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 ...
“those lives could have been spared if Davis didn’t choose to bombard the fort”
But the war wad not fought to avenge the fort. It was fought on the pretext that the South was insurrectionary. Ft. Sumter did not make them so; declaring I dependence did. Had Cuba, for instance, bombed us out of Guantanamo at any time in the last 100-plus yeats we might have occupied them and made them a state. But the world would realize that wasn’t justified by their attack, but rather an act of pure imperialism. Which is the exact right term for the Civil War.
Wars fought as payback for stolen or damaged property are not wars of conquest. Therefore wars if conquest—as was the Civil War—are not fought as payback for stealing or damaging property. Now, you could say the Confederates shoulda known Lincoln would use Sumter to do what he really wanted, which was to treat confederates as rebels, and therefore blame Jeff Davis for hundreds of thousands of deaths. But that’s a bit like blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
That makes it all the more tragic. It is one thing to fight a costly war for an important principal, but It appears to me that the civil war actually started as a pissing contest over a bone of contention that neither side needed, but couldn't stand the dishonor of not having.
Had the Confederates just ignored it, Fort Sumter would likely have been eventually abandoned by the US. Arrogance was the cause of the Civil War. Not all of the Confederates were that stupid. There were several in prominent positions, that after hearing about the Reinforcement letter begged their colleagues to refrain from undertaking any military response. They pointed out that the Northern States were at peace with the Secession, and the only thing an attack would do would be to stir them up into hatred like a nest of Angry Hornets. They turned out to be exactly right.
He could have. But all those lives could also have been spared if Davis didn't choose to bombard the fort. It is just as valid to blame him for the war, perhaps more so.
Yup. It was a dumb move. Time was on the Confederates side. All they had to do was wait. Pressing their claims to the Fort after years of peace between the USA and the CSA would have strengthened their legitimacy in the eyes of everyone involved. They would have won a waiting game I think.
Actually we broke well over a year before the Declaration of Independence. And the Founding Fathers recognized that they would have to fight for what they wanted. They didn't expect the British just to turn over property that didn't belong to them. Why did Davis?
Probably because he was addressing a Nation that just Broke away from England using the same principal which he was invoking. He naively assumed that a country which was established by that principle, would respect that same principle. Silly bugger he, eh wot? But it remains, attacking the Fort was a bone head move.
I think it started out as a wrist slapping. It ended up being a war of conquest. Neither side thought the other was in it for the long haul, but they kept pissing each other off, and strengthening their resolve. By the time it had been going for awhile, there was so much bloodshed that it had become personal.
They didn't care what started it, they only cared to beat the other side.
“I think it started out as a wrist slapping. It ended up being a war of conquest.”
You are wrong. The North fought from the beginning to force the South back in. They may have thought it would be easy, but nevertheless easy conquest is conquest.
For it to have been a slap on the wrist the North would have fought to be paid back for Sumter with possibly a bit extra for the trouble. Rejoining the u ion would not have played a part. In reality the union was the whole thing and Sumter only used to make the other guys look like they started it. Again, though, the thing the South started was not the war we got. Which was a war of conquest.
ANY STATE OR GROUP OF STATES CAN DISSOLVE THEIR RELATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT ANYTIME AND REFORM THEIR OWN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ANY WAY(IN ANY FORM) THEY CHOOSE. THE CSA PROVED THIS. IT CAN BE DONE QUICKLY, UNDER DURESS AND AT THE SAME TIME MOBILIZING FOR WAR!
The state is the building block of the republic, NOT the Federal.
What if the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, sinking all those ships, but miraculously not killing anyone. Would FDR's response be justified?
Plus, it’s a lie. Not to say that it wasn’t an act of war, but the war we got was not a war you fight to get back at someone tor shelling a tory. It was a war of conquest, not a war of wrist slapping.
So it was an act of war...but not a big enough act of war to justify a war. Is that what you're trying to tell us?
No. In that case, everyone wrote the history. Jeff Davis himself, having some time on his hands, not being able to be trusted with any office of responsibility, wrote two.
Rather, it was the Slave Power that committed insurrection, pretended secession, and as the pretended “Confederacy” declared war on the United States.
It wasn’t rebel property. The fort was built on a shoal, by the United States. The shoal had never been part of South Carolina land.
Fort Ticondaroga was badly situated for defense against land based forces. It was located to interdict southern Lake Champlain (supplemented with a iron and log chain) near the confluence of the river from Lake George. The British took it with minimal bother (Burgoyne’s expedition) by occupying a lowish mountain nearby. The French defended it successfully once (under Montcalm) by leaving the fort and building field fortifications.
At that time reducing a masonry fortress was a textbook exercise: You selected where you wanted the breach, you dug or blasted parallel trenches that could not be enfiladed until you got close enough to pound a breach in the wall. It wasn’t fast, but it was sure. A relief party could arrive and rescue the garrison of the fort, but it couldn’t hold the fort against a siege. Forts could not be held, but served only to delay. Vauban developed them to guard military stores, and to delay enemy forces while other forces were mobilized and trained.
Ft Sumter was admirably placed to prevent digging parallel trenches. There was no South Carolina soil adjacent to Ft. Sumter upon which parallel trenches could be dug. Still, Ft. Sumter could protect a harbor from attack on the water, but it could not be held against a superior land force.
When you hold a revolution, such an act is always extra-legal, and often illegal, unless of course you win.
The 13 colonies met that standard. The slaveocrats did not.
Except the lesson is you can’t. Texas v. White resolved the legal issues, holding that the 1861-1865 pretended secession was of no legal effect, and that putting down the insurrection was correct. Further, it held that money loaned to support the insurrection should not be paid back by the States.
So you are pretty much wrong on all counts. Rather like saying you can rob a bank and shoot a guard with no penalty, and lets just pretend that getting caught, put on trial and executed part doesn’t count.
It depends on whether you mean in the idealistic sense or the practical sense. From a perspective of Principle, the mighty should not impose their will on the weak just because they can. In practice, they cannot seem to help themselves.
Your attempt to equate Ticonderoga with Sumter fails the sniff test. Sumters ownership was never in question right up until the rebels seized it.
By rebels, I assume you mean the Americans who were rebelling against English rule? Totally different from the Confederates rebelling against Union rule, of course.
Although built within the boundary lines of the state of South Carolina it was ceded to the United States government in perpetuity.
It's a shame some knowledgeable lawyer didn't point this out at the time, it could have saved a lot of bloodshed. After all, if they have a legal title to the fort, how can anyone Object to their use of their own property?
It was never legally the property of anyone except the USA.
Well, I think the British Government owned it at some point. Probably for a period longer than the USA had it.
For it to have been a slap on the wrist the North would have fought to be paid back for Sumter with possibly a bit extra for the trouble. Rejoining the u ion would not have played a part. In reality the union was the whole thing and Sumter only used to make the other guys look like they started it. Again, though, the thing the South started was not the war we got. Which was a war of conquest.
That is a naive sort of equality. When a man punches you in the nose, you are seldom content to merely punch him back in the nose. At that point, he has made you mad, and your intent is to beat him down. That is just human nature.
“The Confederates had already taken over many other forts, yet none of these were regarded as a Casus belli.”
I don’t claim to be a ‘Civil War Expert’, my study has been limited to the Western Front, in Indian Territory, Texas & Arkansas. But you are correct. Ft. Smith was taken without a battle April 23rd, 1861 by Arkansas troops and Stand Watie and his Cherokee Braves. Fort Washita was abandoned by Union Forces April 16. As early as Feb 8th, was the seizure of Little Rock Arsenal by State Troops.
I’ve found the Civil War was fought for a lot of ‘local’ reasons. Just as I suppose any war of such a great geographical scale would be.
http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/
I hate to break this to you, but the civil war proved exactly that you cannot do this. It established the principle that the Union is forever, and regardless of how you feel about it, they will force you to remain a part of it whether you like it or not.
The state is the building block of the republic, NOT the Federal.
That may be how it started out, but Lincoln changed that paradigm. The US is like the Hotel California, You can check in anytime you like, but you can never leave.
I HAVE recently seen a suggestion that the Sane states get together and kick out the Insane ones, a sort of Reverse Secession, and i'm okay with that solution, but I doubt any such thing will ever be considered seriously.
“The Civil war was a great Tragedy. We are not shed of it’s consequences yet. A lot of people felt that the bloodshed was the just wages of slavery. Perhaps it could not have been eradicated in any other way, but it seems such a loss to have had it play out the way it did. The Federal legacy from it is now oppressing us today. “
Bears repeating!
In this discussion, Fort Ticondaroga is merely an example of a Fort which could have been held by the British, and it's importance is for nothing more than to illustrate a point. The founders would have likely regarded continuing British occupation of a Fortress on American land as an unacceptable situation, though they would probably have had more sense than to provoke the British into an all out retaliation.
Well since the formula requires a victory, let us forgo any discussion of principle. We should just resign all that flowery talk about the rights of the people to the garbage heap where it belongs. If you have the power to enforce your will, then you are in the right. Eh, but isn't that a bit like slavery?
The 13 colonies met that standard. The slaveocrats did not.
England could have won. They chose not to continue killing their former countrymen. Had an obsessed man sat on the English Throne, the Colonies would have fared as badly as did the Confederates.
You have a rather simplistic view of things. Both sides were hypocrites. At the beginning, the South said "We Secede." The North said "You can't secede." When the war was over, the South said, "Okay, since we can't secede, we will send our Representatives and Senators back to Congress. The North said "No. You Seceded. "
Did they secede, or didn't they? I guess when the US wanted to regard them as having seceded, they did, and when it wanted to regard them as not having seceded, they did that as well.
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.