I'm really sorry, but whenever you see words like those, it should be proof-positive that the person saying them is a complete idiot, who has not the least idea of what he/she is talking about, and has been guzzling down pro-Confederate moon-shine-grade Kool-Aid by the gallons!
There were never any taxes on exports of anything from the United States.
FRiend, you just have to get stuff like that straight in your mind before you go around posting gibberish on these threads.
exit82: "Abraham Lincoln did not really care about the slaves, only about what the solution might be to what everyone realized would be a huge dislocation in the fabric of the nation and how it would operate going forward, should the institution of slavery be abolished."
Oh, dear, where ever did you learn such nonsense?
Of course Lincoln caaaaaaaaaared about slaves -- that's why he opposed slavery, duh.
But before 1861 Lincoln never ever proposed abolishing slavery in the South, he only hoped to prevent its expansion to the North and western territories.
So freedom for slaves came strictly as a result of the Slave Power's declarations of secession followed by starting and declaring war on the United States.
Yes, Lincoln favored freedom for slaves, plus some resolution of claims (40 acres and mule comes to mind, as does voluntary transportation to Africa), but none of that was even possible until after the Confederacy had started and declared war on the United States.
exit82: "The states in the South saw an overreaching and interfering Federal government and reasoned they should be able to leave the Union the same way they came into it."
All states admitted after 1790 were admitted only with approval from Congress.
Had secessionists sought and received Congress' approval for secession -- and negotiated resolutions for various issues -- there would be no war.
Indeed, as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) there could be no Civil War unless secessionists started it.
exit82: "Now as far as Jeff Davis goes, it appears that before the start of the Civil War, there attempts to peacefully negotiate the separation of the Confederacy from the Union, including the payment for Federally owned facilities.
Lincoln did refuse that offer, which was made directly by Davis, a former US Senator from Mississippi."
"Jeff" Davis? Jeffy baby? Your friend you call "Jeff"?
What is that?
Confederate President Jefferson Davis made no such offers -- zero, zip, nada -- to President Lincoln, directly or indirectly.
Nor could Lincoln have considered any such "offer", since that was beyond his Constitutional powers.
Any such offer would have to be made to Congress for negotiations and approval -- a fact which Davis as a recently resigned Senator well knew.
Which is precisely why Davis never did that.
exit82: "Davis did not what Beauregard to fire upon Sumter, but only agreed when Lincoln moved to resupply the fort against the express wishes of the Confederacy for him not to do so."
In fact, Davis ordered Beauregard to prepare for military assault on Fort Sumter before Lincoln had even been inaugurated.
All such actions and threats by the Confederacy were acts of war against the United States, a fact of which Davis was fully aware.
Of course, Davis hoped and expected that Lincoln would immediately surrender Sumter.
When it became clear Lincoln did not intend to surrender, Davis immediately ordered military action against it.
exit82: "When it is said not to push the US around, it can argued that the folks in the South WERE the US, just as much as those in the North."
Except there was no "push" from the Union -- only Lincoln's decision to resupply Federal troops in Federal forts, including Sumter and Pickens.
So Lincoln committed no acts of war before Sumter, but the Confederacy committed a long list of provocations, culminating in its formal Declaration of War on May 6, 1861.
exit82: "And of course, war was extremely profitable to those engaged in the supply of weaponry and supplies, on both sides.
So there were less than idealistic reasons for some to beat the drums in 1861."
I'd call that socialist rubbish which you doubtless picked up from some Communist professor somewhere.
Whatever else you might say about most Unionist and Confederates, they certainly fought for what in their own minds were the highest of ideals.
Why slime either one with a bunch of Communist-style propaganda?
exit82: "As far as the military defeat of slavery, the ultimate defeat of slavery would have come with mechanization of the agricultural processes starting in the mid 1870s.
The economics of the situation would have settled the issue with far less bloodshed than a war."
More rubbish, but certainly essential to pro-Confederate Kool-Aid drinkers.
In fact, the Confederacy made certain that slavery was the cornerstone of its new Constitution, and would eagerly have made every political and military effort necessary to keep slavery strong and profitable.
Under such conditions, there is no reason to think that even late 19th century mechanization would overthrow slavery.
Indeed, just the opposite: there is every reason to believe that slaves would quickly learn to build in factories, operate in fields and maintain in shops every machine of the 19th century -- or of today for that matter.
Any suggestion differently is just racism trying to disguise itself under false assumptions.
exit82: "The victor writes the history, and history tells us that Lincoln was a saint."
I'll start believing that when you can quote me even one reputable history book which says "Lincoln was a saint."
That's rubbish like so much else of your posting here.
exit82: "He was a decent fellow, but how was keeping States that already expressed a desire to part, worth a four year war that killed 600,000 men out of a population of 30 million a reasonable trade, for the hundred years that followed?"
If you absolutely must assign moral blame for those deaths, then all of them, every one, should be blamed on the Deep South Slave Power secessionist leaders, who started and declared war on the United States.
Blaming Lincoln for that war is like blaming Franklin Roosevelt for World War II, or George W for the War on Terror.
At some point you need to put down your Kool-Aid and look at real facts, FRiend.
“Confederacy had started and declared war on the United States.”
So, you’re saying the South invaded the North and attempted to capture Washington?
That’s not what the history books say, btw.
Last I checked Sumpter is in South Carolina, not DC.
BroJoeK,
Thank you for your response. There was no need for dripping sarcasm and personal attacks. You fancy yourself quite an expert.
As to the economics, you are correct and I was wrong. The main income of the Federal government before 1861 was import tariffs, not export tariffs.
As for Lincoln not caring about the slaves, here is the quote that is definitive:
“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.
Obviously a man who cared about slaves would be of one mind or the other.Lincoln cared more about maintaining the Union, but the individual slave, not so much. He was more concerned with the spread of slavery to new territories and states, but could live with it where it existed, and he said so on many occasions.No doubt you are familiar with those quotes.
Therefore if something could live with this evil institution, you cannot say he cared about the slaves.He let the slaves be in northern border states such as Delaware and Maryland,lest they join the South. So “caring about slaves” was not his main thought unless there was political gain for the purposes he thought paramount. Either slavery is evil or it is not, either abolish it pr continue it, but a man who cares about slaves would not continue their enslavement, would he?
As or coming into the Union by consent of Congress, the original thirteen colonies did not receive consent of Congress to create the Union.So if an original colony wished to leave the United States, whose permission did it need? all the eventual Confederate States did not wish to leave the Union, some did right away, and others followed once a state of war existed between the North and South.
As far as what I said about Jeff Davis offering to pay for Federal facilities before Sumter, that is absolutely true, and Lincoln declined the offer.Lincoln could have brought the offer to Congress, but did not.
As concerning Ft. Sumter, South Carolina had seceded already, and a Confederacy was already formed, in the eyes of the South. The North did not recognize the Confederacy. Fine. Knowing the inflamed passions,and Lincoln would, as he almost did not survive his journey to DC the month before,why throw gasoline on the fire? Lincoln could have withdraw Sumter, and he knew that resupplying ti would be viewed as an act of war by the South.Are you saying there was no way to negotiate a peace? Why not let warring brother depart? Maybe he could not do so politically. But that does not mean the possibility did not exist.
As for pushing the US around, the list of provocations was not one way. It was both ways. You seem to see things through one prism only.
As for the comment about those who would profit off the war, I included both sides, as that is human nature. My comment concerned those who profited off war materials and weapons, not the average soldier on the filed.The average soldier on the field fought for his ideals, as he understood them on both sides. But war is very profitable, and many became rich off the blood that was shed.That truth has nothing to do with socialism or Communism. It just is.And it has happened in any war ever fought by man, because the cause of war is not for ideals, but for economics on some level.Thus your comment ascribing the fault of my education somehow was incorrect and unwarranted.
As fr as mechanization, it is absolutely true that slavery would have become uneconomic when machines, which did not need to be housed, fed, clothed, and cared for, would take over the chores of tilling, planting, and harvest. Even if the South could not see it coming, it was coming nevertheless. As far as slaves being taught to work in factories, etc. that may have happened or it may not have. Certainly not after the Reconstruction, as the two tier caste system was already cast. Indeed for a hundred years to come after the Civil War, the blacks were relegated to non skilled work. Regardless of the Civil War or not, economics were coming that would change all of America, but your view of post Civil War South and the inclusion of the blacks into the skilled work force is not realistic. It would have been a difficult sell under the best of circumstances. We could not even integrate the armed services until 1847, after WW2.
And don’t say it was the “Slave Powers” that ran the military for the 80 years after the Civil War.
As for Lincoln being a saint, that is how it was taught to me in the 1960s in NJ, a northern state.He thought the Union had to be saved. I say a price of 600,000 men was to high. The moral blame for these deaths is spread around among all the leaders, but the driving force of the war was to save the Union. We can look back and ask why, without the barrage of insults that a contrary view may hold against our own.
You would do well not to ascribe motives, or to insult people who may ask different questions then you do.
When it comes to any historical event, there is the truth that the victor writes the story with its own view of the situation. As we find in many areas of life, there are at least two sides to every story, and life is not always cast in terms of black and white.