Replies

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.