Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
When you overlay the "Anaconda Plan" and the general thrust of the War in the West on the Illinois Central's route map, you get a 1:1 correspondence, a 99% match.
"Now how about that?" as the Snake Doctor would say.
Show me where Congress imposed any rules to block secession. As I pointed out, Republicans in Congress tried in 1859 and 1860 to prevent secession or prescribe how it should be accomplished and were not successful.
Here is the text of the March 2, 1861, failed amendment that mentions "acts" of states:
Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That proposed amendment failed in the Senate 28 nays to 18 yeas. This was after most of the Southern Senators had had already resigned and returned to their home states.
Actually, it was John Quincy Adams who put around Northern congressional circles that it would be a square deal to pick a fight with the South, beat them flat, and "reorganize" the Southern States according to the likes of people in Boston.
It was Quincy Adams who gave us the Six Families (or however many it is), the Four Hundred, Newport summer cottages, the New York Yacht Club, frat sweaters and secret societies, leveraged control, monopolies, the Gilded Age, time clocks and morning rush hour for some people, and endlessly evergreen heritable trusts for others. He didn't invent Yankee snobbery, though -- that predated him by about 150 years.
The Civil War was probably his biggest, if not his best, idea.
Illinois habitually arrested free black men for the offense of "walking while black" in Illinois, and sold them south in accordance with the State's "Black Code". After the grandfathering period in which French-owned slaves resident in the State at its admission were held to labor until expiry, no black person could legally live in Lincoln's adoptive State.
Looking at your interesting map, I notice that the Shenandoah Valley held precious few slaves -- but a gallant Union cavalry general burned it all down anyway.
I'm sure they deserved it.
Congress threatened to (and perhaps actually did) tax Rhode Island and North Carolina products (rum, sugar, and chocolate) imported into the United States as they would have from any foreign country or state (Rhode Island and North Carolina not having ratified the Constitution at that time).
From Congress on September 12, 1789:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
Here’s a question I’d like anyone to answer: If the South ahd won the war would it have ended slavery?
No.
Supposedly Lincoln signed and submitted to Congress the following amendment:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
But it was never voted on or ratified...
So then certainly for the South the war was about slavery.
lentulusgracchus post #1024: "Illinois habitually arrested free black men for the offense of "walking while black" in Illinois, and sold them south in accordance with the State's "Black Code"."
That's a different subject, more related to Fugitive Slave laws than northern states' gradual abolition laws.
Remember, the 1850 Compromise shifted responsibility for catching & returning Fugitive Slaves from northern states' responsibility to the Federal Government's responsibility, and also left it nearly impossible for "slaves" captured in the North to defend themselves in court.
Point is, after 1850 freed blacks in the north were only "free" so long as no Federally sponsored slave-catcher grabbed them for "return" and sale in the South.
That some northern state laws -- responding to slave-power influence -- supported and reinforced Federal Fugitive Slave Law should not be so surprising, but the key thing to remember is: the States Rights of Northern states which wished to abolish slavery and protect freed blacks, those States' Rights were ignored by Federal Law.
lentulusgracchus: "After the grandfathering period in which French-owned slaves resident in the State at its admission were held to labor until expiry, no black person could legally live in Lincoln's adoptive State."
Not quite true.
Freed blacks already living in Illinois were not required to leave by Illinois law.
Of course, they were subject to abuses of the Federal Fugitive Slave laws, and no new blacks -- freed or escaped slaves -- were allowed by law to settle in Illinois.
All such Black Code laws were passed by Southern sympathizing legislatures, and opposed by northern abolitionists.
At the same time, in many Southern states there were serious efforts made in state legislatures to re-enslave freed blacks within their own borders.
These failed before the Civil War, but iirc, succeeded during the war.
lentulusgracchus: "Looking at your interesting map, I notice that the Shenandoah Valley held precious few slaves -- but a gallant Union cavalry general burned it all down anyway."
The large majority of citizens of western Virginia were not slave-holders, and refused to join the slave-power's secession and war against the United States.
These Virginians supported the Union army under General McClellan against Confederates lead by Robert E. Lee, as a result of which, Lee was defeated and withdrew from western Virginia.
This allowed those western Virginians to secede from Virginia and form their own state of West Virginia.
It also kept the destructions from war to a bare minimum in West Virginia.
By contrast, the Shenandoah Valley was a different story, with Confederate Armies lead by more capable generals who generally wiped the floor with more pathetic Union armies sent against them.
And, unlike West Virginia, Shenandoah Valley farmers did not so much support or sympathize with the Union.
Perhaps there were just enough more slave-holders amongst them to tip their overall sympathies to the Confederacy?
Regardless, it's not clear to me if the practice of burning opposing civilian assets was started by Union or Confederate armies.
Seems to me the case can be made just as well that it all started with Confederate army raids into Union states, and was then picked up by some Union forces in Confederate states.
Yes, in the end, more Confederate towns & farms were burned than Union, but only because Confederates had less opportunity, not less intention.
By the way, for months now I've been tied up on other projects, and am delighted today to have the opportunity to respond to your post, FRiend.
This was the vision of the Leadership of the Confederacy. I cannot say this played into the vision of your typical southerner who was eking out a livelihood unrelated to the peculiar institution. They, for the most part were dragged in to protect their life and property from an "invader".
It is with too broad of a brush to say "for the South the War was about slavery". It is no exaggeration to say that for the Leadership of the Confederacy the War was most certainly all about slavery.
See post #1032 (IMHO)
And as I wearily once more point out, it matters not what the Southern motivation was for independence, the decision as to whether or not there would be a war was entirely in the hands of the North.
In other words, the only reasons that matter are the Union reasons, because if they did not want to prosecute a war, there would have been no war.
They did want to prosecute a war, and their reasons for prosecuting this war were not to abolish slavery, but were instead for the purpose of dominating states that had broken away from their control.
Sorry, my mistake, I should have made it clear that my statements were in response to the question, “If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery?” Posted by jmacusa. My emphatic answer to that question is, “no”. If you would like to take a crack at answering that question with a simple yes or no, I would welcome your response. Note that the question can be answered without any mention of the North.
It is well documented that the Army of Northern Va was under orders to not rob or pillage. These standing orders came form the top i.e. Lee. This is why when CS cavalry sacked Chambersburg is was a huge deal. It was so out of the ordinary, read the papers from the period.
Your post is cannot be substantiated. What can be verified is the standing orders from the Army of Tennessee to glean as much from the enemy as possible, forage included destruction, and to destroy anyone one who opposes Federal authority, the opposite of Lee's order.
A lot of yahoos claim the money the rebs would by goods from farmers and merchants with was worthless, but it wasn't there were money changers that would convert CS dollars to US Dollars and vice versa.
Of the union Armies the best behaved so to speak was the Army of the Potomac which never really had to forage as supply and logistics was its forte - not fighting.
It's an old thread. I haven't been paying much attention to it lately.
And the answer to your question is "yes", but it would have taken longer. On the plus side, it would have kept constitutional protections then in existence that were damaged by the aftermath of the war.
Slavery was evolving out of the culture. As the Northern States one by one gave it up, so too would the Southern states eventually, and for the same reason; Social pressure.
It was just more difficult for the Southern states because so much of their economic activity relied on it, whereas most of the economic activity in the North did not. Indeed, Slavery became seen as a competition to the labor market, and in the North was vehemently opposed on that basis too.
Thank you.
Please don’t let any fool tell you that “slavery was on its way out”. That flies in the face of direct action by the confeds to immortalize the Peculiar Institution and enshrine it in their cursed constitution.
It’s almost as common a misdirection as when they claim that the north went to war to “free the slaves” (they didn’t). But the south most assuredly went to war to protect slavery.
(You don’t have to tell me. I just thought that my best and most diplomatic reply was, “Thank you”.) It is fascinating to see the lengths some people will go to rationalize the irrational. My opinion expressed in post #1032 has not wavered.
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.