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?
You are definitely right, you cannot be both an honorable gentleman and a traitor. I have to agree with you.
Since Lee definitely met the test for being a traitor as outlined in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution (levying war against the United States), I am force to conclude that he was not an honorable gentleman.
Does that clear up my position?
I apologize, I did not mean to obfuscate the issue. BTW, since this thread has gone all over the place (although always about the Civil War) what specific position am I trying to obfuscate? Can’t be about who started the War, because that was clearly the South, first by seceding, and second by firing on a US Fort.
It sounds you are drawing a moral equivalency between Quantrill’s atrocities, and Sherman's total war. I think you are right.
One thing that I see as different: Sherman had Lincoln's approval. I am not aware that Jefferson Davis approved of Quantrill’s murders - I'd be surprised if he did.
If Jefferson Davis had won the war I can't image him making Quantrill the Commanding General of the Army - the way President Grant did of Sherman.
Had Quantrill survived his injuries, I suspect he would have been tried for war crimes. Sherman was celebrated as a hero.
“You are definitely right. . . I have to agree with you.”
I am so glad. I was completely worn out from watching you debate yourself.
Can you name a town that Sherman’s troops entered and shot to death, or burned to death, all of the civilian men and boys?
I’m having a hard time recalling that.
“Can you name a town that Sherman’s troops entered and shot to death, or burned to death, all of the civilian men and boys?”
No.
Obviously, there are at least two possibilities when a nation faces a debt that truly cannot be paid. The first is that a nation just doesn't pay the debt fully - the rules are changed. The second is that it pays the debt, but with currency that is of less real value. Or, a mixture of the two.
It doesn't mean that the world will come to an end or that the nation will cease to exist. And, it doesn't mean that there will be mass starvation or misery. No matter what rules you pass today, there will be distributional issues in the future and those distributional issues will be resolved by people in the future.
Whether we who are alive today like it or not, we cannot bind the people of the future. In the future, the people who are then living will produce goods and services and those people will decide for themselves how those goods and services will be distributed among them.
Do you have a reference for that? All I can find is the much discredited dilorenzo.
So now we are in agreement that Robert E Lee was a traitor?
Sherman's order to Major R. M. Sawyer, Asst Adjt General, Department of Tennessee, January 31, 1864
“So now we are in agreement that Robert E Lee was a traitor?”
Again, no.
Now, sir, step away from that crack pipe.
You keep on saying no, but you have yet to respond to my question as to whether Lee meets the definition of treason as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. If you are so sure that he doesn’t meet this definition, surely you can tell us why.
You have written on this thread: “I also happen to believe that Lee was a honorable gentleman and a great general (the third best general of the Civil War, after all).”
I contend an honorable gentleman cannot be a tra***r. You have said the same.
I know I'm on shaky ground to cite you as a character reference. And yes, I know you have been all over the map on this.
I have been consistent.
“I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.”
I see that you are still avoiding the questions posted 4 poists ago. You can continue to throw out insults, or you can answer the question. I wonder, are you desperately avoiding answering the question because you know the answer will not support your tenuous position that Lee was not a traitor as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution?
In case you forgot the questions are as follows:
Was Robert E Lee in the Confederate Army?
• Did the Confederate Army wage war against the United States?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, we will then go to a third.
• Does being a member of an Army actively fighting the US Army (and invading the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania) meet the definition of treason in Article III, Section of the US Constitution?
So, I am waiting for your answers to these questions. As I consider the answers to be obvious (yes to all) I would appreciate it if you could give me any reasons for any no answers.
It was as I expected, not “orders” but a dispatch sharing battlefield impressions to major Sawyer. I imagine you obtained the quotes, along with the spin from dilorenzo.
“It was as I expected, not “orders” but a dispatch sharing battlefield impressions to major Sawyer.”
Perhaps I should have said he sent written advice to his commanding officers rather than orders. Read his words again and tell me Sherman was not into total war.
“I would advise the commanding officers at Huntsville, and such other towns as are occupied by our troops, to assemble the inhabitants and explain to them these plain, self-evident propositions, and tell them that it is now for them to say whether they and their children shall inherit the beautiful land which by the accident of nature has fallen to their share. The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war—to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything—because they cannot deny that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there. If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late. All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.”
In 1944 the international community invented a new word to describe wiping a people out of national existence.
And yet, all your hyperbole aside, no genocide ever took place.
Team Cuda: “Once Lincoln took office, he was determined to maintain the Union by any means necessary and, barring the states returning to the fold voluntarily, this meant war.”
Right there is your false premise.
In fact, as clearly stated in his First Inaugural, Lincoln did not intend to go to war, until or unless the Confederacy started it.
What Lincoln intended, on March 4, 1861, was to continue Buchanan’s policy of supporting the remaining US troops in Union forts in Confederate states, and, as much as possible, maintain the functions of Federal government, such as Post Office and import duty collections.
Of course, with perfect 20-20 hindsight, you may say that these were unacceptable conditions which must necessarily lead to war, but the fact is: they were what Lincoln saw as his Constitutional duty, and in his mind, the choice for war must be made by Confederates.
As, indeed, it was.
Do you disagree?
“And yet, all your hyperbole aside, no genocide ever took place.”
If I were you, I’d say the same thing.
If I were you.
At the time, Union forces were under orders not to fire on Confederates unless attacked.
And, as Lincoln announced ahead of time to South Carolina's governor, ships sent to Fort Sumter were only intended to resupply, not to reinforce the garrison, so long as things remained peaceful.
But, given a choice, Confederate leaders did not want peace nearly as much as they wanted to force Sumter's surrender, and if that meant war, then so be it.
Jefferson Davis immediately ordered final preparations to assault Fort Sumter.
Finally, it's important to remember that no Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force until the Battle of Big Bethel, June 10, 1861 -- months after the Confederacy first provoked, then started and formally declared war, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
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.