Why The War Was Not About Slavery

Each of the three links you posted replace the word "comment" with "remark", otherwise is word-for-word the same.
It suggests there were not really two reports, but just one with slight modifications.

That "comment" word was a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. The original Sun article used the word "remark" as did the copies of the Sun article in the three papers I provided links to.

Re your not really two reports, but just one with slight modifications.. The second report of the meeting with Lincoln I was referring to was a different report of the meeting published by another Baltimore newspaper, "The daily exchange" of Baltimore, using a different reporter and possibly a different informant. The "exchange" article was published on April 23, 1861, the same day the Sun published their article. The "exchange's" report about the meeting with Lincoln had been previously mentioned on FreeRepublic in posts of old. Sorry, I thought you knew of the second report.

Here is a link to "The daily exchange's" article: ["The daily exchange" of April 23, 1861; scroll down column 5]

I note that the "exchange" newspaper said "a committee of fifty" was "appointed to wait on President Lincoln and intercede with him for the adoption of a peaceful policy in relation to the Southern States." The Sun article had said "thirty," not "fifty." Perhaps thirty were all that were let in to meet with Lincoln.

Good God, you are shameless. Comparing a politically correct correction from a public display with a serious biography. Why am I not at all surprised that you can't tell the difference between the two?

In terms of people lying to promote what they want? No, I can't. It is a fact of life that people relate ideas or history in a manner that supports what they wish to present, and often ignores what they do not want people to know about.

Remember me telling you how much of this history has been covered up, and how I have only recently (last few years) learned of details that are extremely important in understanding what actually occurred?

Well today I learned another one. Apparently Lincoln wrote his own fugitive slave bill back in 1849. Did you see rustbucket's post above?

Now don't you think this little detail about Abraham Lincoln writing his own fugitive slave law into a bill is rather salient to the question of how to view the "Great Emancipator"?

This tidbit is another one of those things that just don't make sense if you accept the general wisdom of what happened regarding the Civil War.

The "Great Emancipator" tried to make a law regarding the capture and return of fugitive slaves? Well well well!

You’re statement says that since the North was not fighting about slavery, “..and therefore, neither the South.” How do you get there? That’s a leap of logic greater than Evel Kneivel’s over the Snake River Canyon (and just as successful, BTW). This may seem difficult for you to understand, but two sides can enter a fight over different reasons. The North entered the fight over a desire to preserve the Union. The South had other reasons. At least 4 of the States claimed it was over the future of slavery. This whole, it’s about the money is true, but everything is about money at it’s root. That could be said of every war. At it’s root, they’re all about the money, but again, that’s like saying all deaths are caused by the failure of the heart to continue beating.

I notice you still have not answered my question regarding why it was acceptable to blame slavery, while it was somehow verboten to mention high tariffs in the articles of secession. Why would slavery be a winning issue, and not high tariffs? Why did the southern states think that Great Britain would help them in a fight over slavery, but not in a fight over high tariffs?

You have also not answered the question of why the Southern elites, who saw themselves as the proper descendants of the knights of old would deliberately and in public lie about their reasons for seceding? Were they that devoid of honor? Do you really think so poorly of them?

You, sir (madam?) are an idiot. Your Lincoln hatred/bashing is really becoming something that you should address with a professional. You are going off half-cocked and pouncing on another false lead. The proposed bill in question was written to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, while staying within the bounds of the US Constitution.

So it was like impossible or something for him to just leave that part out? Would you have written something that requires local authorities to return fugitive slaves?

Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

In Nazi era Germany, the law required people to turn in Jews that were hiding. Would you promote or agree to follow such a law? Would you propose such a bill in the German legislature?

You are making excuses for Lincoln. I do not think anyone who claimed to be honestly against slavery would do anything to support or protect it.

So now you are defending laws of slavery because Lincoln offered support for it in a bill. You will seemingly justify anything Lincoln did. I think you have a bigger problem with Lincoln in your head than I do.

You are a dung beetle. Pushing around your teeny-tiny ball of shit, which constantly stares you in the face and blinds you to the real world.

Your anger at me is the consequence of me pointing out a very ugly truth about Lincoln that you can't defend. You *HATE* the fact that his actions reveal him to be what some of us have been suspecting all along. A two timing liar and manipulator of a politician who was too clever by half.

Killed 750,000 people directly, and destroyed the original compact between the Federal Government and the states. He was a dictator with no solid moral foundation.

You’re statement says that since the North was not fighting about slavery, “..and therefore, neither the South.” How do you get there?

How do you not? You claim the South wanted *SLAVERY*. Lincoln's actions indicate that he was going to give them all the *SLAVERY* they could possibly want, so clearly *SLAVERY* wasn't a sufficient reason for them to want to remain in the Union. Their discontent could not be satiated by offering stronger protection for *SLAVERY*.

Therefore the Union did not launch their invasion to stop slavery, and the South did not shoot down the invaders because they thought they were coming to stop slavery.

They fought them because they invaded. It's really that simple.

I notice you still have not answered my question regarding why it was acceptable to blame slavery, while it was somehow verboten to mention high tariffs in the articles of secession.

Verboten is a mischaracterization of it. It wasn't forbidden, it just wasn't useful. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? I haven't heard him in years, but he used to use a phrase "Green eyeshade Lingo", referring to Republican's tendency to talk about complex economic issues that were so boring they caused most of the public's eyes to glaze over.

He pointed out time and time again that the public doesn't get the "green eyeshade lingo", and Republicans are wasting their time trying to get the public interested in it. Democrats on the other hand push emotional extremes, like "They gonna put ya'll back in chains!" Or "Women's rights are being violated!" "Do it for the Children!" Or as Bill Nye (the science idiot) said: "The *WORLD* is on *FIRE*!!!!!!"

Emotional arguments work well with the public, but boring factual discussions of numbers and percentages etc do not. People's eyes glaze over.

Telling everyone around you that *Those people *HATE* you because you are a deplorable person for living in and tolerating a slave state!* Is a much more effective method of getting the public to want to separate from the people who hate them and call them "evil."

Trying to make a numbers argument just doesn't move the populace as well.

I am not the one that claimed the South wanted slavery. The South (at least the 4 states who claimed anything in their Articles of Secession) are the ones who claimed they wanted it. You claim they were lying because talking about tariffs and taxes was too boring. Funny, I notice the President doesn’t think talking about taxes being too high is boring. And he has also mentioned tariffs specifically once or twice. Also, Lincoln’s actions DO NOT indicate he was going to give them all the slavery they could possibly want. The Corwin Amendment prevented the national government from interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed. It did nothing regarding expanding slavery to the territories, and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. I know you have claimed that the southern states didn’t care about expansion of slavery into the territories. The legislature of South Carolina and the victims of “Bleeding Kansas” disagree with you.

Your comments stating the south fought simply because the north invaded is simplistic in the extreme. We’re back to asking 20 questions: 1) Why is the South fighting? - because the North invaded. 2) Why did the North invade? - because the South seceded. 3) Why did the South secede - because they were afraid the North would interfere with the “peculiar domestic institution” 4) What “peculiar domestic institution” are you referring to? - Slavery

So, you continue to claim that the legislatures of the southern states deliberately and cynically lied in their Articles of Secession. Apparently you believe the ruling elite of the Southern States had no honor.

And you still haven’t explained why they thought slavery was such a winning argument with the British Empire, whose help they desperately needed. Remember, they weren’t trying to convince the “rubes” in the British Empire, they were trying to convince the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth. One would presume that they would like an argument that lowered tariffs on their goods, so why did the South not utilize this argument, if that was their real reason?

DL:“So it was like impossible or something for him to just leave that part out? Would you have written something that requires local authorities to return fugitive slaves?”

You seem to not understand that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 was a bone of contention for four score or so years. It was the matter at the forefront of national debate, north and south. At least the young congressman tried to lend some clarity to that Fugitive Slave Clause (which was law of the land). His stipulation of precisely who had the authority to return fugitive slaves, of course, eliminated the bounty hunters who were making a living by snatching blacks off the street and hauling them back to the closest Slave State. Even though Roger Taney had, once and for all, settled the question of Slavery and Fugitive Slaves in his Dred Scott decision, it was still a matter of discussion during Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

DL:“In Nazi era Germany, ...........”

Doesn’t that mean you lost the argument?

DL:”You are making excuses for Lincoln. I do not think anyone who claimed to be honestly against slavery would do anything to support or protect it.”

Has it dawned on you yet that the proposed bill written by the young congressman was to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia? Not to support or protect it? He wasn’t about to go all “unconstitutional” and deny the fugitive slave clause. He merely interpreted it in a kinder, gentler way. A way that would protect, not slavery, but the fugitive slave. Get it?

DL:”So now you are defending laws of slavery because Lincoln offered support for it in a bill. You will seemingly justify anything Lincoln did. I think you have a bigger problem with Lincoln in your head than I do.

C’mon man, now you talkin’ crazy.......... Lincoln “offered support for slavery”?

DL:”Your anger at me is the consequence of me pointing out a very ugly truth about Lincoln that you can't defend.

I ain’t angry, bro. I’m merely pointing out that your “very ugly truth” is actually a “very ugly lie”.

DL:You *HATE* the fact that his actions reveal him to be what some of us have been suspecting all along. A two timing liar and manipulator of a politician who was too clever by half. Killed 750,000 people directly, and destroyed the original compact between the Federal Government and the states. He was a dictator with no solid moral foundation.

Whoa, whoa there. You're gonna have a conniption, or burst a blood vessel, or sumthin’. It’s just that you’ve been pickin through Lincoln’s trash barrel again looking for evidence of “what some of us have been suspecting all along”. But again you have come up with diddley-squat. You remind me of the Russian collusion investigation. All you have is preconceived notions. But, keep digging,......... I can tell you are very close to the bottom of the barrel.

I know you have claimed that the southern states didn’t care about expansion of slavery into the territories.

Again you are misconstruing things. There was no practical way to expand slavery into the territories, but banning it from them means two things.

1. It means the Southern states would *NEVER* have allied states or their congressional representatives that could help them control the Northern policies of taxing Southern production, and Spending it in the North.

2. It also means that the violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution which the other states engaged in by banning slaves in their states would become official. In effect, making them second class citizens in the territories, in their own minds.

It also gave official moral sanction to the claim that the Southerners were "evil", and nobody wants to live with that.

When your goal is to lead everything back to slavery to fit your desired narrative, the road will always lead back to slavery no matter where you start the discussion, but this is more a matter of *YOU* being disingenuous than a real connection.

How about you ask yourself why the North would *WANT* a bunch of slave owning states in their Union? Hmmmmm? The North initiated the large scale violence. What in the South was worth so much blood to them?

The Union allowed the Philippines to leave. The Union allowed Cuba to leave. The Union still offers Puerto Rico the opportunity to leave. Why on Earth did they want to force evil slave owning states to remain? Why didn't they want to be shed of them?

So long as those Southern states remained, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to ever abolish slavery, and so clearly the Northern goal did not care about Abolishing slavery. They cared only about holding on to those Southern states.

Why?

You seem to not understand that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 was a bone of contention for four score or so years. It was the matter at the forefront of national debate, north and south. At least the young congressman tried to lend some clarity to that Fugitive Slave Clause (which was law of the land). His stipulation of precisely who had the authority to return fugitive slaves, of course, eliminated the bounty hunters who were making a living by snatching blacks off the street and hauling them back to the closest Slave State. Even though Roger Taney had, once and for all, settled the question of Slavery and Fugitive Slaves in his Dred Scott decision, it was still a matter of discussion during Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

The Northern states began blatantly violating that Article almost from the beginning. Nobody in the North had any intention of respecting it. Why should Lincoln? Would you have done so?

Doesn’t that mean you lost the argument?

So it is alleged, but I long ago rejected the Godwin assertion. Far too often Nazi ideas and behavior are perfectly analogous to other periods of history, and most especially to this modern time.

A way that would protect, not slavery, but the fugitive slave. Get it?

How was the fugitive slave going to be protected by requiring all local authorities to turn him over to his master? You are going *WAY* out there to justify what Lincoln did.

I ain’t angry, bro. I’m merely pointing out that your “very ugly truth” is actually a “very ugly lie”.

You wish it were. Again, would *YOU* have required local authorities to participate in the capture and return of fugitive slaves? Would *you*?

So you’re conceding that the South did care about expansion of slavery into the territories. I mean, South Carolina did explicitly say that this was one of the reasons they seceded, but I’m sure they would be glad to know that you concur. Your claim that there was no practical way to expand slavery into the Territories is perhaps true in 1860, but is no way true as the years spin out. To give a practical example, we grow a lot of Cotton in Arizona, and it started in 1885 when Arizona was still a territory.

Slavery is not MY narrative, it is the historical narrative. Why do you persist in ignoring the clear words of the people who actually seceded (at least of the 4 “teeny-tiny” minority states who actually made a claim as to why they were seceding)? Why do you continue to offer an unprovable (conveniently for you) alternative that they were somehow hiding their real reason? Why do you think that slavery was a more palatable reason to Great Britain, when they were opposed to slavery?

As far as comparing the Southern STATES to Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, do I really have to point out to you the difference between a state and a these areas? I mean, let’s compare Virginia, one of the founding states of the US whose delegates signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, with Cuba, a country that was never a part of the United States. I hate to break this to you, but Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico are not states, and, shocker, the governments that seceded were (and are) states. Do I really have to explain to you the difference? You’re reaching, DL.

In your final paragraph, you say “...so clearly the Northern goal did not care about Abolishing slavery” When will you learn to take Yes for an answer. You keep on harping about the fact that the North did not fight to abolish slavery, when that has been agreed to multiple times. So, the nth + time (I would say last, but I’m sure you will bring this up again), the North fought to maintain the Union. BTW, the mere fact that the North didn’t fight for slavery, doesn’t “prove” that the war wasn’t about slavery. 2 sides can fight for different reasons.

Your claim that there was no practical way to expand slavery into the Territories is perhaps true in 1860, but is no way true as the years spin out.

When did well drilling and modern irrigation systems commence? 1920s? 1930s? 1940s? How many decades do you think it would have taken for West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to be ready for cotton farming?

To give a practical example, we grow a lot of Cotton in Arizona, and it started in 1885 when Arizona was still a territory.

Looked it up.

A few years later, Hardwicke took up farming — maybe in response to a local incentive encouraging farmers to try growing a new crop — cotton. To the first farmer successfully growing cotton, a $500 prize would be awarded.
Hardwicke discovered that with the Valley's suitable climate and ample irrigation water, he could grow cotton with relative ease.

Let's see. 1885 to 1860 is 25 years later, and only worked because he had an available water source from which he could irrigate his crop. According to the rest of the article, efforts to continue growing it went nowhere. It took till the 1920s and considerable effort on the part of Estmer W. Hudson to get it to happen at all.

What are those slaves supposed to have done in the meantime?

Slavery is not MY narrative, it is the historical narrative.

It is the historical narrative (which you have adopted) because it was very much in the interests of those who won the war to justify the murder and destruction they had committed against people who wanted to be left alone. All the propaganda spewing forth from every publishing house, newspaper, News service, and so forth in the North repeated the claim, so now it's completely understandable why everyone simply believes it. I used to believe it too, but I finally realized the whole thing is a lie.

Why do you persist in ignoring the clear words of the people who actually seceded

Because they have no bearing on why Northern armies were marched across states to kill people in those states. You aren't getting it. The only motives that matter are those of the people who launched the bloodshed!

I hate to break this to you, but Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico are not states, and, shocker, the governments that seceded were (and are) states.

So Arizona territory could have joined Mexico or something? Hmmmm???? You want to know the main difference between Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the Southern States? The Southern states were producing the vast majority of all the European wealth entering this country, and Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were not. Nobody gave a sh*t about impoverished territories that would never likely produce enough return on investment to make them worth keeping, and so they let them go.

The *SOUTH* was producing vast wealth, and it was paying *MOST* of the bills to run the US government in 1860.

BTW, the mere fact that the North didn’t fight for slavery, doesn’t “prove” that the war wasn’t about slavery. 2 sides can fight for different reasons.

This is where that cognitive dissonance creeps in again. If the North wasn't fighting to abolish slavery, then the South couldn't have been fighting against abolition, because abolition wasn't being pursued.

You jump through hoops to ignore the fact that the South wasn't fighting because it thought the Northern armies were going to overthrow slavery. The South was fighting because Northern armies were marching into it to subdue their government and force them to live according to the dictates of Washington DC and the Northern majority in Congress.

You just want to believe the South was somehow fooled into thinking the Northern armies were coming to free their slaves, and fought the Northern armies because they didn't want their slaves freed.

Again, they fought because they were invaded. They were invaded because they were going to deprive Northern power brokers of a lot of money that these Robber Barons had come to believe was rightfully theirs.

So know we’re at the point of ignoring everything that happened prior to April 12, 1861. Why did the South secede? Doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is that the North invaded! The only motive that matters are those of the people who launched the bloodshed! I’m somewhat confused that I have to tell someone who spends waaay too much time on an internet thread that talks about things that happened over 150 years ago, but history does matter. And since in past (failed) arguments, you have referenced the Patriots of 1776, it appears that you think history does matter as well. By the way, the “who shot first” question (it was Han) is important, but not the prime question. I will agree that it’s an interesting and important question, but I think a more important question is, how did 2 militaries get into a situation where somebody (anybody) fired the first shot. The way we got into this situation is that the South seceded, for whatever reason (it was slavery). Again, no matter why the South seceded (it was slavery), the remainder of the United States really only had 2 choices, to acquiesce to the secession, or to fight to maintain the Union. The mere fact that they tried multiple different things, including the Corwin amendment to maintain the Union that failed, tells you that there was no way, short of war to maintain the Union. If you think there was a way that the south would have stayed in the Union short of violence, please let me know. Given that war was inevitable, the point of who shot first was important only for blame setting and propaganda purposes. By the way, explain to me again if tariffs were the most important thing to the South that none of the Articles of Secession mentioned it? Oh, that’s right, they lied about it because of …..reasons. They also never mentioned it to Great Britain, who would have benefitted from lower tariffs in the South, and only mentioned slavery (which they opposed) because of …..other reasons?
I’ve summarized my position before, let me try to summarize yours for you, since you don’t seem to be willing to do so yourself. If I understand your position, it is:

• Slavery had nothing to do with why the South seceded. They only seceded because of monetary issues, specifically the high tariffs on imported goods.
• They laid out their reasons in the individual Articles of Secession, but they lied about their real reasons, because it was too boring and blamed in on slavery, which was definitely NOT the reason they seceded (see item 1)

Have I summarized your position adequately? If not, please let me know what I have missed and correct. I think it is important to clearly state the positions of both sides of this “discussion”.

One thing I am still having trouble understanding is your contention that the states didn’t state their real reason was that it was boring. You mentioned Rush Limbaugh stating that these issues would make the public eye’s glaze over. Funny, but it seems to me that President Trump doesn’t agree. He talks about taxes and tariffs all the time.

The biggest item I am having trouble understanding is why they thought slavery was a winning issue, especially in the context of Great Britain. Check me if I’m wrong, but I believe the South considered the support of Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, France to be very important. I mean, Great Britain was the super power of the 1860s, and if they had recognized the CSA as a country and used the Royal Navy to break the blockade, secession would have been successful. Why did they think that lowering tariffs was not a good argument with Great Britain, and that slavery was? I’m sorry if I keep harping on Great Britain. I do if tor two reasons: 1) with British support they would have successfully seceded. Without it (as history shows) they would not, and 2) you keep refusing to answer the question. Please bring forth your well-known ability to read the minds of people dead for over 100 years and tell me why they thought this was a successful approach to get British support of the CSA.

BTW – I think I clearly stated my position in post #721. Looking back at it, the only change I would make is to de-emphasize the “maintaining slavery in the existing states”, since nothing the Union did would have affected this. They did clearly call out expansion of slavery into the territories, and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Finally, I keep mentioning honor. My understanding is that the ruling elite of the South considered themselves to be the true descendants of the knights of old, and considered personal honor to be extremely important. It seems to me that true people of honor would not deliberately and cynically lie about their reasons for seceding merely to prevent people’s eyes from glazing over. If that was their reason, they failed miserably. None of the Articles of Secession are what I would consider to be scintillating reading. Why do you think the ruling elite of the South were without personal honor?

Team Cuda to DiogenesLamp: "It’s somewhat amusing how you go from arguing that the 4 states who listed slavery as their reason for seceding were; a) a teeny-tiny minority to arguing that 'in a Democratic Republic, it takes over 50% to have any significance.'. "

Just so we're clear on this, of the first seven seceding States, only Florida and Louisiana produced no "Reasons for Secession" document.
The other five -- SC, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Texas -- all gave us something.
Robert Rhett & Alexander Stephens also delivered noteworthy explanations.

Of the seven documents, all detailed slavery as a major reason, and for some it was the only reason.

None of the seven documents listed "money flows from Europe" or "Northeastern power brokers".
None complained about New York making more money off slavery than slaveholders themselves.
None provided a map showing how supposedly all the money from Southern exports went to New York & Washington.

Some did also complain about taxes, claiming the South paid the most while the North got most of the benefit.
But that's only possibly true if by "the South" you mean everyone South of Massachusetts and if by "the North" you mean everyone North of South Carolina.

Of course, the bottom line is the nation did generally benefit from Southern exports, but not through some nefarious Republican plot.
Instead, it was because for every dollar the South exported, it also "imported" a dollar's worth of Northern products.
Further, it was Democrats, Southern & Northern, who ruled Washington almost continuously from 1801 until secession in 1861.
So Democrats passed the taxes & made whatever rules benefited New York or anyone else.
Therefore, when Southern Democrats complained about Washington taxes & spending, they were in reality complaining about their own representatives there, not Republicans.

Team Cuda to DiogenesLamp: "The biggest item I am having trouble understanding is why they thought slavery was a winning issue, especially in the context of Great Britain. "

Slavery was essential in selling secession to the vast majority of Confederate voters because very few were willing to reject their country over the difference between tariffs at 15% or 20%.

But it's likely Jefferson Davis well understood slavery was a loser issue with Europeans and Unionists, and that would explain why he denied it's centrality to visitors from outside the Confederacy.
To my knowledge there are no public statements from Davis on slavery during the war.
But in private, Davis well knew and so, for example, he forbade Confederate units from enlisting freed-blacks until way too late.

Further, Confederates had a plan to win the hearts & minds of their cotton customers, especially the Brits.
Their plan was simple & brilliant, just the kind of "economics uber alles" that so excites DiogenesLamp -- they embargoed cotton exports until the Brits would recognize & support the Confederacy.
A brilliant plan brilliantly executed which produced... well.. ahem... nothing.

It just p*ss*d off the Brits and forced them to find alternate sources, mainly India & Egypt.

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.