Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809

VA Viper ^ | 02/11/2018 | Harpygoddess

[harpygoddess]

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.

~ Lincoln

February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.

[Bull Snipe]

In the Confederacy, all it took to keep out of the meat grinder was to own 20 slaves.

[Bulwyf]

The whole world was industrializing. Your numbers for 1860 may be accurate, I don’t have time right now to verify, but how many years down the road til they caught up to the way things were in western Europe and Canada etc?

[Bull Snipe]

As long as the South was the prime supplier of cotton to the spinning mills in Europe and the US, there was little pressure to shift from an agricultural based economy to one based on manufacturing. IMO,had the war not occurred, cotton would have remained king for at least a couple of more decades.

[Bulwyf]

I’m not saying it would of shifted away from agriculture, I’m saying machines would of taken over agricultural, like it did everywhere else.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the Confederacy, all it took to keep out of the meat grinder was to own 20 slaves.

I can think of a couple of valid reasons why this makes a sort of sense.

Firstly, 20 or more slaves could be a problem if the person who is responsible for them is not around to keep a problem from starting. The Southerners were deathly afraid of a slave revolt, and so I can see where they would be greatly concerned about a large number of slaves in one place without supervision.

Secondly, presumably someone with 20 or more slaves is providing services for the war effort, and in terms of support, they may have been regarded as more valuable where they were, than any service they could render as infantry.

I am reminded of the movie "The General" in which they refused to enlist a train engineer because his expertise in keeping his engine running was regarded as more valuable to the war effort than would be his service as a rifleman.

So strictly from an practical perspective, this deferral makes a lot more sense than some rich guy paying $300.00 to get out of the fighting.

[DiogenesLamp]

The available money in the South went into cotton not industrialization or manufacturing.

It is unrealistic to believe that it would always remain so. With the money that was currently being siphoned off by New York going into the Southern economy, other industries would have eventually flowered. Indeed, newspaper accounts of the time immediately following secession detail a massive building boom in Charleston, with every hotel room filled and people leasing rooms in their homes to all the people who came there to take advantage of the new economic situation.

Warehouse space could not be found, and teams of construction workers were hurriedly building more.

They would have eventually ran out of further prospects for more cotton/tobacco production, and would have been forced to invest in other industries or let the money just sit in safes.

The extra money was going to drive investment. Their own ship building industry (Charleston used to build ships.) would have been revived.

The problem that the North East had with the South wasn't that they had slaves, it was that those slaves were no longer working to fill the pockets of powerful people living in the North East. (and Washington.)

[Bull Snipe]

The first reliable and effective cotton picking machine was not invented until the 1920. It picked as much cotton in 1 day as could be picked by 40 men.

[Bull Snipe]

Don’t disagree on that point. At some time in the future, the soil would no longer support the volume of cotton production. Other sources of cotton were being developed in India, Egypt and Brazil. These sources would have competed with Southern cotton for the European business. The cotton economy was about a large as it was going to get in 1860. Whether the South would have become a manufacturing power house in a few years, is speculative. Lacking local sources of anthracite, iron ore and other raw material would have slowed the process. Very little inclination for skilled labor to move South because in all skilled trades, the worker had to compete against the slave. Almost every manufacturing operation in the South employed slave labor to some extent. At Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, slaves made up 50% of the work force. Not only were slaves used for general labor, but they were skilled pattern makers, foundry men, millwrights, machinists etc. Throughout the South, slaves were employed as mason, carpenters, blacksmiths, cart wrights etc. Very difficult for a skilled tradesman to compete against slave labor in those trades. That to may have changed over time, but it would have a long time, IMO.

[Bull Snipe]

Under Confederate draft laws, an individual could hire a substitute to take his place. Train engineers were one of the trades exempt from the draft.

[Bull Snipe]

“The Constitution does that.” only in the case of a escaped slave. The territorial law can prevent you from residing in the territory and owning a slave in that territory.

“How are you going to free a slave when the constitution specifically says you can’t pass a law to do it?” States are free to pass law outlawing the ownership of slaves in that state. The Supreme Court acknowledges that right. That means a person residing in that state cannot legally own a slave. These laws have nothing to do with “freeing” slaves, they prevent ownership in the first place.

“Let’s try a thought experiment.” The owner of the slave can be jailed for bringing that slave into a territory where ownership of a slave is against the law.

“It still does nothing about non residents from states that hold a slave in bondage.” As long as they do so outside of the states boundaries. Once they bring a slave into a free state they may be arrested for violating state law. This is the primary reason that the owners of escaped slaves would not appear personally in a free state to claim the slave. They would send an agent. That agent was not the owner of the slave, so he did not violate the state law against owning a slave in the state. The State was required by the Fugitive Slave Act to turn the slave over to the agent for transportation back to the owner. Another way to circumvent a state law against ownership of a slave was to pay him or her, while in that state. Thomas Jefferson did this to skirt French laws against slave ownership in France.

[DoodleDawg]

God. It says so right in the document.

LOL! Looks like He didn't come down on your side during the rebellion. Maybe you missed his meaning?

I'm going to correct you on a couple of points. They weren't rebels, and Lincoln initiated the war by sending a war fleet to attack them.

Yes, they were rebels. No, Lincoln did not start the war.

You have a funny way of looking at a fight where one side has a four to one advantage over the other just in people, let alone in material and logistics.

How much of an advantage did Great Britain have over the colonies?

[Bulwyf]

Well, still worth the wait to save hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to prevent the consolidation of power in DC. That war was the beginning of the end.

Progressives have been at it for a long time under a variety of names, but their nefarious goals have always been the same.

[Bull Snipe]

“That war was the beginning of the end.” the end of what?

[Bulwyf]

That brought us to today and the situation we’re in.

[Bull Snipe]

what is the situation we’re in?

[Bulwyf]

*facepalm*

I could write a book about that, but I don’t have the time.

It would require a long conversation to explain.

[rockrr]

History shows that the northern interests were amenable to waiting. History also shows that the southern slavers were not.

If you wish to point fingers of blame for the precipitation of warfare, of conflict, of death and destruction in the 1860’s you need look no further than the southern slavers. They are at the root of all the misery that came after their hissy fit at losing an election.

Slavery was ending in the civilized world long before tensions spilled over in the United States. Imagine if one of these slavocrats had picked up a paper - oh, anytime between 1772 with Lord Mansfield’s judgement in the Somersett’s case, or 1793 with Canada’s Act Against Slavery, and 1807 and British Parliament’s Slave Trade Act of 1807 they would have seen that slavery was dying - and the smart thing to do was to get out while the getting was good.

Sure, it hadn’t been abolished absolutely or in toto, but the movement was undeniably in that direction. Imagine now, if you will, that the more responsible among those slavocrats had recognized, understood, and appreciated that the arc of history was not in their favor. Imagine if at least one of them had said, “Damn, the tide has turned against us!”

The aggregation and consolidation of power was there - but it was at the hands of the slavers. Your beef isn’t with the unionists - it’s with jeff davis. He was the architect of misery and destruction.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not only were slaves used for general labor, but they were skilled pattern makers, foundry men, millwrights, machinists etc. Throughout the South, slaves were employed as mason, carpenters, blacksmiths, cart wrights etc.

Which was exactly the situation in Europe regarding serfs during the Middle Ages. Eventually the land Lords realized that a serf produced many more goods if he worked for himself than he would if someone constantly compelled him to work. This is when a freedom movement occurred all across Europe.

This history is mentioned in some detail in the first chapter of this 1860 book.

You can tell it is a product of it's era, but the man (New Yorker Thomas Prentice Kettell) puts forth an Interesting way of looking at things.

I have little doubt his view was how a lot of people of that era saw things.

[DiogenesLamp]

Under Confederate draft laws, an individual could hire a substitute to take his place.

If he could find one, and if he could come to some sort of a financial agreement about it.

[DoodleDawg]

Well, still worth the wait to save hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to prevent the consolidation of power in DC. That war was the beginning of the end.

I'm sure those held in slavery for another 70 years might have mixed feelings about that.