HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/22/2015 | Prof. Walter Williams

[BroJoeK]

DeternalVigilance: "The foundation of the claim to liberty, and particularly the American claim to liberty, is morality.
Those who think they can maintain the enjoyment of their rights without morality are self-deceived."

Terrific post! Thanks so much.

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you.

And thank you for bring so much substance to this thread.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Relative to ruling over the South, he wasn't.
He says so many times.
Between the two issues, slavery is less important to him than holding the Southern States.
Why are you quibbling over William's salient point?"

Well... sure, people like to say that slavery was "America's original sin," but that is not a correct analogy.
In fact, slavery was a precondition:

1. first for the existence of Southern colonies, and
2. second, for the existence of the United States

Most Southern colonies in 1776, or again in 1787, would not have joined the United States if it necessitated abolishing slavery.

Without Northern acceptance of slavery, in 1787 and until 1860, there would have been no United States.
Everybody in those days understood this, and that is why, until Republicans came along in the mid-1850s there had never been and American anti-slavery party.

And those first Republicans then, just as many Republicans today, were the weakest of milk-toast anti-slavery politicians.
No major Republican publically called for abolishing slavery in the South.
All Republicans (including Lincoln) said they wanted was to stop slavery from expanding into western territories which didn't want it, or into their own Northern states via the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.

But that was just enough:

• Enough to excite the majority of Northern voters who didn't much care about Southern slavery, but certainly didn't want it in their own states or western territories.

• And it was more than enough to excite Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession, a new Confederacy and war on the United States.

Bottom line: slavery was as important to the North as it was to the South, for equal and opposite reasons.
But Lincoln's first concern was to defeat the rebellion which had declared war on the United States.
In that mission, he saw the Emancipation Proclamation as the military equivalent of several US Army corps.

In Lincoln's mind, as we would say it today, it was a "win-win".

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "...if we need to seek permission to exercise a right, then it isn’t a right anymore.
That is pretty basic stuff, but I guess I can’t expect you to understand that, since you are a statist."

Pretty ironic to see someone championing "states rights" calling others "statists"! ;-)

Regardless, our Founders in 1776, and again in 1787 joined a "perpetual union" which they then made "more perfect".
Yes, they considered "disunion" or "secession" valid and necessary, but only under certain conditions, and never "at pleasure".
None of the conditions considered necessary for lawful secession by our Founders existed in 1860.

But regardless, it was not the Slave-Power's declarations of secession which started Civil War, but rather the fact that they provoked, started and declared war on the United States, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks, I much enjoy and appreciate your posts.
Now I'm out of time, so finished for today & tomorrow.
If we're still at it later in the week, will come back... :-)

[Team Cuda]

Please note that my response was to jeffersondem. He is the one that listed the date of Lincoln’s inauguration, not me. I fully recognized that you said his election, and not his inauguration.

Having said that, however, I will note that, from the time of his election on November 06, 1860, till the time of his inauguration on March 4, 1861, Lincoln had no more powers than any other private citizen. He didn’t even leave Illinois to go to Washington until February 11, 1861, arriving in Washington on February 23, 1861, less than 2 weeks before he became president. How did citizen Lincoln violate the Constitution during this time?

[rustbucket]

I fully recognized that you said his election, and not his inauguration.

Keep trying. Here is what I said: "Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution until after he was in office."

Aside from Obama who seemed to have invented the "Office of President Elect" complete with seal, no one considered it an official office. As that sometimes unreliable web site Wikipedia says "An -elect is a political candidate who has been elected to an office but who has not yet been installed or officially taken office[1][2] These may include an incoming president,[3] senator, representative, governor and mayor."

[jeffersondem]

“What started Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Federal troops in Federal Fort Sumter . . “

This is also known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, err, I mean the Fort Sumter incident.

[jeffersondem]

“God did not look so kindly on the Slave Power rebelling and starting a war to protect their “property” and “peculiar institution” of slavery.”

Interesting post with religious implications. Seems like you have thought this through. Can you tell me if Jesus was wrong not to have spoken against slavery?

[jeffersondem]

“Neither the United States nor any major power on Earth ever recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate independent country.”

And China does not recognize Taiwan.

And North Korea does not recognize South Korea.

Georgia does not recognize Abkhazia.

Nigeria did not recognize Biafra.

And Iran does not recognize Israel.

And don't forget, the United States did not recognize Manchukuo.

What does all this mean? Morally, nothing. Economically it means much, especially if a larger power conducts total war against civilians.

[EternalVigilance]

If total war had been conducted against southern civilians there wouldn’t have been any left.

Extreme hyperbole doesn’t really strengthen your arguments.

[EternalVigilance]

Can you tell me if Jesus was wrong not to have spoken against slavery?

Actually, He did. "Love your neighbor as yourself."

How would you like being a chattel slave?

[jeffersondem]

“Actually, He did. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Are you absolutely certain that Jesus’ ministry, and the above quote, was about ending slavery?

[jeffersondem]

I said: “Economically it means much, especially if a larger power conducts total war against civilians.”

You said: “If total war had been conducted against southern civilians there wouldn’t have been any left.”

Is there any particular reason anyone would think my comment was a reference to an attack on southern civilians? Hmmmm?

[EternalVigilance]

No, it was about loving your neighbor, whomever he might be.

Is enslaving somebody a demonstration of love to you?

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah. The context.

[Team Cuda]

So, your arguement is that, since Fort Sumter was incomplete is wasn’t a federal fort? Seems a little weak, especially since work was started back in 1829. But, have it your way, it doesn’t alter that fact that even if it was only a “reinforced position” in your terms, it was a US Army “reinforced position” held by US Army troops, that was attacked by the Confederacy. As regards your documentation that hostile Federal fire predated both Sumter and “Star of the West”, I am looking forward to seeing this documentation and, I’m sure that you will tell me how this caused General Beauregard to attack Fort Sumter.

As far as a ruling that the Supreme Courts ruled that the war officially began in Lincoln’s office several days after Sumter, this is akin to saying that World War II started after Pearl Harbor when the Congress declared war on Japan on 8 December. While technically true, I think you would have to consider the attack on Pearl Harbor as part of the war, just as you would have to consider the attack on Fort Sumter as part of the Civil War. In both cases these actions preceded the declaration of war, but in both cases, they were a major part of the war being started in the first place.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Poor Walter - lost cause foolishness just taints everything else he says.

Indeed.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

People have a right to leave. That is what our founding document, the Declaration of Independence says.

Okay, I declare my property the new nation of Libertia.

Woohoo, no more property taxes for me! And all that money the government borrowed since Jackson, now I don't owe a penny of it! This secession thing is great!

[central_va]

I don’t think people have the right to leave the Union. I do believe States have the right to do so. The Constitution is silent on the subject of secession, so it defaults to a right.