy: Died of Democracy”

You claim to believe that the slave states were on the verge of becoming some economic superpower, yet you don't believe that they thought that way themselves

What did I say that left you with that impression? It sounds like nothing I said. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the existing powers in the South realized what would happen if they gained independence and could trade directly with Europe. You'd have to be a fool not to see it. Even the Northern Newspapers were lamenting the shift in economic fortunes that would occur.

Slaveowners saw the slave system as a success. They felt it should be - deserved to be - spread westward (and southwestward).

So now *you* are claiming to know what the Southerners were thinking? I surmise that their position was that this constitutionally legal (and constitutionally protected) institution cannot legitimately be restricted, which is a legal argument that actually makes more sense then the one put forth in it's place; That congress has the power to block a legal practice protected by the Constitution.

I may not agree with a law, but i'm not going to lie about what it's purpose or intent is.

They saw that Republican majorities in Congress would block that expansion, and that was one reason why they wanted secession.

Slavery was not going to spread westward. I've posted the maps of cotton growing in modern times, and there was no practical means of making cotton or tobacco plantations west of where they already existed. All of this talk about "slavery spreading westward" was just a political con job to get more states into the New York led coalition of power. Did you know the "Free Soil" party was headquartered in New York? Funny that.

They also understood that there were other ways - short of constitutional amendments - that a Republican government could make life harder for slaveowners.

Similar to another racially obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President.

.

What would the courts look like after years of Republicans in the White House? What would happen to gag rules in Congress and bans on sending abolitionist literature through the mails? What would happen to slavery in the District of Columbia? Republican control of Congress and the White House could mean that compensated abolition plans would be discussed and perhaps even passed.

So basically you are saying that such a government would do everything within it's power to deliberately undermine their interests? So their concerns were in fact reasonable in your opinion?