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 ...
You will note that the link that didn't work, the one I had to repost, referred to a link in post 171. That link, which you characterized as a bibliography, was a reference to Northern interests (in particular New York which did the great bulk on the import export business) skimming off nearly 40 percent of the cotton revenue. My link led you to page 148, the page that I had just referenced for the 40 percent figure.
My 40 percent comment was in response to your argument that the British might make an independent South a colony. The North was already treating the South as a colony, skimming off money from the Southern cotton trade as I pointed out. By becoming independent, the South would get out from under the oppressive Northern interests and immediately have cheaper imports from overseas. Northern manufacturers would have to compete on an equal basis with overseas imports for the Southern market.
[you]: So what does that have to do with the London Times in 1863?
I was responding to your argument that the London Spectator supported the business class. You strangely likened them (the London Spectator and the business class) to the New York Times and Obama. I couldn't make the connection.
NT Times... London Times... 150 years difference... textiles --- corrupt government... big money... what's the freaking difference?
I'm still having trouble understanding your argument. The New York Times is losing money [Link]. Apparently though, you and I both depreciate corrupt government. On that we agree.
Sorry about your friend. I remember listening to WWII news on the radio when I was a child. I thought a high, noisy plane going overhead at that time was a buzz bomb that I'd heard about on the radio. It was buzzing, or so I thought. Scared me.
My Dad volunteered when the Japanese sank the Houston, but they wouldn't take him because of his flat feet and poor eyesight. So, he went back to college, finished his chemical engineering degree, and worked in a Texas refinery that made aviation fuel for the war. He also volunteered for night watch duty in the harbor to protect the refinery. Tough times.
Good night, Ditto.
Winik continued:
"In some respects, the Congress was not unfair when it remarked that the Proclamation added little to what it had already done with the Confiscation Act. But in the final analysis, these criticisms miss their mark: the Emancipation Proclamation was the most revolutionary document in the country's history since the Declaration of Independence; it truly began the end of slavery, in the North and the South. The psychological impact of the proclamation cannot be underestimated; Lincoln, in a masterful stroke, had become a personal emblem of freedom, and the Emancipation Proclamation was its parchment. As a war act, it was a stunning measure, imbuing the Northern war effort with a larger moral purpose without overshooting its mark. And for approximately 180,000 blacks - mostly slaves - it was nothing short of a miracle. They would go in to serve valiantly in the Union army."
When Winston Churchill, speaking on the victory at el Alamein, said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning" nobody dismissed him by saying the German troops still remained in Egypt and Libya. Lincoln's proclamation was not the end of slavery in either the North or the South. But it was most definitely the beginning of the end. A line had been drawn that could not be crossed again. The South could never end its rebellion on the terms of keeping the status quo; their slaves weren't slaves anymore. It definitely set the stage for the next logical step, the 13th Amendment and did much to remove possible opposition to its passage. Those who say that the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing of substance take a very short-sighted viewpoint. The Emancipation began the process of ridding the U.S. of the scourge of slavery, it kept the European powers from joining the side of the Southern slaveocracy, and it helped bring the rebellion to an early end.
I'm a little confused as to what Herbert is trying to say here. On page 148, after detailing the huge difference between the tariff collections in New York and the Southern ports, he says, "And a massive amount of the exports going out of New York were from Southern plantations." Is he saying that the reason for the tariff collections was because of the export of Southern goods? That doesn't make any sense. Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.
The slaves were freed...but the states were forced to stay...which is the opposite of freedom.
A strange hypocrisy, but a hypocrisy nonetheless.
Slave owners, who bought and sold people like cattle.
It must be because I am arguing with you, and it just appears stupid because you are a moron that thinks there is a difference between "rebelling" and "seceeding."
You DESPERATELY want what the Founders did to be right and proper, but you also DESPERATELY want what the Confederates did to be loathsome and wrong, though they did exactly the same thing as the Founders. You have a cognitive disconnect, and as a result I do not think it is worthwhile to bother arguing with you.
I’m not certain what “Lincoln narrative” you’re referring to but as far as I can see it must be the Lost Cause “Lincoln narrative”.
From day one (or even before!) Lincoln expressed a deep desire to work with the disaffected south. The oft-quoted “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” the Lost Causers mistakenly believe to show an ambivalence on slavery really showed his primary intent - the protection of our nation. Yes he wished to eventually abolish slavery but he demonstrated a willingness to postpone and slow-track the process in order to accommodate a people who didn’t want to be accommodated.
Lincoln’s proposed legislation hit on all cylinders. It would have prohibited the repellent Particular Institution within DC; it would have outlined a positive process towards emancipation for the affected; and it respected the existing slave-holders outside of the jurisdiction. I can see why the southern fire-eaters, who had zero desire to work towards a peaceful resolution blocked it.
I don’t know if you were trying to be deliberately disingenuous about a non-existent Lincoln “fugitive slave act” but IMO you definitely missed the mark on this one.
That you are unable or unwilling to appreciate the difference between secession and rebellion amuses me no end. Seeing as how you have failed to sway a single opinion and failed in each exchange with every other poster why don’t you save yourself further embarrassment and go find a subject that you know something (anything) about.
;-)
“Southern plutocrats launched a war they deliberately provoked after seceding from the Union and a war meant to maintain their slave economy.”
And how was launching a war supposed to help their slave economy? Do you not understand how much like an IDIOT you sound by suggesting that launching a war was beneficial to their "slave economy"? The fact that you have now repeated the same idiot-stupid point is just further evidence that you are not worth discussing this with.
It is pointless to argue with someone who keeps repeating that launching a war in which they were seriously mauled was somehow helpful to maintaining their "slave economy." It wasn't. It wiped out 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.
Do you have a job? Do you work for a living? I can't imagine anyone with your inability to comprehend the meaning of sentences can be a productive member of society. You aren't the stupidest person I have ever argued with, but i'm thinking you are in the top ten. Let me spell it out for you simpleton. Attacking Fort Sumter was what "initiated" of "launched" the war which You somehow think was done because it was beneficial to their "slave economy."
I think you, and your friends that are saying this nonsense are so obsessed with your own certainty, that you will put forth obvious absurdities so long as you can maintain your belief that they were in the wrong, and your "team" was in the right. You aren't an objective Historian, you are a cheerleader for a narrative.
As hypocritical as saying that you're fighting for the freedom to hold a third of your population in bondage?
You can throw the hypocrisy charge at both sides.
Firstly, you are making a tue quoque argument. Secondly, I think your numbers are either false, or falsely reported. My reading of History recalls the circumstance of Irish immigrants being grabbed newly arrived off the ships in American Harbors. No doubt these were listed as "volunteers."
I do not begrudge a nation's right to draft it's citizens to fight in that nation's wars, but to draft immigrants from other nations, to help them fight in a war in which they had no stake? That is just dirty.
Then you agree, people who put the Union and Lincoln on a moral pedestal are misguided hypocrites.
Nuff said.
The Democrats throughout history have caused far more trouble to the nation, but of all the Republicans who have caused serious damage to the Nation, Lincoln must be at the top of the list. It may be that of the two choices available to him at the time, He chose the one that was overall better for the nation, but we should not dismiss the damage he did to Federalism as a result of his actions.
He did establish a defacto dictatorship, and as a result, allowed Wilson to do the same thing about 60 years later. (Woodrow Wilson locked up about 36,000 political prisoners who protested our involvement in World War I.)
When asked about his suspension of constitutional rights, he said:
By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.
Now if Obama comes along and decides that he needs to round up citizens and send them to internment camps (or Prison, as Lincoln did.) we will have Lincoln (plus Wilson and Roosevelt after him) to thank for establishing the precedent that this is an acceptable practice in the United States.
At the risk of repeating myself, Lincoln’s bill required municipal authorities to provide the means to arrest and return fugitive slaves to their owners.
To paraphrase Shakespeare’s famous line about a rose, a fugitive slave law by any other name still smells like a fugitive slave law.
DOCUMENT #16: Letter from Lincoln to the Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, March 29. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLNSIR: 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.
So, as you can see from your own documentation, Lincoln ordered the expedition to go by sea.
Oh My God! That makes all the difference in the World!
No, Seriously, So it went by Sea. I'll acknowledge it as a mistake, but not one salient to the point. I was relying on what my friend had said to me years ago, and not on an actual letter which I only found the other day. The point remains, it was that letter from Lincoln which stimulated the hot head reaction from the Confederates. To the extent that it is relative to the point, it was the letter informing them of the re-supply that elicited their bellicose reaction.
My Friend argued that it was the Civil War equivalent of the EMS dispatch, or the Zimmermann Telegram. (An inflammatory document intended to provoke a hostile response from those to whom it was sent.) He argued that Lincoln was a Genius for conceiving of it, and for getting exactly the effect he wanted from sending it. At least I got you to acknowledge that there WAS such a letter sent. I think we are making progress.
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.
I Stand corrected. I had found research corroborating a Letter from Lincoln regarding a resupply effort. As I live in a land locked state, it never occurs to me that a resupply would be by anything other than overland, and I may have read my own prejudices into the information (which was not the letter) which I had earlier discovered. My friend had mentioned at the time that an effort to supply the Fort by Sea had been dismissed by Lincoln, so the natural assumption was that a different effort would be tried next. I either misunderstood what he had said, or he had misunderstood what he had read, or some of both.
In any case, it does not affect the central point he was making; that Lincoln intentionally triggered the civil war with a clever provocation. If this is true, it means that Lincoln cynically and irresponsibly triggered an event which resulted in the deaths of 620,000 people, and the destruction and devastation of large swaths of populated areas, while leaving a legacy which allowed subsequent rulers to commit other unconstitutional acts.
Lincoln brooded heavily during this time period. He had bouts of severe depression, and the war deaths weighed heavily on him. If he felt guilt for having intentionally triggered the whole thing, it would makes more sense to believe it was because he felt responsible, than to believe he felt he was behaving righteously from beginning to end.
But people are different. His brooding and depression may or may not have meant he felt responsible.
I agree with Winik’s assessment that you quoted. I also agree with Winik’s quote from the London Spectator. Both are correct, IMO. Winik’s continuing words are an assessment of the impact of the Proclamation on the war effort, while the Spectator’s quote is a strictly correct statement about the terms of the Proclamation.
I agree.
You also listed a letter of April 4 from "Abraham Lincoln to General Anderson."
Anderson was not a General but a Major in the U. S. Army.
Yes, I corrected that in subsequent messages. It was General Beauregard and Major Anderson, though Major Anderson had Previously been General Beauregard's instructor. Was in a hurry responding to the flurry of messages.
It was not Lincoln that wrote this, but SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War. Washington, D. C., on April 4, 1861. Reference here
That's odd. My link says this:
DOCUMENT #24: Letter from Lincoln to Major Anderson, dated April 4, sent by regular mail, and arrived at Fort Sumter April 7.
SIR: Your letter of the 1st instant occasions some anxiety to the president. On the information of Captain Fox, he had supposed you could hold out till the 15th instant without any great inconvenience and had prepared an expedition to relieve you before that period.Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself till the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward, and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to provision you, and in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to reinforce you.
You will therefore hold out, if possible, till the arrival of the expedition.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgment, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier under all circumstances.
Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it.
I thought it was odd that Lincoln was referring to himself as "the president" but the mistake, in any case was not mine. The Link says it was a letter from Lincoln, so it is apparently mislabeled as such. I doubt any such letter authorizing capitulation was sent without Lincoln's knowledge, because he was very heavily focused on what to do about Fort Sumter at this time.
You also said:
"Lincoln dispatched a letter to the commander of Fort Sumter informing him that he would soon be attacked by the Confederates, and that he was to take all steps to reduce loss of life, hold the Fort for one day, and then surrender it, which is exactly what happened."
The actual quote makes no mention of an order to "hold the Fort for one day". See here
You are correct. Some of the details are wrong, but the general gist of it isn't. The letter implies the Fort will be attacked, and that in order to save himself and his command, he is authorized to surrender. All in all, not bad for paraphrasing what a friend told me years ago regarding a letter I had never seen prior to Monday. I distinctly recall him saying that line "hold the fort for a day, then surrender", but it appears he read that into what he said.
So, your friend's assertion is not validated by your own quote:
It was in all relevant particulars. The points you have put forth are just quibbles. By Sea, rather than by Land. Major, rather than General. By Lincoln's Secretary of War, rather than by Lincoln Personally. None of your quibbles address the heart of the matter. Did Lincoln cleverly and intentionally start the civil war? Was he deliberately engineering the outcome he got?
I think my friend (Black, with a Masters in History, and an Obsession with Race, Civil Rights, and Slavery) made a pretty good argument that Lincoln did. None of your points really addresses this argument.
For what it's worth, I didn't discuss this topic with him much because I found it disquieting to think that Lincoln, whom I had as much respect for at the time as most people, would intentionally trigger such a horrible conflict because he was trying to be clever. What could you say to someone about the tactics used to Free his people? From his perspective, any and all tactics would have been reasonable. He was my friend, and he was obsessed with racial issues at a time when I was obsessed with the Soviet Missiles pointing at us.
I figured that a Nuclear Armageddon pretty much made other arguments irrelevant, and so I just listened to his passionate arguments on this issue without trying to be contrarian. It was later that I ran into non complimentary articles regarding what Lincoln did, and so began to think less of him.
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.