Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditto
What would your reaction be to a president who did not attempt to supply a besieged garrison?

Could have evacuated the Fort under a white flag
It was part of the general problem of UNION property in southern states
Once the south seceded they did not recognize federal claims to land in southern states
Lincoln didn't recognize the right to secede so in his mind it was still federal territory

My argument is that the war was fought to save the union.
Which I am not arguing against as a pragmatic goal since there would have been a war between north and south over the western lands anyway ( at least to my way of thinking ) and who knows what North america would have ended up being

Lincoln may have been against slavery but he was not going to risk a war and destruction of the union to outlaw it and stated so in speeches.
Part of his aura is as a geat emancipator which is not what he really was.
His greatness would lie in recognizing the over ridng necessity of saving the union ( if it meant dragging the south back )
The other aspect is it was easy for some in the North to moralize over slavery when their economic well being was not affected as there were plenty of immigrants and child labor to staff the factories etc

When it comes to one's rice bowl decisions are very hard to make if they are peceived as turning the bowl over
122 posted on 11/12/2002 11:21:12 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: uncbob
Lincoln may have been against slavery but he was not going to risk a war and destruction of the union to outlaw it and stated so in speeches.

Lincoln did what Jefferson and Washington did not do.

He determined upon a way to at least -begin- the ending of slavery. The way to do this, Lincoln thought, was to limit slavery to where it currently existed. He knew it would die if that happened. That is why he told his advisors to hang on "as with a chain of steel" to no expansion of slavery into the federal territories. And he never wavered from this. But even that was enough to set off the slave power, and the war came.

Lincoln once said that slavery was a "continual torment" to him, that he "abhorred" the oppression of blacks.

Gifted with a powerful intellect, Lincoln was also very pragmatic. He was willing to do what was possible. Limiting slavery --was-- possible. It --could-- be done. But the slave power wouldn't do it.

Lincoln's education....uh, I don't think Lincoln had any MBA's.

He DID once say it was important "to help our friends in Knoxville."

Walt

123 posted on 11/12/2002 11:36:39 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

To: uncbob
Could have evacuated the Fort under a white flag

That's exactly what happened, after Ft. Sumter came under attack by rebels.

124 posted on 11/12/2002 11:48:39 AM PST by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

To: uncbob
Lincoln may have been against slavery but he was not going to risk a war and destruction of the union to outlaw it and stated so in speeches.

We agree. Lincoln felt that slavery would die out if isolated. Looking at the economics of slavery, I think he was correct but IMHO, the 'death rattle' of slavery could possibly have been even more horrific in terms of loss of life than the Civil War. Think of Santo Domingo.

Part of his aura is as a geat emancipator which is not what he really was.

Disagree. If it had been in his power to end slavery early in the war, he would have. But that was not a political possibility. As late as the summer of 1864, many Republicans were urging him to retract the EP. To his everlasting credit, he refused even when it looked like he would lose the election. Sherman and Atlanta changed the political dynamic, and it became perfectly clear that the war would end only through victory there was no need to attempt to appease the slave power. It also became more clear to the general population that Lincoln's words from years before were indeed true --- "A nation can not endure half slave and half free. People understood that the regionalism was caused by slavery and they were then willing to see it ended. When the people allowed, Lincoln immediately began pushing the 13th Amendment which was passed by both houses in a matter of months.

His greatness would lie in recognizing the overriding necessity of saving the union ( if it meant dragging the south back )

We agree. He focused on first things first and never allowed himself to get too far beyond public opinion. (Read Frederick Douglass' dedication speech at the Freedmen's monument in Washington.)

The other aspect is it was easy for some in the North to moralize over slavery when their economic well being was not affected...

Generally true, but I think you overemphasize the amount of "moralizing" in the North over slavery. The radical abolitionists generally were not moralizing, they were operating from religious conviction and were as ready to destroy the Union to destroy slavery as the secessionists were to destroy the Union to preserve slavery. The great bulk of the north came to understand that slavery was the cause of the war and it needed to end to allow the Union to be resumed.

as there were plenty of immigrants and child labor to staff the factories etc

Rationalization. For 4 million blacks in the south, hard labor began at age 6 or earlier. Immigrants came to America for the opportunity to work. They could have as easily gone to the south as the north but because of slavery they were neither needed nor welcome there. Slavery kept the south backward and kept most white southerners poor.

126 posted on 11/12/2002 12:01:12 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson