Posted on 09/02/2019 4:35:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.
Stephen Douglas:
We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.
Abraham Lincoln:
Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.
A lot of what you say is true. But it matters not what reason slavery was outlawed. The fact slavery was illegal in several states. Those people were free men & women. Whether they were liked, disliked, considered equal or hated, does not matter, they were free. Something that was not going to happen in the South.
Here is one of the “supply” ships. (Pawnee)
That is a war ship. as is the next photo you have displayed, uniformed sailors and cannon make that obvious to all.
the civilian charter Baltic was the “supply ship” for the expedition. She was not armed either. Nor were the other two steam tugs again both civilian charter.
The tug Yankee was not armed at the time of the Sumter expedition, she was a civilian charter, commanded by a Civilian master and manned by civilians. Shortly after her Sumter charter was ended, she was purchased by the U.S. Navy
Within a month of becoming USS Yankee,she was modified to carry two naval 32 lb. guns on her deck.
It was going to happen in the South too, it was just going to take a while longer, because so many people were making money off of the existing system. When profits eventually fell below a certain threshold while social pressure continued to rise, slavery would have stopped.
But it matters not what reason slavery was outlawed.
It does matter, because the public has been greatly misinformed on the matter. They have been taught a narrative that portrays all the Southern people as "evil", and all the Northern people as "good", and it is entirely based on the propagandized claim that the Northern people abolished slavery because they cared about the suffering of black people.
The reality is that they abolished slavery as a tool to help them win the war. Not only did the propaganda work for them in European courts, so too did the practical effective of depriving them of workers and using those freed workers as soldiers against them.
Their intent was to keep everyone enslaved when the war was began. They only changed their mind about this when they saw it to be advantageous for themselves.
So was Powhatan, and so was "Harriet Lane." Thomas Freeborn was also known to be armed in the later part of April, but you make a good argument that it might not have been armed on April 12.
Yes, the bulk of the ships consisted of WAR ships, not cargo ships.
the civilian charter Baltic was the “supply ship” for the expedition. She was not armed either.
A couple of hundred riflemen on board constitutes a military mission, and it also constitutes "armed", though not with ships cannon. Perhaps it even had some of those, but it was intended as a troop carrier.
Still a belligerent. Also some of that cargo was munitions.
Point is, they sent ships that would be regarded as a threat. They did not send "cargo" ships, they sent warships and one passenger ship carrying troops and munitions.
A further point is, the Confederates did not know if this was all that had been sent. Other ships were unaccounted for, and the fleet could have been bigger than the Confederates then knew.
But one thing any reasonable person on those shores would know. Lincoln wasn't going to send a group of warships that would be too small to do the job. Lincoln was not going to send ships to be destroyed by the Confederate cannon batteries lining the shore.
But he did. His force was way to small to face what it was expected to face. If it had done what it had been ordered to do, all those ships would have been lost.
Don't take my word for it. Union Admiral David Dixon Porter said this exact thing in his memoirs.
But for some reason all those ships were halted, and prevented from going into harms way, and the official explanation claimed is faulty orders to the Powhatan. A mix up you see.
Astonishing coincidence the mix up caused all those ships to be saved, but still allowed them to be seen by the Confederates as a serious threat.
Everything is connected. But directly connected, no. The issue with progressives is always ideology. Specifically its relation to growing government bigger. One of the most defining characteristics of progressivism is an outward disdain or rejection for the Founding of this country.
"There is so much connectivity between the Civil War and Progressivism that I don't even know where to start in explaining it to you."
If I were to compare Lincoln's speeches to Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, where am I more likely to find a rejection of the Founders? A candid reading would answer it's in the Cornerstone where "all men are created equal" is unequivocally rejected.
But just to be clear, that doesn't matter. Because there isn't a direct link.
"The feminist icons were all abolitionists. The big money wealthy of New York, financed all the progresivism, and many of the "progressives" were from this same North Eastern big wealth environment."
This is all grasping. The early abolitionists were Founders themselves, are we going to surrender Benjamin Franklin to the progressives? Were John Jay and John Hancock now just some rich elitist snob establishment progressives? Well they were northeasterners. Where does this nonsense end?
The ideological lineage goes cold at about 1900. There is no direct links beyond that. The ideology means absolutely everything.
What did Lincoln do? He grew the government. Massively. What did he reject from the founding of the country? The principle that states have a right to be independent.
He also rejected constitutional law with which he disagreed.
If I were to compare Lincoln's speeches to Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, where am I more likely to find a rejection of the Founders?
Stephens was a nobody of little consequence. Lincoln caused a war that killed 750,000 people, destroyed the existing limitations on federal power, obliterated the principle of self determination, and laid waste to huge swaths of the nation just to establish the Federal government as the dominant master of all the states.
A candid reading would answer it's in the Cornerstone where "all men are created equal" is unequivocally rejected.
The founders rejected the notion that it applied to slaves when it was written and signed. You keep trying to pretend that the founders were making a statement on slavery. A candid admission would be that the Founders and Stephens were not all that far apart on this particular point. Certainly Jefferson kept his 600 slaves during his lifetime. Doesn't sound at all like someone who believes "all men are created equal."
This is all grasping. The early abolitionists were Founders themselves, are we going to surrender Benjamin Franklin to the progressives? Were John Jay and John Hancock now just some rich elitist snob establishment progressives? Well they were northeasterners. Where does this nonsense end?
You started with "Progressives." I pointed out the connection between these feminist icons and the civil war. That some of the founders were abolitionists does not speak to the point, that the feminists started out as radical abolitionists. Then they moved on to enfranchisement of women, abortion and family planning, the temperance movement and every other liberal cause we are cursed with today.
The ideological lineage goes cold at about 1900. There is no direct links beyond that. The ideology means absolutely everything.
You need to read more.
Jefferson Davis was a politician and he aspired to create a new nation. He had personal political aspirations and ambitions for his country. He was capable of thinking tactically and strategically, both in his own interest in the interest of his new country and regime. Davis wasn't a babe in the woods. He wasn't purely reactive and he wasn't duped by Lincoln. Davis had had more political experience and political experience at a higher level than Lincoln. He'd been a congressman, a senator, secretary of war, and even a president's son-in-law. He'd been to university, graduated West Point and led troops in battle. Treating him as though he were a rag doll or putty in Lincoln's hands, and not a qualified political profession with his own goals and aspirations is patronizing and insulting.
Lincoln wasn't trying to force anyone to accept his terms. He was trying to keep the fort in federal hands and operational. It was the secessionists who were making demands and issuing ultimatums. Secessionist leaders had already been capturing federal forts, bases, and arsenals and seizing federal property. In some states, this had been going on before ordinances of secession had been voted. So even if you believe that unilateral secession at will was constitutional, such actions still were seditious or treasonable.
We had a long discussion with Diogenes about the court decision that freed the slaves in Massachusetts. Those decisions came down because the state had fought for freedom in the Revolution and recognized that slavery was opposed the the principles they had fought for. While the decision was made by judges, the people agreed with the decision. There was no outcry against it.
So much idiocy from Diogenes. Do people really "care" in a loving, solicitous way about those they don't know? Not really. Not then and not now. But they do sometimes try to end oppression and abuses and imposed on other people. They may not want the victims to move in next door, but they sometimes do take action against injustices, and in that more limited sense, they can be said to "care" about what was done to other people.
But none of this fits with Diogenes's polarized and oversimplified view of the world.
“hat’s why I really despise southern whites no matter how talented or gifted they are individually”
What I hear you say is that you despise blacks.
Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861
It would be proper, we suppose, to prohibit coast-wise trade to and from the ports of South Carolina, whilst she is in her present attitude of armed defiance of the United States. In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts become of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws.
Abner Doubleday, brevet Major-General, U.S.A., "From Moultrie to Sumter".
We believed that in the event of an outbreak from Charleston few of us would survive; but it did not greatly concern us, since that risk was merely a part of our business, and we intended to make the best fight we could. The officers, upon talking the matter over, thought they might control any demonstration at Charleston by throwing shells into the city from Castle Pinckney.
You may think those fortresses posed no threat to the confederacy or to Charleston, but I think people looked at it differently when they lived under the guns of those forts.
.
.
.
Lincoln wasn't trying to force anyone to accept his terms. He was trying to keep the fort in federal hands and operational.
The fort had never been operational. It had never even been manned until Anderson commandeered a ship to sail him over to it in the middle of the night.
Two points. First of all, I don't regard "the law" to be based on what people agree with after the fact.
Second of all, if they "agreed with the decision", why didn't it get proposed as a law instead of a behind the back stunt and example of judicial overreach?
It passed as law in other states, why couldn't Massachusetts do it?
Judicial activism has long left a bad taste in conservative mouths because far too often Judges are abusing their powers in making up some ridiculous new interpretation of law, and it's usually to the detriment of conservatives or to society in general. "Penumbra" is a bad word in conservative circles.
So much idiocy from Diogenes. Do people really "care" in a loving, solicitous way about those they don't know?
They very much care if they see them as threats to their livelihood and wages. What do you think the current issue of illegal immigration is about? Is it not about illegals becoming a burden and/or taking jobs away from Americans?
Yes, people care very much about people they don't know, when they see those people as a threat to themselves. Such was the hatred of Northerners towards slavery. They cared about slaves being in their communities (because they were black, and they didn't want black people associating with white people) and they cared that slaves might pose a threat to their wages and job opportunities, not very unlike the modern fear of illegals.
The 1860 Northern position on slaves is a lot like the current majority 2019 position on illegals.
That made it extremely unlikely that the fort would fire into the city.
And if Fort Sumter was never operational that made the decision to destroy it that much more puzzling.
The idiocy never ends with you. You leave out the actual "slavery" thing to present an ignorant and specious analogy. Americans object to people being held against their will for no valid reason.
regardless of what Jefferson did or owned and Lincoln’s motivation, the declaration says all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable right to liberty
Those of you who say somewhere in there it says EXCEPT slaves” is beyond me. Not following up does not erase the language.
A point which may have been lost on those Charlestonians that might have been worried about getting shelled.
That made it extremely unlikely that the fort would fire into the city.
I've given you two different sources who discussed it. There may have been others of which the people of that era may have been informed. They no doubt feared that such a thing might happen, because one never knows what a crazy President might do.
You are dismissing this concern because you don't believe anyone would have ever done such a thing, but those same people did far worse in the war, and I think people of that era were more knowledgeable about the savagery of man, and had no illusions regarding what might happen.
They were right to fear getting shelled, and they were right to insist that no potentially hostile force should occupy the entrance to their harbor.
And if Fort Sumter was never operational that made the decision to destroy it that much more puzzling.
South Carolina agreed to it's construction to serve as a defense for South Carolina. When it is recognized as an offensive platform, it is better to destroy it than to leave it as a sword of Damocles.
I have no interest in discussing a condition that would have been maintained in the Union had secession never occurred. I find it disgusting when people try to force the Civil War into the straw man of slavery. I consider this a cowardly dodge by people who don't want to address the actual causes of the war.
Slavery was going to continue being legal when the Union launched it's war against the South. The North had absolutely no intention of changing slavery so long as they kept getting the money from it.
This is why I consider all these moral claims to be so much crap. Nobody in the Union invaded the South for a moral reason, they did it for money and raw power. As Charles Dickens said, the slaves would get tossed into the bargain, but could just as well have been tossed out of it.
"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
.
.
Americans object to people being held against their will for no valid reason.
If there had been any intentions of doing anything about this when they invaded the South, you would have a valid moral point, but since the intent was to keep them in their chains and working in those fields that were making so much money for New York and Washington DC, the Army sent to kill the people of the South doesn't get to use the slavery argument to justify what they did.
They had no intention of doing it when they began.
The war has to be justified under the purpose of the invading force when it was began, not for some reason made up nearly two years after the start of the war.
You need to stop acting like a five year old. If you have nothing better than calling names, you need to go sit at the kiddie table and let us adults continue discussing the topic.
Well aware of the details of the Harriet Lane and the Nashville. Point was, it was still an act of aggression.
How kindly do you think the North would have taken it had a ship from Charleston sailed up to New York harbor and fired at a ship coming out?
People on shore could see flashes of light and hear big booms, so they may very well have thought this was an attack.
You may be ignorant of this fact, but things were pretty tense in the area of the Harbor entrance. Some warmonger had sent a fleet of warships with instructions to attack if they were resisted in putting supplies into that fort.
And that's if you believe him. People had already tried to sneak troops into the fort in January, but they were caught and turned around.
After a stunt like that, people probably didn't believe what the Union government told them. They had been told repeatedly by Union government officials that the Fort would be turned over to them, and the next thing they know, here are warships ready to fight over it.
Yeah, I wouldn't be trusting a D@mn thing they said either.
To hear some of you speak of it, that's the only D@mned thing it does say.
Lost on you is the fact that it didn't have a D@mn thing to do with slaves. It's ENTIRE purpose was to make the case for why the States should be free from the Union. (United Kingdom.)
Those of you who say somewhere in there it says EXCEPT slaves” is beyond me. Not following up does not erase the language.
If it were intended to mean that, Jefferson would have freed his slaves. All 13 slave states would have freed theirs. If you think they meant for it to apply to slaves, you are lying to yourself.
I said what it said. That’s all I said. I acknowledged he kept slaves.
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.