Replies

#1
I SAID: He was not, as many claim, such an advocate of abolition, and only resorted to emancipation when the Union became desparate to defeat the Confederacy.

YOU SAID: As opposed to whom? Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, who were just dying to free all the slaves?
_____

As a matter of fact, Robert E. Lee was a LONG TIME advocate of abolition. He personally freed ALL his slaves in 1838, long before the War Between the States. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was pro-slavery, and he and Lee were clearly at odds on this issue on a long term basis. Lee, however, chose to serve in the Confederate Army NOT BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED SLAVERY, but because he supported the Constitution, which made the STATES SOVEREIGN, not Washington, DC. He could not, therefore fight against Virginia. No one denies slavery was the fatal flaw of the Confederacy — but the outcome of that war created an even greater flaw in the fabric of our nation, which is coming to fruition only now...
_____________________________________________________
#2
YOU SAID: The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in areas still in rebellion. Areas under Federal control, like the parishes in Southern Louisiana were exempted... But the EP was a sign that slavery was on its way out and would be gone if the Union won the war.
_____

This is true. Lincoln’s “freeing the slaves” ONLY applied to places in the Union or under Union control. So, the slaves were freed in the areas STILL in rebellion against Washington DC. In other words, NOT ONE SLAVE WAS ACTUALLY FREED. The reality is, Lincoln was hoping the slaves in those areas would rise up in rebellion against their Confederate Masters — which never happened. That slavery was on its way out was an already foregone conclusion by almost ALL in the States. It had been outlawed in England in the 1830’s due to Wilberforce’ tireless crusade, which took a generation. It had become economically infeasible in many areas of the South already. Given time, attrition and economic realities would have ended slavery. But that would not have achieved the ends desired by those in the North and in Washington, DC. Slavery served as a convenient pretext to force the ascent of Federal power over the States, to subvert the Constitution and to “enslave” all free men to the whims, policies and purse strings of Union politicians. They achieved their goal — and again, we are only now seeing the logical end of the usurpation of their ill-gotten powers.
_____________________________________________________
#3
I SAID: Lincoln’s great legacy is seen in an ever-growing, all powerful central, federal government in Washington DC, not the states.

YOU SAID: So is George Washington’s. So is the Founding Fathers. But, really, the great growth of the federal government had to wait for the 20th century progressives and the New Deal.
_____

Here, you’re dead wrong. George Washington and the Founders designed a federal government that was firmly checked and limited by not only 3 separate branches, but by ALL the individual State governments. For the most part, these checks and balances worked — UNTIL the War Between the States (WBTS). It was THEN that the Feds gained clear power by brute force over the several states that this vision of the Founders was destroyed.

You are right to this extent, it was not until the advent of the Progressives and FDR’s New Deal that we see Federal power exerted to extremes consistently. But that was not for lack of trying. The Radical Republicans wanted Reconstruction to be the “model” of this new type of Federal control — but some of the Union states, AND President Andrew Johnson, were having none of it. Johnson was even almost impeached because of it. And the citizens of the Southern States were having NONE of it. In 1876, after over 11 years of military rule, Washington dictates and massive white voter disenfranchisement, they Feds had to back off. Some of the Southern States managed to elect their own governments again, and were threatening another insurrection (read about the “Red Shirt Rebellion” for example). Despite the use of pitting the races against each other, they still failed to achieve their goals — at that moment. But the animosity they used between the races STILL serves their purposes today!
______________________________________________________
#4
I SAID: In short, Lincoln “freed the slaves” by “enslaving [all] free men.”

YOU SAID: Again, as opposed to whom? Do you really think anyone would have been freer in the Confederacy?
_____

As I said earlier, as opposed to the vision and Constitution of our Founders. What Lincoln’s war produced was a muted, largely hollow, gutted Constitution that Washington revises, ignores or “reinterprets” at their whim — something they largely COULD NOT DO before the WBTS. That’s just ONE reason we need the States to reassert the Tenth Amendment NOW — it’s the only way to RESTORE the Republic.

You ask if I really think anyone in the Confederacy would have been “freer”? We shall never know for a certainty — but I am quite willing and comfortable in saying YES. Yes, indeed!

As a matter of fact, Robert E. Lee was a LONG TIME advocate of abolition. He personally freed ALL his slaves in 1838, long before the War Between the States.

That is not true. Lee was not an abolitionist. It's just nonsensical to say that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist (he wasn't) and Lee was (he certainly never was).

Lee freed some slaves because his father-in-laws will dictated it, and that was in 1862 during the Civil War.

Lee, however, chose to serve in the Confederate Army NOT BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED SLAVERY, but because he supported the Constitution, which made the STATES SOVEREIGN, not Washington, DC.

Not many serious scholars would accept that reading of the Constitution.

He could not, therefore fight against Virginia.

In spite of the oath he had when he became an officer?

No one denies slavery was the fatal flaw of the Confederacy — but the outcome of that war created an even greater flaw in the fabric of our nation, which is coming to fruition only now...

Try slavery for a while and see if you still feel that way.

In other words, NOT ONE SLAVE WAS ACTUALLY FREED. The reality is, Lincoln was hoping the slaves in those areas would rise up in rebellion against their Confederate Masters — which never happened.

The slaves freed themselves, by leaving their masters and making their way to union lines. I don't know what Lincoln was thinking, but that was a more likely outcome than mass uprisings, and I wouldn't be surprised if he thought so when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

That slavery was on its way out was an already foregone conclusion by almost ALL in the States.

That's the myth, but when you look at what Southern extremists were saying in 1860, it's just not true. There was even talk of expanding the Confederacy to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Latin America.

Given time, attrition and economic realities would have ended slavery.

Given how much time? Say slavery was abolished in 1890 or 1900 for those born after that date, slaves born before that could have been bought and worked and sold long into the 20th century.

That's just a hypothetical, but slavery was a live issue at the time. It was a reality and a victorious Confederacy could have held off emancipation for a long time.

But that would not have achieved the ends desired by those in the North and in Washington, DC. Slavery served as a convenient pretext to force the ascent of Federal power over the States, to subvert the Constitution and to “enslave” all free men to the whims, policies and purse strings of Union politicians.

So in 1859 we were all free, and in 1866 we'd become enslaved? Not very likely.

Sorry, but even before 1860, the things Lincoln favored -- a national banking system, protective tariffs, transportation subsidies, a Homestead Act -- were all constitutional and not liable to checks from individual state governments.

Despite the use of pitting the races against each other, they still failed to achieve their goals — at that moment.

Not clear who "they" are here. Certainly Southern anti-reconstructionists did achieve their goals by pitting the races against each other. Reconstruction Republicans didn't succeed in putting their program through, but were they really the ones setting race against race at that time? If you were an ex-master appalled by his ex-slave having the vote you might think so, but would lovers of liberty take that view now?

What Lincoln’s war produced was a muted, largely hollow, gutted Constitution that Washington revises, ignores or “reinterprets” at their whim — something they largely COULD NOT DO before the WBTS. That’s just ONE reason we need the States to reassert the Tenth Amendment NOW — it’s the only way to RESTORE the Republic.

That sounds like a loose league of independent sovereignties. That was never how the Constitution worked. It may be how things worked under the Articles of Confederation, but it wouldn't be a restoration of the Constitution.

As a matter of fact, Robert E. Lee was a LONG TIME advocate of abolition.

FYI, here's REL's opinion as to abolition as of 1856, in a letter commenting on an anti-abolitionist speech by President Pierce.

" I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

Quite apparently REL was perfectly happy to have the elimination of slavery take a few more thousand years. What's a millenium or two?

I found particularly sanctimonious the last sentence quoted. He apparently thinks abolitionist New Englanders should be more tolerant of the spiritual liberty of southerners holding others in bondage than of the spiritual liberty of those so held.

REL was a very great man, and an even greater soldier, but he obviously had some very serious moral blind spots.