Obama praises removal of Confederate flag

Just in case anybody believes the propaganda about the civil war being about slavery:

_-——————————

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

The south went to war against it’s neighbors in order to defend and perpetuate the Peculiar Institution of slavery.

First of all, the South seceded. The North rejected secession. The South offered to buy federal properties physically located in the South. The North rejected that idea, as they rejected the idea of the South seceding.

As far as shots being fired, the North occupied Ft Sumter, clearly located in Confederate territory. The South (under Beauregard) demanded that they either surrender or withdraw (yes, they could have just left and gone their way). The garrison commander was given orders to stay and fight.

Now, whether you believe that Beauregard's eventual bombardment of Fort Sumter was legitimate or not rests on whether you believe it was legitimate for those states to secede from the United States (regardless of what you believe is the reason for that secession). If they licitly seceded, then you have an outpost occupied by a foreign army without permission. If they illicitly seceded, then you have a bunch of terrorists attacking a military installation. One way or the other.

As for the war being about slavery, please consider thse two points:

Per Abraham Lincoln (see above): My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
If the issue was truly about slavery, then why were there five slave states in the union? (DE, MD, WV, KY, MO)

I really don't think most people gave a rat's behind about whether there was slavery in the South or not. There were two real issues, as far as I can tell (and one collateral point):

An issue of tariffs -- the South wanted lower tariffs, which would benefit the cotton market overseas and allow them to import industrial product from Europe cheaper than what they could get it from the North, while the North wanted higher tariffs in order to protect their burgeoning industrial base.
A threat to the balance of power: with the Western expansion, the question lay whether new states in the West would be brought in as slave states or free states. If they were brought in as free states, that would alter the balance which, in turn, would negatively impact the South (see point #1, above)

The collateral point is that Homesteading was being rumbled about, where the federal government would give away land to people willing to settle on it. This could have likewise played into (though the Homestead Act wasn't passed until the war started...since there was no longer any Southern Congressmen to oppose it).

Further proof: the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed by a broad vote -- 12 to 3 in the Senate and 76 to 31 in the House. There were plenty of Northern members of Congress who voted for that act. Yes, a smaller percentage than who voted for its predecessor (the Act of 1793), but still, nothing to sneeze at.

There were abolitionists, I am not trying to say otherwise, but the political influence that they exerted was not really all that great.

I don't claim to be some expert in US History, but perhaps you can tell me how many bills were introduced in Congress to nationally abolish slavery or to amend Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 prior to the Reconstruction Amendments?

Slavery was involved, no doubt. But this was not a case of crusading northerners selflessly fighting and dying in order to free people from bondage. It was a matter of if the United States was going to allow states who had joined the union to secede or not. No more, no less.

Excellent post and good points. Let’s see if I can address most (if not all) of them.

Instead of responding to each point as you state them I will bundle them into like groups.

On the issue of secession I would agree that the south attempted it. The problem is that what they attempted was unilateral secession. When they joined (formed) the United States they made agreements, pacts, or treaties if you will. With those treaties came obligations. One was to bargain in good faith. As per the United States Constitution the proper place for those negotiations was the Congress. When the southern states seceded they followed no established, agreed upon process or procedure. Instead they unilaterally broke their agreements with the other states, seized what they wanted, and dared the union to do something about it. Naturally the remaining United States believed this to be a series of illegal and inciteful acts.

In this post I reference the confederate illegal seizures of federal properties: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3306825/posts?page=98#98

Of them Sumter is unique in that the property on which the fort was constructed was specifically deeded in perpetuity to the federal government. So irrespective of the legality of the south’s secession, its seizure was an overt act of war against the United States. It wasn’t merely occupied territory - it was federal property.

I say that the war was about slavery because the south said that the war was about slavery. They said so in unambiguous terms. Over and over again. Your reference to Lincoln furthers my point: Lincoln never claimed that he was pursuing the south because of slavery. But the south did claim to be quitting the union over slavery.

It matters not what the status of slavery was in any northern state because (again) the north wasn’t fighting to free slaves - they were fighting because the south had gone to war against them.

The issue of tariffs was so insignificant as to almost be a red herring. If any of the Declarations of Secession mentioned them in any respect it was only after a thorough statement of defense of the institution of slavery. The confederate constitution specifically enumerated the right to slavery in perpetuity. Sure the southern states wanted to keep tariffs low - they would prefer to not pay taxes at all. But they were at one of the lowest points in 1860.

Finally, the only (singular) reason why the “balance of power” existed as a wedge issue was because of slavery. It figured over and over into the endless negotiations over territory, over economics, and over culture. The reason why the south had a collective temper tantrum with the 1860 elections was that they could see the writing on the wall. Internationally and nationally, public sentiment about tolerance toward slavery was waning. People who have been tolerant of it were indignant and angry about any idea of it expanding into the western states. For a lot of that you can thank SCOTUS chief justice taney and his Dred Scott decision.

I believe that the writing was on the wall in the wake of that horrendous decision.

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.