Posted on 02/21/2006 7:59:04 AM PST by stainlessbanner
I meant that they were not conscripted.
P.S. My point is with merit, if you read the link to the Smithsonian it states he refused to make abolition of slavery a Northern goal, in the early part of the Civil War, the beginning, so he did not always want to end slavery. He did not want to do so for fear of alienating slave holding border states. So when he did so, it was only the rebellious Confederate states.
All of the other comments you made took place years later.
If you read the link at the Smithsonian, he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons.
It is also in history that Pres. Lincoln gave 250,000 to a man to go to Haiti (or some country down there) to set up a means to transport blacks to that country. This person in charge made off with the money and everything fell through.
Also he was trying and considering how to move the blacks west of the Mississippi.
Am I critical of Lincoln, no, this is history, and we do not know what we would have done. I do think though, he should have set out to free all slaves.
Which goes back to my first post, that the Civil War was first and foremost a war of States Rights.
By the way, I tend to lean to the idea that the Civil War was not so much a civil war, but really that old signal of Southern apology, The War between the States. And I am also sympathetic to the arguments that the war was not so much about slavery per se, but about Northern ambitions for greater federal control over national policies being radically rejected by politically outnumbered Southerners. But of course slavery was an obvious focus of Northern and Southern political fighting, and so, what the hell, I accept the one-sentence description: The Civil War was fought to end slavery. There's enough truth in the description and, after all, I don't see much use in 2006 to be wrangling seriously over the question outside the ranks of history buffs. It's an interesting topic to muse about occasionally, however.
I don't think I'm proving your point at all. You brush off the rise of slavery in Texas from its inception as a republic to admission as if it is irrelevant, saying it wasn't 'entrenched,' but the slave population was rising BECAUSE the institution was widely supported! Your suggestion in the 'what-if' is that the Republic could have been induced to give up slavery by a U.S. that required it as precondition for admission. But the possibility that slavery would be ended was at LEAST a significant reason for Texas seceding from Mexico--after Santa Anna ripped up the Mexican federal constitution and extended the Mexican slavery ban to Texas, Texas erupted in rebellion. In fact, one of Texas' first actions was to ban free blacks from the Republic. In March of 1836 Texans put a slavery guarantee in their constitution, too. Hell, they even elected Lamar, who worked his fanny off for years to keep Texas independent and slaveholding. Lamar only ever came around to Union because he thought it would PROTECT slavery in Texas.
No, it does not at all seem likely to me that a country that had fought for its right to own slaves would suddenly acquiesce to give them up for the Union. Of course, we're arguing a what-if, and I don't want to belabor the point. We'll simply have to disagree. I don't mean to insult Texas by saying it, or demean the Texas Republic--I just figure different than you do about the purpose of Texan annexation to Texans.
And because this topic has got some history buffs reading it, could someone direct me to some information about the legality of secession? This thread has jogged my memory about a question I had as a history student reading the Constitution. If the Southern states could not legally dissolve the Union, then why were they readmitted by Congress after the war? And how could West Virginia become a state? Breaking up a single state into more than one is prohibited in the Constitution. This has always bugged me about simple descriptions of the war and its causes. Here we have clear evidence that politicians at the time considered the Union dissolvable. Anybody have some thoughts or reading suggestions?
I am not defending Texas or its use of slavery but you forget that the Republic of Texas was in a very weak position.
Assuming the U.S. president required a "no slavery requirement" for annexation, it had four choices: join the U.S. but give up slavery, rejoin Mexico (a very real possibility) but give up slavery, become a British possession (a real possibility), but give up slavery, or remain independent and vulnerable. Please note that President Sam Houston was very much a wild card on this as he was in 1861 when he came out against secession.
If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?
Let's Ditch Dixie: The case for northern secession
President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession
Thanks very much. I'm reading your links.
How come nobody every mentions the equally "squalid" 15th Amendment? Hmmm.....
You might have to search through the threads for some gems, but they're out there. FR has some really sharp folks.
Yeah, I read the link to the Smithsonian, a one-paragraph item written at a 7th-grade level. First, you appear to confuse "wanting" with "having the power." I'm sure President Bush "wants" to end abortion. Does he have the power to do so, though? No. You make the all-too-usual Lost Causer mistake of starting from the assumption that Lincoln was a dictator, then accusing him of being morally lax because he didn't use his dictatorial powers.
Indeed, Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a war aim at the beginning. Nor was it a war aim at the end. The war aim was to put down the rebellion and preserve the Union. The EP was a war measure. Before the war, Lincoln frequently said that he had neither any intention of abolishing slavery in the states where it existed, nor the belief that he had the power to do so. His concern was the slave states' insistence on expanding slavery into the territories and into new states. The war, however, gave him to opportunity end slavery in the south.
He did not want to do so for fear of alienating slave holding border states. So when he did so, it was only the rebellious Confederate states.
Wrong again. By the time of the EP on January 1, 1863, the border states were firmly Union. Now, if he'd done it a year and a half earlier, you might have a point.
All of the other comments you made took place years later.
But they were in the works, through normal political process. West Virginia debated ending slavery at their statehood convention in January 1862, passed an act phasing out slavery that July. Debates in all the Union slave states were ongoing, with Democrats holding out. The 1864 election was the turning point, tipping three of the four Union slave states toward abolition within weeks and allowing Congress the pass the 13th on to the states. We're talking about 24 months here to let democracy take it's course in states that stayed loyal to the Union and therefore weren't under Lincoln's authority as Commander in Chief.
If you read the link at the Smithsonian, he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons.
You'll have to point out where it says that. Here, I'll save you a step. Here's the whole three sentences of your source: "In spite of vocal prodding from abolitionists, President Lincoln steadfastly refused to make the abolition of slavery a Northern goal in the early stages of the Civil War, lest doing so would alienate slaveholding border states that remained loyal to the Union. By mid-1862, however, Lincoln’s concern for enhancing the moral weight of the United States in the eyes of the world convinced him that it was time to act. In September 1862, he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, which would take effect on January 1, 1863, and declared all slaves free in those regions of the South still in rebellion. Where does it say, "he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons." What it says is that early on he didn't make it as a "Northern goal" and that the EP "declared all slaves free in those regions of the South still in rebellion." It does NOT say that he could have freed slaves in Union states on his say-so.
t is also in history that Pres. Lincoln gave 250,000 to a man to go to Haiti (or some country down there) to set up a means to transport blacks to that country. This person in charge made off with the money and everything fell through.
Proof again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, Lincoln supported colonization schemes, including the disastrous Ile de Vache scheme, which took black volunteers to Haiti, then ditched them there and took the money. Inexplicably (I'm sure to you), Lincoln sent ships to return the black colonists to the US. Pretty poor deportation scheme, huh? The fact is that Lincoln, naively perhaps, thought many blacks wouldn't want to live among whites after they were freed. The colonization schemes he supported were always predicated on volunteers wanting to go, and he utterly rejected any notion of forcible deportation.
Which goes back to my first post, that the Civil War was first and foremost a war of States Rights.
Sure, a state's right to weaken the entire nation. to seize forts and armories and to fire on US troops, when an election doesn't go their way and they think that maybe the new administration might put some pressure on their rights to own black people. If that's the state's right you mean, I agree.
I do think though, he should have set out to free all slaves.
And maybe he did. Maybe in his heart that was always the goal. There's plenty of evidence of his opposition to slavery throughout his life. ("If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong".) But he was also constricted in his ability to make it happen--by the war, by congress, by the states, and by the Constitution.
In the end, though, it comes down to one, simple irrefutable fact: Before Lincoln, slavery. After Lincoln, no slavery.
My apologies, then. There's a lot of verbal slash and burn in FR's Civil War threads, on both sides. It can seem brusque to someone not familiar with it. For most of us, I suspect, it's the reason to keep coming back. It's not like someone's going to say something one day and the other side will say, "Well, I guess you're right. Lincoln was a racist dictator" or "Now I understand--the South DIDN'T have a right to secede, and they only cared about slavery."
In regards to the Smithsonian pieces, though, I think that the larger point I was trying to make was that, comprising just three sentences, it simply isn't very good at expressing the Constitutional or political realities that Lincoln faced.
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.