Taking Mr. Norris' account of his inhuman flogging at General Lee's order as accurate (and, disallowing the possibility of exaggeration, I have no reason to believe it is inaccurate), it is established that Lee thus (on at least this occasion) behaved in a cold-blooded and barbarous manner towards those slaves of "his" who elected, as properly sovereign Human Beings, to Secede from his Plantation.
Which compels me only to two questions:
Lincoln stated in his own First Inaugural that his object was NOT to free the slaves, but rather to continue collecting Federal Tariffs upon the Southern Trade (through all those "fortifications", i.e., Tax Forts, by which the Federals collected monies from the free-trading South): "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using force against, or among the people anywhere".
I'll reserve in advance that I genuinely believe that the Southern "peculiar institution" of life-long and multi-generational Slavery was a supreme, Anti-Biblical Evil, utterly abhorrent to the norms of Biblical Law (despite the abusive attempts of some Southern preachers to justify the practice). I just happen to believe that an Invasion of Conquest, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and originally commenced for the purpose of Collecting Taxes (even if it was, and that only later, tepidly justified on Emancipationist grounds), is pretty Evil too.
I was born and bred an Iowa Yankee, so I don't have an Old Dixie, "Lost Cause" dog in this hunt. I'd just like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Best, OP
1.) Was it Just for Lincoln to commence a War of Conquest against those Southern States who elected to Secede from a Northern Plantation of Protectionist Tariffs?
Comparing the torture of a man who was already captured, to the actions that were necessary to end rebellion is a bit of not fair, no? Now if the Federal govt had insisted that all southerners be tortured after the rebellion ended, you may have a point. You don't.
It was not a war of conquest, it was a war to end a rebellion. The US included the southern states. The states did not form the federal government as individuals, but rather the entire people formed it. If 9 states were necessary to put the constitution in effect, no single state could then withdraw. Compacts between states are specifically forbidden without the permission of Congress.
The constitution guarantees to each state, a republican form of government. No state can leave, or else it can leave, and then establish a dictatorship, which is darn close to what the South tried to do. Davis never did get around to appointing a Confederate Supreme Court. After the southern armies were attritted and occupied fighting the north, they were unable to enforce Confederate directives, but a dictatorship is what they wanted. The South conscripted its soldiers, while the US used volunteers for a long time.
The Articles of Confederation established a perpetual union. The south did not submit a court case, they gathered armies. Buchanan's secretary of war shipped Federal property south where it could be stolen. The south, rather than awaiting legal dispositions, fired on federal troops, occupying a federal fort (Ft Moulton) in the process.
Considering that there was no income tax at that time, and that free trade depended on federal navy patrols of the sea lanes, it is silly to think that the south should benefit from free trade, (selling cotton free of tarriffs) and not even pay for their imports.
Tax plantation is a mixed metaphor, and is unfair. The north paid many times what the south paid in tariffs.
I suppose one can imagine a situation where the south raised armies, and the North did nothing. As it was, the North had to raise militia companies even to get the duly elected President to his inauguration. Yes, the entire south is also my country, and anyone pretending to remove part of it will be resisted. Lincoln didn't launch an invasion, he responded to armed insurrection on US territory.
2.) Just supposing that Lincoln HAD desired to free the slaves -- and by his own words, he originally intended no such thing, but rather the Collection of Taxes -- is it Moral to commit Mass-Murder to secure another man's freedom?
I think that it is moral to kill terrorists. That is not murder, it is necessary. Would you suggest that when the terrorist comes to kill you, you should bend your neck to his blade, lest you commit murder? Darn foolish argument.
When an army resists, fighting in a bad cause (insurrection, slavery, racial injustice) fighting against that army in a good cause) ending insurrection, ending slavery, securing federal property purchased by the Government, and improved at the cost of all federal tax payers) that is not murder. It is ending insurrection and reestablishing justice and the rule of law.
The connection between tariff and trade protection is well known. The theft of government property by rebels during the waning months of the Buchanan administration is well known.
Give to Caesar what is Caesars. Give to G-d what is G-ds.