Replies

jeffersondem: "you can expect to hear many contend that in some way Lincoln was “fighting to free the slaves” - - and even that the war was fought for high moral purposes."

Well... "The John Brown Song" was first played & sang at a flag raising ceremony in Fort Warren near Boston on May 12, 1861.
That date is most significant because it is just six days after the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States.
The unit which wrote & sang is said to be the Massachusetts militia's Second Infantry battalion, aka "Tiger Battalion".

Congress began dealing with slavery in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act addressing "Contraband of War".

Julia Ward Howe first heard soldiers of Company K of the 6th Wisconsin singing "The John Brown Song" near Washington, DC, in late 1861.
Julia's husband, Samuel Howe was one of John Brown's Secret Six, so for her, it had always been "all about slavery".

Her version of the song, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was published in early 1862.

So there is no doubt that Civil War was indeed "all about slavery" for some Northerners from Day One.
By war's end it was a major war aim for virtually all Northerners, hense the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

I think we should all here seriously acknowledge that it pains our dear FRiend jeffersondem to the soul of his heart to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in "the War of Northern Aggression" against Southern Freedom Fighters, but sadly, the facts are still facts, regardless of how much jeffersondem hates and denies them.

;-)

“Well... “The John Brown Song” was first played & sang at a flag raising ceremony in Fort Warren near Boston on May 12, 1861.
That date is most significant because it is just six days after the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States.
The unit which wrote & sang is said to be the Massachusetts militia's Second Infantry battalion, aka “Tiger Battalion”.
Congress began dealing with slavery in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act addressing “Contraband of War”.
Julia Ward Howe first heard soldiers of Company K of the 6th Wisconsin singing “The John Brown Song” near Washington, DC, in late 1861.
Julia's husband, Samuel Howe was one of John Brown's Secret Six, so for her, it had always been “all about slavery”.
Her version of the song, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” was published in early 1862.
So there is no doubt that Civil War was indeed “all about slavery” for some Northerners from Day One.
By war’s end it was a major war aim for virtually all Northerners, hense the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
I think we should all here seriously acknowledge that it pains our dear FRiend jeffersondem to the soul of his heart to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in “the War of Northern Aggression” against Southern Freedom Fighters, but sadly, the facts are still facts, regardless of how much jeffersondem hates and denies them.”

For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that the purpose of Lincoln's war was, indeed, to free the slaves.

That's a problem for anyone that claims to support the original United States Constitution.

Although some will occasionally deny it, the original U.S. Constitution included slavery. The founders provided an amendment process to peacefully change the Constitution but did not provide a mechanism for the President to use troops to violently overthrow the Constitution and its slavery provisions.

After the House Divided speech many southerners believed Lincoln, if elected, would use the U.S. military to attack the South and to violently overthrow the United States Constitution.

Maybe he did.

...to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in "the War of Northern Aggression" against Southern Freedom...

On several threads here at FreeRepublic, I've asked a simple question: "Should government be bound by law, or by morality?" (Thanks again to rockrr, who was nice enough to reply on one of those occassions!)

It can be a troubling question - government officials are human beings; humans should consider morality (IMHO), to some extent, when making decisions; but a free society has thousands or millions of decision makers , and therefore, it might be that each of us answers that question in a different way.

However (to cut to the chase), most Freepers seem to suggest that government should be bound by law. The reason may be obvious enough - Ronald Reagan's morality based decision would not be the same as Bill Clinton's. Morality varies from person to person: one government official might shut down a kiddy-porn ring, another might shut down a Christian bakery.

We could (no doubt ;^) launch another endless debate, regarding 'the divine right of kings' versus 'the rule of law' versus whatever, but I will conclude with a simple observation: it's not unreasonable to question any government action that seems to be more justifiable on a moral basis, than a legal basis (i.e., than based on the written 'law of the land'). Such government actions might include legalized abortion, 'Obama-Care', any number of gun control laws, military actions lacking a declaration of war, and perhaps even the federal draft.

Obviously IMHO, YMMV, etc...