Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.
The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...
After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Well of course it's jmacusa. And you for that matter. His statement was that the South attacked Fort Sumter to help their slave economy. No matter how you slice it, that is a brain dead stupid/ignorant statement.
Attacking Fort Sumter did the exact OPPOSITE of "helping their slave economy." Unless you can explain how attacking Fort Sumter was helpful to their slave economy, you need to just quit suggesting ridiculous things.
I get it that you really really really wanted the slaveowners to lose, and that you really really really wanted everything to be their fault, but making up sh*t just to blame them for something is pushing irrationality.
Attacking Fort Sumter was NOT HELPFUL to their slave economy, and only some sort of self delusion would enable anyone to say that it was. What would have been helpful to their slave economy was NOT attacking Fort Sumter. Capisce?
The fact remains, that by the end of the Civil War, and before the 13 Amendment was ratified, 3 million slaves were freed because of the EP as Union troops moved through the South.
The common Lost Cause idiot dodge is that Lincoln did not free 'Northern' slaves. The only 'northern' slaves were those in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri (which no one considered Northern States in those days) and Lincoln had no legal ability to free them under the Constitution since those states were not in rebellion. Lincoln did appeal to those states to free their slaves and Missouri and Maryland did as he requested.
But as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, he did have the power to order his commanders to seize enemy property (slaves) in areas in rebellion, and dispose of them as necessary -- i.e. freedom.
It was a brilliant stroke.
To say that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves is a gross untruth. By the end of the civil war, over 3 million were freed with nearly 100,000 of those newly freed slaves serving in the Union Army.
You are going to insist on equating an independence movement with an insurrection. What is the point in bothering to discuss this with you? You see no similarity to what the Colonies did to England, and what the Confederates did with the US, and so as far as you are concerned it was just a bunch of renegade troublemakers that needed to have been shot. I dare say it might not be long before all conservatives are regarded as such by our Federal Masters. And I expect them to have much the same attitude as you. "How dare anyone tell us they don't want our rule!"
Objective you are not. You are not a student of History, you are a cheer leader for your football team, and it doesn't matter what are the facts, you are going to spin them so that your favored side will always win in your mind.
When you develop a serious side, let me know. At that point, you might be worth having a discussion with.
Funny, I thought we fought that war with the British. Canada was part of Britain at that time, or did you forget? Why did we fight that war with the British? It was because they weren't respecting the sovereignty of our citizens. They were pretending that our citizens were THEIR citizens, sort of like pretending our land was still their land, but that may be too much of a complication for you to follow it.
We also fought a war with Mexico in 1848, and came very close to another in 1916, but they were not organized to hold up their end.
Mostly a land grab. Not sure there is any other way to slice it than to say that the U.S. sent troops into Mexico to convince them to let go of their ownership of Texas.
Not a good example to bring up for your position.
Yeah, I think i'm done trying to view history through your distorted lens of it. You can't even get the British/Colonists war right, so it certainly isn't worth listening to you about the Civil war.
You have the advantage of being able to bend the facts to suit your arguments. Were I able to do that, I might think of myself as winning arguments too. Unfortunately for me, I regard facts as objective, not subjective. You may carry on this game without me.
You should write children’s fantasy books. Not for adults, of course.
Why, did it work for you?
I'm an equal opportunity contrarian.
Try reading some history. A hot war, with invasion of British troops and foreign mercenaries, a war with deaths, sacking of cities, imprisonment of opponents, and blockade of ports had been going on for over a year before the Declaration of Independence was issued.
The Declaration didn't cause the war. The war caused the Declaration.
It was a real Revolution, not an unconstitutional secession.
Just pointing out how much of our troubles today stemmed from the actions of Lincoln during these events. If you don't understand how we got into this mess, how are you going to understand what we have to do to get out of this mess?
With the Federal government destroying the value of money and property, i'm wishing there was some way that the Sane States could separate from the Insane States. As it now stands, we shall all go over the financial cliff together. If we go through a financial collapse, I suspect the death toll will make the civil war look like a garden party.
People in California are voting with their feet. What happens when there is no place to which we can run?
Really bad people? You lost me there.
We didn’t secede from the British - we rebelled against their rule. You’re not stupid, why do you persist in acting like you are?
Well of course it isn’t jmacusa so I guess I was right the first time. Your reading comprehension sucks. Here is what jmacusa actually wrote:
“Southern plutocrats launched a war they deliberately provoked after seceding from the Union and a war meant to maintain their slave economy.”
He didn’t say that they attacked Sumter to help their slave economy you dolt. The initiated insurrection and a war against their own country in order to perpetuate their slave-based economy.
Given what you’ve previously said, I don’t think it is worthwhile to take any advice from you regarding History. Given the accuracy you’ve shown so far, I might as well be reading “Lord of the Rings.”
As I have now come to the end of the extant messages, I am going to bid this thread adieu.
Lee’s will from the 1840s is from Rockbridge County, Virginia (not West Virginia); Lee resided in Rockbridge County and served as the president of Washington College (now Washington & Lee University) after the war. Lee ownership of these slaves was known as he paid property taxes on them in the late 1840’s. He apparently inherited them from his mother as they were slaves at the New Kent county plantation.
Only 2% of the Union army were draftees. Over 20% of the Confederate army were draftees.
Here is what the London Spectator thought of it [Source: April 1865 by Jay Winik, page 248 paperback version]:
The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.
Lincoln, while a Congressman, wrote his own fugitive slave law in 1849. It required some governmental authorities to provide means to arrest and return escaped slaves to their owners, but it didn't get passed by Congress. Congress passed a more extensive fugitive slave law the following year. See: Section 5.
The nations troubles are the result of Democrats and their progressive bullsh!t and socialism.
DOCUMENT #16: Letter from Lincoln to the Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, March 29.
SIR: I desire that an expedition, to move by sea, be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for that object.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN
So, as you can see from your own documentation, Lincoln ordered the expedition to go by sea.
Just to make certain and save you the trouble, I did a Google search for Lincoln, Ft. Sumter, supply train, overland and found no evidence of your assertion:
:"...at the time I was doing research I found corroboration for Lincoln having sent a letter to the Confederates informing them of an overground supply train to the Fort."
This is just not true. If you give it some thought, you would realize that the railroads and standard roads were controlled by the states. Any sort of military expedition overland would have been stopped at state borders. Moreover, Ft. Sumter was about two nautical miles from any rail head in Charleston, thus making it impossible to transfer military items.
The man Lincoln put in charge of the resupply was Gustavus Fox. You can see more of him and his efforts here.
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.