Posted on 01/01/2013 6:56:33 AM PST by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This column was coauthored by Bob Morrison.
President Abraham Lincoln had been warned by Gen. George B. McClellan not to interfere with the institution of slavery. McClellan was a “War Democrat,” willing to fight to preserve the Union, but unwilling to do anything about the root cause of the rebellion that threatened the life of the nation.
Ironically, it was McClellan’s victory at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, that had given Lincoln the opportunity he needed to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. In that document, the President warned rebellious states in the South that they would have their slaves freed if they did not cease their insurrection against the federal government and once again obey the laws of the Union.
That hundred-day period had been a difficult one for President Lincoln. There would be political reverses in the mid-term congressional elections that fall. Democrats campaigned on the slogan “The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.” That meant slavery would be secure in all the states where it then existed. They picked up congressional seats and won key state governorships.
And then, there was the disastrous Union defeat at Fredericksburg, Virginia. Thousands of Union soldiers died in thirteen fruitless charges against Marye’s Heights. An extraordinary appearance of the Northern Lights on the night of that battle led people to say the very heavens were draped in mourning.
Now, on January 1, 1863, Lincoln proved true to his word on Emancipation. But, as he sat down to sign the engrossed copy of the historic document, he noted an error in the text. Lincoln knew that the U.S. Supreme Court was hostile to Emancipation. If there was a single error, Lincoln knew the pro-slavery Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would strike down the Emancipation Proclamation. So he ordered it re-copied for signature later that same day.
Meanwhile, President Lincoln had to stand for hours shaking thousands of hands in the traditional New Year’s Day reception at the White House. When he came back to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, his hand was shaking. As his puzzled colleagues looked on,he exercised his weary arm.
He explained: “If I am remembered for anything, it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it.” He did not want future generations to see a feeble signature and say he hesitated. So he signed it “Abraham Lincoln.” He wrote out his full name, not signing it as he usually did, “A. Lincoln.”
January 1, 2013, the National Archives places the Emancipation Proclamation on rare public display, the text is hardly legible, the victim of age and light. But Abraham Lincoln stands out clearly.
Some cynics today say Lincoln freed no slaves where he had power and all the slaves where he did not. Then, too, the London newspapers adopted a snarky tone: “The high principle of Mr. Lincoln’s proclamation is that a man may not own a man unless he is loyal to Mr. Lincoln’s government.”
That criticism was as ignorant as it was unfair. Lincoln was no despot. He knew that he could not constitutionally deprive loyal citizens of their slaves so long as they obeyed the laws. He pleaded and cajoled the congressmen from the loyal slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. They stubbornly refused his offers of compensated emancipation.
Lincoln was an able lawyer who new his brief. He had been a reader of Richmond newspapers for years. When secessionist editors boasted that the South could outlast the North because they could send all their young men into the army, while slaves would work the farms and factories, Lincoln took note.
Because the rebels themselves claimed slavery was a military asset, Lincoln knew he was on solid ground in freeing those slaves. His Emancipation Proclamation was a constitutional exercise of his powers as commander-in-chief of the army and navy. He justified it as an act of military necessity.
Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the Great Emancipator. He knew that the advance of the Union armies would bring freedom to millions.
Lincoln’s bold black signature had done this. And he would do more. As the movie, Lincoln, so clearly shows, the president was the prime mover behind the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. That measure ended slavery in every state. It’s a shame that the able writers and directors of this new movie did not show Lincoln signing that amendment, too. A president’s signature is not necessary for a constitutional amendment, but Lincoln once again had his whole heart and soul in it.
This is the day, January 1, 1863, one hundred fifty years ago, that changed America forever. From that date onward, Father Abraham’s armies, the armies of the United States, became armies of liberation. Those soldiers, black and white, carried freedom in their haversacks.
The writer demonstrates his lack of a real education. The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics. The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor - and they succeeded. Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves was simply a tactic of war. While he was personally against slavery, he repeatedly indicated that he accepted the Southerners right to own slaves:
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Letter to Alexander H. Stephens” (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
Even more telling is this quote:
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Go to the head of the class. The economic tug of war began early on. I can't remember exactly, but somehow I recall things labelled the "intolerable tariffs" in the 1820's that were designed to "bring those 'suthrnrs' to their bended knees." or some such.
But now I've probably started a firestorm.
I think it is you who show your lack of education.
re: “The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics.”
Before I say anything, first let me say that I love the South and the bravery and fortitude of the Southern soldier is second to none. Their endurance and courage is part of our proud history that is shared by all Americans.
Having said that, I must partly disagree with your statement above.
I am not a professor of history, nor am I a licensed history teacher, but I am a long time Civil War buff and an avid reader of it’s battles, it’s leadership, and its causes, not only through individual historians viewpoints, but from the speeches, letters, diaries, and other writings from those who lived during that time period.
My disagreement lies in a couple of places. First, to say that slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war is plainly not true. It is not the only cause, but it certainly was a major issue in aggravating an already strained relationship. And second, though it has been pointed out Lincoln did not advocate eradicating slavery where it already existed nor did he fight the war initially with the purpose of eradicating slavery, he certainly DID oppose its expansion into the new states being formed from the territories.
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he clearly makes it plain that while he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, that where it was already in place, it could not be constitutionally interfered with on the executive level. I cannot remember what he said in regard to congressional action, but I believe he would have said that the states in which slavery exists are the only ones who could alter it in any way - not any outside political entity.
However, as is also clear in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, because he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, it should not be allowed outside of those states where it already existed - it should not even be permitted to be voted on by the territories becoming new states. This was the whole point of the Lincoln/Douglas debates - should the new states/territories be allowed to decide whether or not slavery should be legally permitted within their borders?
The Southern leadership knew that if future states formed from the territories were all “free” states, sooner or later their congressional representation would be critically outnumbered by the free states in Congress. This, they feared, would lead to the eventual interference by Congress and the presidency to destroy their economy based on slave labor. They rightly understood that that would greatly disrupt their whole economic foundation - especially of those who were plantation owners - who were the movers and shakers in Southern society and politics.
This is why the Southern leadership firmly and uniformly opposed Lincoln’s election as president, because he stood against the expansion of slavery into the new states to be formed from the territories. Therefore, slavery WAS an important element in the issues that separated North from South. It was not the only issue, but it was certainly and important element of the growing hostility between the two.
Lincoln also was strongly opposed to secession as utilized by the Southern states. He felt that if a state could simply vote itself out of the United States anytime it so desired, that that was a direct threat to the existence of the nation. He feared that this would lead to an eventual “Europeanizing” of the United States in which, as under the Articles of Confederation, each state acted as an independent country.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying secession isn’t sometimes necessary, but I can see Lincoln’s point. On the other hand, if I felt, as many in the South felt, and as many of us do here on FR, that the Federal government is intruding more and more and leading the nation away from its founding principles, then I can certainly see the necessity of secession - but only for the right reasons.
The question is, did the South secede for the right reasons and was there enough provocation to merit secession? I don’t think so, but that is why we all still argue over the Civil War (or the Second American Revolution as my Southern brothers like to put it).
The purpose of this response is not to pick a fight, but I did feel it necessary to give an alternate view. I love discussing our history and only wish to point out my observations from the research I’ve done pouring over books on the subject, but also from the reading/studying of the writings of the leaders on both sides, North and South.
By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports. There was no income tax at that time. The South had complained for decades they were not getting fair distributions of those funds to allow the South to participate in the Industrial Revolution. It is surprising that Secession did not occur sooner.
As usual,just follow the money. MR. lincoln got his war and freed NO slaves except those in the South.
As for those attending the fairy tale movie,”Lincoln”, no amount of discussion will alter their convictions. “I know it’s real, I saw it in the movies”.
Then why did the Confederates all say that secession was about slavery?
(rolls eyes) Tariffs are on imports, not exports.
Bring on the draft riots.....
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..."
Yep! The day the federal government decided it could blatantly ignore the Constitution and its Law.
From the US Supreme Court's Court of Appeals establishing the legal precedent that the US government was Constitutionally obligated to follow-
I regard this as but the entering wedge to other doctrines which are designed to extirpate slavery; and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.
Jack v. Martin , 1835
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and 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. 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois” (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:
Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Section 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.
Section 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Section 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.
Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861.
Lincoln didn’t free anybody.
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt
“The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics.”
Maybe there were multiple causes depending on your region, politics, religion, etc.? Maybe things were more complex than neat little declarative statements make it seem? Maybe there were deep, social tensions in our society that had been with us since the start of the republic including abolition, state’s rights, economics, taxes, etc.?
The war was started by the slave power. Its proponents had over 4 billion dollars (then year) invested in slaves. The notion that slavery was evil would eventually bring the moral people of the US to forbid slavery in the territories, as had already been done in the Northwest Territory.
The southern slave power desired to profit off their investment. They attempted to invade the territories, and attempted to invade northern states that they did not claim.
They had no case to bring to the supreme court. They sought a decision on the battlefield. They lost.
The south made war to promote and propagate slavery. The US responded to the insurrection, and ending slavery was part of denying the ends of the war to the insurrectionists.
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.