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?
“To love our neighbor as ourselves is such a truth for regulating human society, that by that alone one might determine all the cases in social morality.”
—John Locke
“Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”
— Abraham Lincoln
I don't think it makes a difference to the larger point. In 1848, Lincoln argued that people had a right to form a new government. In 1861 he argued the opposite of that.
I would say that a secession is less objectionable than a revolution, which is an actual takeover of an existing government. If Lincoln supported revolution, then he has gone way beyond the position of supporting Independence.
Again, no one is arguing against your right to disassociate. The door is open if you want to leave. But you can't strip We the People of the United States of their national territory on the way out the door. Sorry.
The purpose of spreading slavery to the south and west was not necessarily to dramatically increase the population of slaves, but to match every new free state with another new slave state.
In Delaware there were less than 2,000 slaves.
But Delaware was a reliable slave state vote in the Senate and in Congress.
The goal was expansion to at least retain a Senate edge before secession.
Once a Congressional majority was elected in 1860 which would oppose expansion with a President who would not veto any anti-expansion bill, the Confederacy left and then very soon went to conquer the southwest.
Revolution is a farther bridge than secession. If one can support "Revolution", then one can hardly draw the line at secession.
As for a "right to win", the "right" is to leave, and there should be no fight necessary from a government that respects the very right that created it.
Can the Nazi analogies be far behind?
So you Do see where your ideas lead, don't you?
Finding yourself on the same side as the Nazis really ought to give you pause, but I have faith in your cognitive dissonance to see you through this minor crises.
Once again you have managed to stumble to a conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality.
That all your arguments tend to be of the "We Won! Therefore we are RIGHT!" Category? No, that bears a very striking resemblance to reality. It's virtually a constant.
If you say so. The more I read your rattlebrain, the less concerned I am with your opinion. I think you are in over your head in this discussion.
“You claim Lincoln is advocating a right to secession when in fact he’s talking about a right to rebellion.”
That’s a distinction without a difference, because they are the same right! The right to self-governance, aka the right to self-determination. The only difference is in the method being employed to exercise the right.
This is an example of what I mean. You discount 89 years of Union Slave Mastery. Had the South not seceded it would probably have been 150 years of Union Slave Mastery.
You simply cannot keep 1861 and 1865 separate in your head. You aren't able to comprehend this concept known as "zeitgeist."
You are in over your head. You are just a cheerleader for the more intelligent people on your side.
You’re exhibiting all the signs of someone who has lost a debate.
Not that that will deter you, I’m sure.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Exactly right. Now apply the same concept to the actions of Abe Lincoln.
Okay. I just did it. Lincoln was in the right.
You do not get to play "God." You don't have any right to dictate to others what reasons are "moral" and what reasons are not.
The Slave Holding Founders thought their reasons were Moral. The British Union did not. The Founders argument for Independence does not make it contingent upon the "morality" as decided by their oppressors.
Stop being obtuse.
Pretty obvious stuff.
If you have a childish and illogical understanding of the history. Children find a lot of stuff obvious before they learn better.
If by "Clever", you mean he was in possession of a massive iron fist with which he could smash things, then sure.
Most dictators are that sort of "clever."
Deliberately misstating my position. Why am I not surprised.
I am not "For" Dred Scott. I merely recognize that it is a correct interpretation of the laws in existence at the time it was rendered. If it were not so, then there would have been no need to pass amendments to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
As for Kelo v New London, the seizure of private property by a tyrannical government to give to someone else for the purpose of making profit, and that ultimately failed to do anything beneficial for anyone... I am not surprised that you support it, but I think the vast majority of conservatives on this Web site are completely against it.
Why address the underlying issue of the suit; whether states or the government had the right to ban slave ownership within their borders or in federal territory?
Under the law of the time, it was an assault on property rights. Property rights are fundamental and cannot be impugned by a State. Same thing with Kelo.
Yes, slavery is very evil. Thank you for pointing that out to us. Unfortunately for your argument, it happened to be Legal under Union rule in 1861.
Please take this into account in your future attempts to once again remind us how evil is slavery. That you feel the need to keep repeating the obvious makes you come across as a bit simple.
Law of God. Says so in our Charter.
Happy to help.
Secession implies a peaceful, legal, orderly process while rebellion is the exact opposite. Lincoln is obviously talking about rebellion since he adds the qualifier "...and having the power...". Why do you need power if your parting is by mutual consent?
Back to that ex post facto rationalization?
If the South had somehow rallied and successfully repelled the Union Invasion, then the Union would have been left with more Union-slavery Egg on it's face.
You can't use before the fact arguments to justify after the fact results. It's just logically nonsensical.
And here we are, still talking about "Slavery" instead of the main point. That Bill Clinton dodge is still paying dividends 150 years later.
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery (at least formally) less than three years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln could have done it in the Union States in 1861. Right? Right?
The necessity for the Founders: they were not allowed a voice or any representation in government.
The Confederacy was in precisely the opposite situation.
I'm sure you don't think so, but since you can't keep your mind straight regarding the differences between 1776 and 1865, i'm not going to pay a lot of attention to you.
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.