Posted on 08/30/2012 2:40:56 PM PDT by PeaRidge
On 6 November 1860, the six-year-old Republican Party elected its first president. During the tense crisis months that followed – the “secession winter” of 1860–61 – practically all observers believed that Lincoln and the Republicans would begin attacking slavery as soon as they took power.
Democrats in the North blamed the Republican Party for the entire sectional crisis. They accused Republicans of plotting to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against direct federal attacks on slavery. Republicans would instead allegedly try to squeeze slavery to death indirectly, by abolishing it in the territories and in Washington DC, suppressing it in the high seas, and refusing federal enforcement of the Slave Laws. The first to succumb to the Republican program of “ultimate extinction,” Democrats charged, would be the border states where slavery was most vulnerable. For Northern Democrats, this is what caused the crisis; the Republicans were to blame for trying to get around the Constitution.
Southern secessionists said almost exactly the same thing. The Republicans supposedly intended to bypass the Constitution’s protections for slavery by surrounding the South with free states, free territories, and free waters. What Republicans called a “cordon of freedom,” secessionists denounced as an inflammatory circle of fire.
Continued...............
You’re welcome. If you want to do a genealogy study, hopefully, you’ll find overlapping records, one to confirm another. I had several crazy great-aunts who helped. Had to weed through their penchants for finding rich, famous ancestors or ancestors of particular breeds, but some bits and pieces of their collections were also true and helpful. Even found a missing Chief (Cherokee) that they tried to hide. Great-grandma showed me the shocking tintypes (or whatever they were called) of a whole bunch of his descendents—her aunts, uncles and cousins, she said. Such scandal! He was learned and kind of relatively wealthy, unlike the one they tried to hide on my dad’s side (one Cherokee among some Irish relatives).
That “first ancestor” was only the first with my surname—one of a huge number. Sounds vainglorious and all of that, but really, we Americans with any who landed that early are Heinz 57s (little cliche there), big time. Most of us (even without very early American ancestors) are mixes of many races and descended from many nationalities. Consider only 40 generations and how many men and women came before you. For one example, the traces of east Asian ancestry in many Germanic folks...huge! English, having been invaded by Romans, Saxons, Norman and how many others? And French, with their reputation and travels around the world. And Dutch. [Little mischievous and pot-stirring humor there for all of the beloved crazy aunts in our lives.]
Oops...meant to write 20 generations for roughly 400 years.
If they are part of the leadership of that country and presumably familiar with why that country decided to initiate a war, then yes.
You stated about Stephens but even old honest Abe admitted it was not about slavery.
In the quote from Lincoln's Second Inaugural address that I just posted to you, he says that everyone knew that slavery was the cause of the war.
Reconstruction, the Freedmen’s Bureau, Scalawags, Carpetbaggers— all terms no longer taught even in the South.
Or that the original klan was disbanded in 1877, as a result of the Force Acts (and some would say the success of the organization in re: Rutherford B. Hayes compromise on electors and his removal of Federal troops from the South— it happened— along with a Democratic House in the 45th Congress). Thus began the Solid South.
and like Lincln he aslo said he has no desire to interfere with slavery etc etc etc etc
I’m sure you now those quotes to.
Fact is he Lincoln did state it was not about slavery
“My paramount object in this struggle, is to save the Union and it not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it...”
and
I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of
slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
and
I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.
it goes on , lets not forget Lincoln was a shrewd elected official and saying they were free in places he had no contrl over but did not free them where he did have control over just about sums it up about him and slavery.
He could have freed saves in the border states , he did not , same as other areas
very true, about terms not being taught.
If there was ever a modern day carpetbagger then wassermann here in FL is the prime example
thanks
The South Was Right!
James Ronald Kennedy
Walter Donald Kennedy
Copyright 1991, 1994
Reminds me I need to read it again.
Unfortunately, some people still don't get it even after reading these documents. I actually had some joker argue with me here at FR that the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, and to make his point, he quoted exerpts from the original Constitution to me--that talked about slavery.
GODZILLA-sized face palm.
Yes, he did say that. But in his Civil War memoirs, (which I've read) he also said the southern cause was for one of the worst (evils) ever i.e. slavery.
Now, understand you could have defused the situation by offering a simple restatement like the one you just gave in response to my earlier request for clarification, but chose instead to escalate with an in-your-face response. That's why I asked for clarification in the first place, I just couldn't believe personal attack on the good folks down here I thought I was seeing. Your tone appeared to confirm my interpretation. You must know that statements like I thought you said are fighting words here.
Thus, I was correct in my observation that saying something like that without quick clarification can get one in a world of hurt in much the same way as wagging two fingers in front of a proud Scotsman (I learned THAT the hard way when I had the misfortune of trying to order two stouts while in Edinburgh - that was a big guy!).
Nevertheless I should have abstained or at least contemplated your post a bit longer before jumping to a negative conclusion, and apologize. Hopefully this won't poison our future discussions.
Oh, and one humble observation: The “New Guy” epithets don't help. I've observed through the years a certain elitism on this otherwise fine board (and others) based on tenure that doesn't really help advance the discussion but rather is used to argue from authority rather than from logic. In my case, I've been lurking on and donating to this board for many years, but my official duties prevented me from becoming an active participant in the discussion despite GREAT temptation. (I won't say I didn't create a quick stealth account once to offer an comment though back in the 2008 election.) In semi retirement, I'm now more free to indulge.
I'm clear on fighting words, and how some folks misunderstand things. Not my first rodeo.
As far as the 'new guy' thing? Tis the season of election trolls. It comes around every 4 years. I saw one zotted today. Part of the territory. May as well grump about how high the creek is.
I have no hard feelings.
/johnny
I suppose you're right. In case you hadn't noticed, I have been known to grump on occasion...
So...are you saying that the Southern leaders did consider the negro to be the equal of a white man and believed that they should be treated as such?
exactly, even when some of us quote Lincoln saying this is not about slavery we still have dopes and jokers trying to say it was
ARF
Are you saying he voted for it in the legislature? Or that he campaigned in support of the law?
HUH never said that, that what you said is like saying I don;t support that team and then be told you must support teir rivals.
you seem to not understand.
That is two posts to me by you asking “are you saying”
just read and think what ever, no one else has a problem
I was just curious is all. If you're criticizing Lincoln for his quotes then I had just assumed that you thought the Southern leaders believed the opposite. What you seem to be saying is Lincoln's positions weren't any different than their beliefs were.
I'm trying to do that. You said Lincoln supported the 1853 law and the 1848 constitution and I was wondering what you based that on. He couldn't have voted for either, not being in the legislature at the time. So did he campaign for the laws? Did he write letters indicating his support? Which?
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.