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?
What does your question have to do with my simple statement: “It’s wrong to enslave your fellow man”?
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, even if a man-created Constitution “permits” something.
“I think that the South’s action would safely fall under the “levying war” part of this article.”
Treason is a crime, you can only prosecute individuals for crimes. You can’t prosecute “the South” for treason.
“Now if you want to quibble and say the war was not illegal, only the actions of those people waging (or “levying” to use the words of the Constitution)it, go ahead, but it’s the same thing.”
It’s not the same thing, wars simply can’t be “illegal”. It’s a misapplication of terms.
Treason is a serious charge - and you made it regarding the South. For the record, which Southerners were convicted of treason? Or were you just using it in a gratuitous, non-serious way?
The compromise with the southern slave-holders that permitted what you call that “peculiar institution” was the original sin of the founding generation, the most glaring flaw in a work that was otherwise brilliantly inspired and morally solid.
The evil fruit of that compromise should stand as a warning to all generations of the extreme danger of putting political expedience before principle.
That great Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, foresaw the destruction that would ultimately befall the country because of it too.
Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
Of course, the butcher’s bill had to be paid by their grandchildren. Which is very sad, in a free republic whose Constitution states as its ultimate purpose: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY.”
Since this thread is titled “Historical Ignorance II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War” I thought your statement implied you agreed with Lincoln's optional War of Northern Aggression. If I misinterpreted your comment, you have my apology.
Once the southern states attempted to secede and launched a war against the Union it most certainly wasn’t optional if Lincoln cared about keeping his oath of office.
He was sacredly sworn to preserve the country of which he was the chief executive officer and commander in chief of the armed forces.
I think this sums it up the consequences we are facing pretty well:
“...Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrendered their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” - John Adams
I don't sense an imminent financial/social collapse. There has never been a time in my life when I couldn't have constructed many possible scenarios of doom, but I've never seen any advantage in acting upon those possibilities. There are many people who have a lot at stake in the stability of this system. In all likelihood, we'll get by.
In some ways, I agree that this country is more democratic than it was at the outset. We directly elect our Senators. We let women vote. We even let people who aren't freeholders vote. Would you be happier if only landlords could vote?
In other ways, we're more a plutocracy than ever before. Those kinds of things (the distribution of real power and influence) aren't easy to measure.
It might be a mistake to assume that a voter base free of nuts, kooks and thieves would be free of the same disagreements that you see today. I don't see our current politics as a struggle between the sane and the insane. I don't assume that someone must be insane to arrive at an opinion that differs from mine. And, if I ever do feel that way, I hope that I'll have the insight to recognize that my happiness will require that I stay as far away from politics as possible.
I view politics and the economy like I view the weather. I recognize that both are almost completely beyond my control. My goal is to succeed in the environment that I find myself. My goal is to try to appreciate the few years that I have here on this earth. I complain about things that I don't like, but I recognize my limitations.
Anyway, I've had some difficult times, but I've found a lot of success and happiness here in this country. It's not perfect, but it's as good as it gets on this planet.
Why then did Nicolay and Hay say [Link, see page 30]:
"The editors of the "National Intelligencer," who certainly could not be accused of a desire to misrepresent either the North or the South, printed in their issue of December 11, 1860, a careful analysis and review of all Northern Personal Liberty bills."
From Wikipedia [so be cautious]:
Although a slaveowner, Bell was one of the few southern politicians to oppose the expansion of slavery in the 1850s, and campaigned vigorously against secession in the years leading up to the American Civil War.[2] During his 1860 presidential campaign, he argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery, an argument which resonated with voters in border states, helping him capture the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. After the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Bell abandoned the Union cause and supported the Confederacy.
Let's see.
1. Bell opposed expansion the expansion of slavey in the 1850s. So did Lincoln.
2. Bell campaigned vigorously against secession. Lincoln sure opposed secession.
3. Bell argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery. In his first inaugural speech, Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery. Lincoln's speech notes for an 1859 speech said [Link]:
"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the Constitution, and the peace of the country both forbid us — We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law, because the Constitution demands it."4. Bell was a Whig. Lincoln had been a Whig for most of his political career.
5. Bell spoke out against the Mexican war in the 1840s. So did Lincoln.
6. The Constitutional Union Party of Bell's wanted to preserve the Union. So did the Republicans and Lincoln.
7. Bell had voted for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. When in Congress in the l840s, Lincoln had introduced a bill outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia that included the right of slave owners to recover their fugitive slaves that escaped into DC.
Bell was not much different from Lincoln on those issues.
Bell "went traitor after he lost the election"? After Fort Sumter, Bell thought his home state of Tennessee should arm itself to repel any invasion by Federal troops. This reminds me of what Alexander Hamilton said during ratification of the Constitution:
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
This must be a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, er, I mean the Fort Sumter incident.
It looks to me like Lincoln was, to use today’s terminology, a flip flopper on slavery. He treated the issue as a political one, rather than being either ideologically opposed.
That explains why he is so easily quoted on both sides.
Not really. He was consistently opposed to the institution, but until well into a war launched by the slavers, he held that he or Congress had no constitutional right to interfere with the institution within a state.
He repeatedly expressed his desire that all men be free, and pushed hard for restriction on slavery’s expansion, which Congress did have the right to control. He tried to get Union slave states to agree to compensated emancipation, and for that matter offered it to the seceded states if they’d return to the Union.
I see nothing at all that is flip-floppery here. For instance, I’m quite opposed to abortion, but I recognize that the Constitution says nothing about it. Therefore it defaults to state control.
Given today’s political environment, that means probably well over half the states would allow abortion, perhaps with some restrictions, if Roe were repealed. But that’s the price of actually believing in the Constitution. It says what it says, not what I think it ought to say.
Lincoln, to my mind, viewed slavery similarly.
Which is not to say his attitude towards black people did not evolve over time. In his last speech, he implied he’d push for the franchise for at least some blacks. This is what sent Booth over the edge into determination to kill him.
“The power already did flow from the bottom up.”
Yes, and it doesn’t stop flowing from there just because we ratified a Constitution. The power always belongs to the people, and they can revoke it any time it pleases them.
“You don’t get to arbitrarily destroy that whenever you want.”
One set of citizens revoking their consent does not “destroy” whatever government the rest of the citizens still wish to be a part of. Your argument is a lame attempt to strip us all of our God-given rights. You basically only agree that we had that right to determine our own form of government one single point in history, and after we used it, we lost it forever.
There is no defeating the narrative. Not because it is correct. Not because it is convincing. Not even because it is offered up with conviction or enthusiasm. You can’t defeat the narrative because it wasn’t arrived at rationally; therefor rationality isn’t likely to be an effective tool to thwart it. You can’t defeat the narrative because no matter how completely you batter them, they’ll simply trot it back out tomorrow.
To be a lost causer is to start with a conclusion (”We wuz wronged!”) and then build your substantiation to support that conclusion. If one fact doesn’t fit quite right, discard it in favor of one that might fit a bit closer. Never mind that you have to force-fit the pieces - because their value has been exaggerated, distorted, or invented outright - as long as it fits the narrative. Demonize the players (”Lincoln was a tyrant!”), and demonize any opponent who dares to mount a protest (”You’re just a federal boot-licker!”).
If perchance someone would object or criticize any of your conclusions just call them a “south hater” -It’s almost as effective as using the race card - LOL.
Ultimately once every conclusion has been thoroughly refuted and the insults tossed the thread will die of neglect. It doesn’t matter - there’s a new one right around the corner and they’ll resurrect their tired old saws once again to fight the age-old battle against history. It matters not that you lose every time as long as you’re down with the struggle.
Basically, you’re arguing that a minority can tyrannize the majority on a whim.
The only way that conclusion can logically be reached is to agree with the Roe court that an unborn child is not a person re the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
And to ignore the fact that abortion makes the fulfillment of any clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution impossible.
Yeah, I know. I just engage them once in awhile for the exercise.
Treason is in fact a serious charge, that is why it is specifically called out in the Constitution. If you read the Constitution, it says “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Do you deny that the South levyed war against the United States?
The fact that the federal government CHOSE not to prosecute doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.
Quite.
I will note that my contribution to this thread has been primarily to point out the many statements made by WW that are factually incorrect. Just flat untrue.
Lots of people want to argue with me, but few if any try to show that the statements I question are actually true.
I have no axe to grind with against the South. I’ll be the first to agree their cause was not without some validity. And that they believed, probably accurately, that to maintain their way of life secession and probably war was absolutely necessary.
I just disagree that their way of life was worth dying and killing for. I also object to lies and distortions about history.
I am really, really disappointed in Mr. Williams. I thought he was above producing such nonsense.
No, just the opposite, you are arguing that the majority can tyrannize a minority. A minority voluntarily and peacefully withdrawing themselves from the union doesn’t force the majority to do anything against their will or abrograte any of their rights. On the other hand, a majority forcibly keeping a minority in the union against their will does both of those things. So “tyranny” only really applies in the latter situation.
This is one iteration of the democratic tyranny that our founders wanted to avoid by forming a republican government.
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.