Posted on 09/24/2012 11:57:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Countless school children have been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. Others have been taught — and many have concluded — that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Abraham Lincoln announced on Sept. 22, 1862, has been overemphasized, that it was inefficacious, a sham, that Lincoln’s motivations were somehow unworthy, that slavery was ended by other ways and means, and that slavery was on the way out in any case.
The truth is that Lincoln’s proclamation was an exercise in risk, a huge gamble by a leader who sought to be — and who became — America’s great liberator.
Since before his election in 1860, Lincoln and his fellow Republicans had vowed to keep slavery from spreading. The leaders of the slave states refused to go along. When Lincoln was elected and his party took control of Congress, the leaders of most of the slave states turned to secession rather than allow the existing bloc of slave states to be outnumbered.
The Union, divided from the Confederacy, was also divided itself. Many Democrats who fought to stop secession blamed Republicans for pushing the slave states over the brink; some were open supporters of slavery. And if the Democrats were to capture control of Congress in the mid-term elections of November 1862, there was no telling what the consequences might be for the Republicans’ anti-slavery policies.
The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t always part of the plan. Republicans, Lincoln included, tried push their anti-slavery program by measured degrees, since they feared a white supremacist backlash. That was what made Lincoln’s decision to issue an emancipation edict, and to do it before the mid-term congressional elections of 1862, so extraordinarily risky...
After Lee’s invasion of Maryland was stopped in the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, Lincoln made up his mind to go ahead...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Just as misguided and just as hypocritical as people like you who raise up the Confederacy as some sort of small government bastion of liberty.
The London Spectator quote implies that Lincoln's proclamation did nothing to further the end of slavery. As Winik points out in his synopsis, that wasn't true. I believe Lincoln knew that.
Spoken like a true bigot. Sure you’re not a lib?
Not a bother from anyone interested in reasoned debate. It is those "my team can do no wrong" sheep that are a nuisance.
Over the months leading to and after secession, the opinions varied but generally the newspapers were accepting secession and calling for peace.
This is what I recall as well. I have actually read Northern Newspaper editorials which said in effect "Go in Peace, our Brethren." Most people in the North had no issues with Southern Secession. It was only after they were whipped into a patriotic frenzy that they were ready to invade the South. Had they been told that they would be fighting to free the slaves, they would have refused right then and there. That "free the slaves" narrative was another example of a bait and switch pulled by Lincoln. He was a clever fellow, no doubt about that.
That changed radically in March of 1861. As soon as the Confederacy announced its tariff rates, everyone began calling for war.
Lincoln quickly found that there was great interest in a military attack on the South by most of the governors and businessmen of the North. His own cabinet was reluctant as well as his military.
You have more knowledge of this than do I. The Civil War is not a topic I normally discuss, but references to Lincoln's Role in History have always needed clarification in my opinion. He was not the Saint that most people think he was. The stuff he did is hurting us now. Many of our rights are being trampled or endangered because the 9th and 10th amendments no longer mean anything relative to Federal Power. The 14th amendment has been used to justify the most ridiculous decisions from the Federal courts, such as Abortion on Demand, and the Banning of Religion in public places, Creating "Anchor Babies" and adversely affecting the eligibility of the Presidency, and I need not point out to anyone how much damage that is now causing to the nation.
What a mess.
ROTFL. Pulling the racism/bigotry card is a sure sign of a liberal. So I would ask the same question of you.
Oh, God, I didn’t know I was debating Pee Wee Herman. “I know you are, but what am I?”
Geez....
I see you are still playing the same games you played in your previous FR life. Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent. Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US, but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.
Or is he saying that all that cotton and rice was shipped to New York and other northern ports for export? That is contradicted by the records of the time that show well over 90% of all cotton was exported from Southern ports. I imagine that the percentage for rice was the same.
Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe." Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic. I have no doubt that cotton and rice originated in the South and the majority got shipped out of their ports, perhaps with other goods meant for the coastal trade. Where it went from those Southern ports is another question. Herbert provided the answer.
Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade. See Link for the following quote:
New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
You're a funny, funny man. Pee Wee Herman? Geez...back at ya.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm just asking questions on the source you provided. I assumed you had read it and knew the point the author was trying to make.
Certainly the South provided the bulk of US exports back then, somewhere between 70 and 75 percent.
No disagreement there. I've seen some sources that put it a little lower, and some that put it a little higher. Safe to say the South provided the overwhelming majortiy of U.S. exports.
Tariffs weren't collected by the US on exports from the US...
No disagreement there either.
...but exports made it possible for the US to import goods from Europe. Without those Southern exports the US would have had a balance of payments problem.
A balance of trade imbalance, yes. But impossible to import goods from Europe? I'm not sure I would agree with that. U.S. imports continued through the Civil War and afterwards with none of the South's pre-war exports or comparatively little.
Regardless, what was his point in linking exports with tariff revenue? Any idea?
Herbert doesn't say "all." He says on page 147, "Southern cotton exported to Europe did not typically go from Southern ports to Europe. It went from Southern ports to Northern ports to Europe."
Iread a book one time on blockade running that detailed that over 90% of all cotton exported from the U.S. left from Southern ports. Only about 5% or 6% was exported from New York and only a miniscule amount was exported from other U.S. ports. So I'd be curious on where Herbert got his figures from. Any idea?
Perhaps one reason for that was that the North owned 80 percent or more of the registered shipping tonnage capacity in the US. It made sense for Northern shipping firms to drop off some cotton bales for Northern mills, then consolidate shipments to Europe before crossing the Atlantic.
But then those goods would have been exported from New York, right? That doesn't agree with the source I mentioned.
Others have commented on New York's role in the cotton trade.
No disagreement with that, either. But your quote speaks of New York's role in the business end of the cotton trade. Banking. Insurance. Brokering. New York banks probably funded a lot of the cotton producers. New York companies insured the cotton and the New Yorkers no doubt owned many of the ships it travelled on. New York companies likely played a major role in selling the cotton overseas. Northerners did all that because Southern alternatives didn't exist. Still, that doesn't mean all that cotton flowed through the port of New York because it didn't make sense for it to do so. If it was destined for Europe then it made more sense for it to go from the closest Southern port direct to the continent. Wouldn't it?
Keep in mind that point of export for record keeping and point of export shipment out of the country were often different.
Goods, i.e. cotton or rice, etc., were shipped from farms to seaport export warehouses, coming under the control of the federal government and under the Warehousing laws. They were inventoried there. Of course, no taxes were paid on exports.
Most of these items were marked for export to overseas ports. Data was collected on the amount and value of exports at these warehouses and submitted to the Dept. of Treasury.
Sometimes these items left the warehouses via overseas shipping and sometimes by domestic shippers transporting them to other US ports for transhipment on other ships.
If they were transshipped to other US ports such as New York or Boston, they were not double counted as exports from these local warehouses.
Practically all cotton, rice, and tobacco was exported from Southern ports but they usually stopped over in New York for reloading on bigger ships.
“I see you are still playing the same games you played in your previous FR life.”
He has already given himself away. And I am NOT glad to see him.....his points are usually too obtuse to be interesting much less debatable.
I agree with that. Perhaps Lincoln made some notes and transferred them to Cameron. I have searched Lincoln's correspondence in the OR and find no letter signed by him so composed.
And I do not disagree with your friend's assertion about Lincoln.
However, all of the details of the operation that you said he provided were wrong.
Credibility rests with facts. Your friend's errors of fact to support assertions is self-defeating.
Call them quibbles if you like, but I believe you provided them.
I think that your friend does not have any real idea about the Ft. Sumter event. Please suggest to him "Days of Defiance" by Maury Klein. Found here
Yes, US imports continued but declined significantly during the war, and there was inflation in the North. The North started printing paper money back then and there were war expenses, of course. Both contributed to inflation as did the import-export balance. Inflation in the South during the war was far worse than that in the North.
Let's look at the import-export balance of the North in 1863. From Appletons Annual Cyclopedia for 1863, page 190:
... the foreign commerce of the country had greatly contracted in face of improved harvest in Europe. ... The "balance of trade," so called, may then be approximated as follows: ... Excess Imports [rb note: imports over exports]: $74,295,706. Net specie export, direct: $54,689,903 [rb note: It's hard to read some of the last six digits on my copy. The North's exports were mainly food stuffs (and petroleum surprisingly) to Europe.]
Thirty percent of New Yorks imports in that year came from cotton, sugar, and wool (a cotton replacement).
I don't know the exact legal status of the Distant Early Warning system, but we did maintain something very like "forts" in Canada during the Cold War.
Your objection is completely off base here, though. We do maintain a fort in a hostile country to the South of us: Guantanamo. Why should that have to be in Mexico of all places to be comparable to Sumter?
It's pretty clear that you can't legitimately dismiss my observation, so you try to do so illegitimately by misdirection.
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.