Posted on 08/12/2020 2:31:56 PM PDT by Jonty30
Abolitionists were considered either terrorists outright or supporters of terrorists..
The average union soldier was NOT fighting to free slaves.
All of the plantation "jobs" were held by slaves. Southerners had to scavenge work elsewhere. Freeing the slaves would have made little to no impact overall because if they left the plantation, those jobs would open up for others looking for work.
The northern folks were the ones wanting to keep the slaves in the south so they didn't come up north and start taking their jobs. The LAST thing they wanted was to "free" the slaves as this would be one of the results. After the war, there had to be a justification made for killing 750,000 young men in the prime of their lives. The real reason, continued economic raping of the south by the north, would never fly. That's when "ending slavery" became the "reason". Yea, right.
Well, there is that little story about Sherman’s soldiers Raping the black slave women of Columbia South Carolina. But, we can overlook that one, right?
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.”
--A. Lincoln 1858
You want to REALLY watch a very good movie about that time? A REALLY good one?
Get the “Free State of Jones” and watch it.
It will explain a lot both pro and con per your discussion.
A basically factual movie.
Nope. Your are suffering from the History of Now thinking.
You are applying economics of today to the world of the 19th Century.
The Anti-slavery sentiments of the North started in reality before the Revolution. Then the true anti-slavery movement started in earnest in the 1820s.
This all before the industrial revolution really took hold in the United States. Economics really were for the most part Local. People were not mobile enough to pack up and move across the country to get a better job.
The only exception to this rule was the Gold Rush and those seeking farmland in the West. Most people were tied to the place they were born. They lived and died where they were born.
It was only the economics of Taxes that effected the North when it cane to the slavery in the South and very few of your average man on the street that would think in those terms.
Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist. In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln was no supporter of racial equality. In fact, while debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
No we can't. The abolitionists were active decades before the Civil War, risking their own lives to help free slaves.
I guess ‘logically’ speaking the side that NEEDED cheap labor figured it was cheaper paying a very minimum wage was a lot CHEAPER than having ‘free labor’ which you must guard, protect, feed, house and keep in good enough shape to get some work out of them.
In essence who was worse off?
The Irish immigrant in New York living and paying rent in run down buildings, having to buy groceries and support ones family.
I seem to recall something along the line that the ‘Irish laborers’ in New York were FOR slavery as they felt they would probably have to compete with the ‘new labor’ force which was used to getting paid nothing.
Like the tale John Lewis tried to sell about the ‘casual’ tossing overboard of slaves basically for fun while in reality it made no sense to throw perfectly ‘healthy’ people overboard when the ‘ship’ had paid for them and could only recoup the money when cargo had arrived in port and sold or at least ‘reassigned’.
I remember Rush tearing Lewis’ story down how to reach the #s Lewis was presenting would have required about 1000 or so a day over board, which was highly unlikely so Lewis cut the estimated figure in half and Rush again shot him down and the story faded...(except for a ‘few smart arses’ (like me) that remember no matter how much ‘good’ Lewis had down earlier, I remember for this event.)
Let's agree that starting off a discussion with an obtuse statement like that ends discussion before it begins.
The dynamic of the first American Civil War is very simple: The North hated, resented and coveted the political power of the South. Most presidents came from the South prior to the war and the South’s national political influence was very significant. The North wanted to crush that- and they did. Northerners have always looked down their noses at Southerners and still do to this day.
As I understand it was much cheaper to ship by water than land. Much of the Souths cotton went to England, made into cloth and shipped along with other manufactured goods backed to the South.
This gave the North a disadvantage.
So tariffs were started hurting the South and England. I’ve read the South was paying 75% of the taxes prior to the war.
A few reasons first of which was because it was a terrible way to treat other children of God.
I’ve read that Britain was considering joining the war in support of the CSA. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which prevented them from joining because it would look as if Britain were supporting slavery. I’ve also read that Britain was putting troops in Canada just in case they did join the war.
England was willing and able to support the South and would’ve loved to, but they were never convinced the South could win and didn’t want to deal with the aftermath of supporting the losing side. Their lack of support had nothing to do with a moral issue around slavery. It was all politics.
Robert Morgan, a writer for the Institute for Historical Review, confirmed that, on Aug. 14, 1862, Lincoln invited free Black ministers to the White House to have a conversation. Lincoln did not hesitate to convince them of their inferiority when he candidly said the following: “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”
Precisely. There are so many liars these days.
A basic mistake you are making is thinking of and referring to “the North”, as if every Northerner thought (or thinks) the same as every other Northerner and did (or does) things for the same reasons as every other Northerner.
The response to your question is that some did, for reasons that may or may not have been in common with others; some didn’t, for reasons that may or may not have been in common with others; and some didn’t care one way or the other.
You need a better question.
You are NOT right. Absent outside influence, Lincoln would have left slavery alone, by my understanding. But, in conjunction with disputing the right of states to secede (which should still be questioned) Lincoln had to accede to demands for abolition from leading political voices in the north.
For the northern troops, it was perceived as a significant slight, to my understanding.
To history, it became the cause celebre for the world.
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.