Posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:58 AM PST by shuckmaster
Again,a search of the 'net for "Kentucky", "Davis", "Legislature" and "1861" yielded the following:
"On May 16, 1861, the Kentucky lower house overwhelmingly adopted a resolution of the state's official neutrality in the Civil War and a resolution refusing to heed President Lincoln's call for military volunteers; Kentucky's upper house concurred five days later. On May 20, Governor Beriah Magoffin issued a proclamation recognizing and affirming Kentucky's neutrality.
Magoffin also urged his fellow governors of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee to send delegates to a conference intended to force the Union and the Confederacy to cease hostilities and negotiate a settlement. The three northern state governors refused to consider the proposal and busied themselves with mobilizing for the Union cause, while Tennessee staked its claim with the Confederacy. On June 8, only Missouri and Kentucky were represented at the peace conference, which passed a few resolutions and quickly adjourned.
Governor Magoffin rejected requests from both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, to supply their respective armies with troops from his state. The governor, however, was sympathetic to the Confederate cause and looked the other way when Confederate recruiters entered Kentucky. There was also a substantial and lucrative trade in various wartime goods, such as horses, food, and even munitions, flowing from the north through Kentucky into the Confederacy. The Union army and Midwestern governors took steps to curb the trade, but they could not eliminate it. President Lincoln believed that theoretically he had the constitutional authority to compel Kentucky's compliance with the Union, but recognized his "real world" options were severely limited. Any premature show of force could send Kentucky into the arms of the Confederacy. As bad as neutrality was, that scenario would be far worse.
Lincoln's patience was finally rewarded. On June 20, 1861, (the day after this postdated cartoon was published), Kentucky Unionists secured five of six congressional seats in a special election (many pro-Confederates boycotted the vote). That political victory was reinforced in the legislative elections on August 5 when Unionists won large majorities in both the state house and senate. On August 16, President Lincoln issued a proclamation prohibiting all trade with the Confederacy.
The final turning point came on the battlefield. At the westernmost edge of Kentucky, Confederate troops under Leonidas Polk were stationed in northwestern Tennessee and Union forces under Ulysses S. Grant manned Cairo, Illinois, fifty miles north. On September 3, 1861, Polk and his men invaded Kentucky to capture the railroad terminal at Columbus.
In reaction, Grant moved his troops into Paducah and Smithfield, Kentucky. Both sides had violated Kentucky's neutrality, but the Confederates were the initial aggressors. On September 18, the Kentucky legislature resolved that the Confederate "invaders must be expelled." The American flag was hoisted above the capital, and Governor Magoffin resigned."
--Robert C. Kennedy
Ummmm....you've made another error of fact.
Did you do so in ignorance or malevolence? Another alternative doesn't immediately suggest itself
Walt
X questions whether Bush would attempt to hold the Union together, that firing on the military demands justice and retribution. I simply ask you to look backward over the past 8 years, and see that President X42 allowed attacks to occur without any penalty whatsoever. And if the Confederacy's actions were wrong, and so reprehensible, why then was Davis or Lee, or any of the millions that fought against the Union never tried and convicted for treason?
"They want to see the secessionist leaders as purely good. Therefore, they have to see Lincoln as purely and uniquely evil."
I disagree. I have never held that Lincoln was evil, while holding Davis et al as saints.
"The latter-day Confederates have to have the villain Lincoln to blame for all that has happened since, so they leave out parts of the historical record that don't fit the picture they want to create."
Au contraire, I fully rely on the words of Lincoln himself. He lied repeatedly as to the course of action he would undertake, he countermanded his generals proclamations while executing his own. He attempted to free slaves in a foreign country/seceding states (either way, it was still illegal), while not freeing the slaves in the North.
"[W]e denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes."Three states retained (explicitly) the right to secede, if they chose to exercise that right. And the other 10 agreed to those terms. Lincoln himself held that the states had a right to secede, and later held that they also had the right to do so by force. The South seceded, and was content to coexist peacefully. The South did not invade the North, nor did it attempt to overthrow the government of the Union.
Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address, 4 Mar 1861
How many men died in the fighting at Ft. Sumpter? NONE. But due to the actions of Lincoln, about 620,000 men, black and white, Northern and Southern, free and slave died needlessly. Does Lincoln's actions justify those deaths, or does it regulate them to the ash-heap of history, as revisionists would deem fitting? I honor the memory of those that fought for honor, integrity and justice. Regardless of which side they fought for, they deserve more than to be spit upon.
What it boils down to is your view of federalism. And first and foremost to the federalist position is denying the right of secession. What powers are retained by the states in Amendment X? Are they listed or enumerated? No, they are everything that is not granted to the federal government. But if you hold that the federal government is supreme and has unlimited powers, regardless of the Constitution, then Lincoln is your man. Congratulations, you should appreciate the behemouth that we have today.
On the other hand, if you desire freedom from a federal government that robs it's citizens blind, and freedom from a federal government that unconstitutionally and unmercifully denies your rights, if you believe that politicians are accountable to the people, and that the President is not above the Constitution, then the South was right, and Lincoln was not the man for you.
Take your pick.
Too bad the Confederacy didn't believe that.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition -- Alexander Stephens,1861
None of that was outside Lincoln's purview as Commander in Chief in time of war. You simply cannot show in the record that it was.
None of the actions that Lincoln took were overturned in the courts during his life.
Walt
The record simply does not show that. The Consdtiution is the supreme law of the land, the laws of any state notwithstanding. No state ratification document says otherwise.
Whatever outrages you perceive as the government having done, it clearly retains the right simply to maintain its own existance.
Walt
Well, that is a flat lie.
Lincoln always maintained a right to -revolution-, which is exactly what Madison also said, but he -always- stoutly denied the right of unilateral state secession; and you have to ignore his widely availble statements to say other wise.
President Lincoln:
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States."
3/4/61
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
7/4/61
It is always with a bit of humor that I read the nonsensical, not historically based, rambling of you neo-confederate persons. But you have flat told a lie.
So much for 'southern' honor.
Walt
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861
The amendment about which he was speaking that had been passed by an all yankee congress (the southern senators and representatives had almost entirely left washington by that time) only two days earlier....
"Article Thirteen.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
APPROVED, March 2, 1861.
U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12 (Boston, 1863), p. 251.
And that is exactly my point to those historical revisionists who come along and try to paint Lincoln as the great abolitionist who morally objected to slavery in its every form and devoted his life to ending it. That is not the historical lincoln. The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy.
This significantly reduces him in some ways, but not his incredible political capabilities.
I can't dispute his political abilities - he was a brilliant orator with a great sense of humor no matter what I think of his motives or policies.
He was, afterall, a southerner.
So was John C. Fremont for that matter. The South fought the war because to them, free soilers were just as dangerous as Abolitionists. This is because Free-soilers would never vote pro-slave, even though they were willing to accept it in the slave states.
If that is the case, then why did they adopt the blatantly and specifically pro-slavery Corwin amendment cited above? The Free soilers' issue was primarily territorial and secondarily economical, not moral.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record.
Lincoln said that slavery was a "continual torment" to him personally--that it made him miserable, and he worked to irradicate it:
"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."
8/24/54
From the AOL ACW area:
"Now consider several facts about Lincoln's political career:
1. While Lincoln was building political strength in local Illinois politics, he opposed the war with Mexico as inexpedient for several reasons, including that it was waged to increase the power of slave states in the institutions of Federal government.
2. During Lincoln's first term as U.S. congressman from Illinois in the late 1840's, he continued to criticize the Mexican war and worked out a bill (never introduced) calling for a referendum in the District of Columbia designed to free the slaves in that Federal enclave and compensate their owners.
3. His reentry into national politics in 1854 was clearly for the purpose of opposing the expansion of slavery into the territories under the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He had his heart and soul involved with the idea of gradual emancipation to bring the fullest meaning to the words of Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.
4. From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery." Thus, Lincoln's nomination to the presidency was based on a principled opposition to slavery on moral grounds, and that position was clear to voters both in the South and the North.
5. In his early speeches and actions as president-elect and president, he was clear in his opinion that he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery in the slave states. However, he was persistent and consistent in his efforts to encourage and aid voluntary emancipation in the loyal Border States, territories and the District of Columbia. These efforts predated his publication of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
In summary, I think one can safely say that Lincoln was clearly a gradual abolitionist from the beginning of his political career."
Lincoln hated slavery. He was willing to -tolerate- slavery where it existed, because he was a pragmatic man. With that prgmatism, he knew that if slavery were contained to the areas where it already existed, it would die. The slave holders knew that too. That is why they rebelled against the lawful government --simple because Lincoln was elected.
Walt
Your source is mistaken, and as best I can tell, seems to be using a long perpetuated myth started by the often factually sloppy muckracker Ida Tarbell a century ago. Specifically, the stuff about a few days of food left is historically false. It comes from reading Anderson out of context, as Anderson was specifically referring to what would happen if and when Beauregard laid complete seige and cut off the fort entirely. The quote itself states "I will await the first shot and, if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days" obviously referring to the scenario that would occur if the battle began.
As for the garrison's food, they had an arrangement with the state of south carolina to continue recieving supplies through charleston even while the confederates were asking the garrison to surrender the fort. A few weeks prior to the battle, Anderson wrote Governor Pickens:
"I hasten to ask you to refer to my letter to his Excellency, and you will se that I did not solicit any modification of his original permission about recieving supplies of fresh meat and vegetables. I am satisfied with the existing agreement"
The agreement he referred to had been in place since shortly after the state seceeded in which Governor Pickens had agreed to supply the garrison with food items. Beauregard's treatment of Anderson, an old military friend, throughout the bombardment and afterwords was exemplary. He allowed the garrison to depart freely and even sent steamers to transport Anderson and his men to the union fleet. Beauregard wrote of the incident:
"When, on the 15th instant, he left the harbor on the steamer Isabel, the soldiers of the batteries on Cummings Point lined the beach, silent, and with heads uncovered, while Anderson and his men passed before them"
Yes, that's right. The southerners SALUTED Anderson out of respect as he departed.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Whiskey Papa The hell it isn't! Lincoln only expressed this willingness and enthusiastically endorsed the permanent protection of slavery in places where it existed in his inaugural address. If an inaugural address is not record enough to support the assertion, nothing is in your mind. That is because your mind is already made up on this matter. In the meantime, I refer you to post 148 which I will repost part of for your convenience:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861 (emphasis added)
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Whiskey Papa
The hell it isn't! Lincoln only expressed this willingness and enthusiastically endorsed the permanent protection of slavery in places where it existed in his inaugural address. If an inaugural address is not record enough to support the assertion, nothing is in your mind. That is because your mind is already made up on this matter. In the meantime, I refer you to post 148 which I will repost part of for your convenience:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861
And no, that was not political expedience talking. That was Abraham Lincoln talking. And no, he did not expect slavery to "die out" as the amendment he endorse specifically perpetuated slavery as an indefinite and unrepealable institution. In Lincoln's own words, he had "no objection" to amending the constitution of the united states to specifically prohibit the government from ever interfering with the "domestic institution" of "persons held to service" (READ: SLAVERY) and making such an amendment "express and irrevocable."
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Whiskey Papa
The hell it isn't! Lincoln only expressed this willingness and enthusiastically endorsed the permanent protection of slavery in places where it existed in his inaugural address. If an inaugural address is not record enough to support the assertion, nothing is in your mind. That is because your mind is already made up on this matter. In the meantime, I refer you to post 148 which I will repost part of for your convenience:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861 (emphasis added)
I stand by my statement.
Saying that Lincoln only adopted an anti-slavery stance as a war measure is not well supported in the record, and your quotes do not suggest otherwise.
Lincoln made plain well before the war that he was an oppenent of slavery.
"Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it on his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow."
10/16/54
"If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.? --
You say A. is a white, and B. is black. It is --color--, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be the slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly? -- You mean the whites are --intellectually-- the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of --interest--; and, if you can make it your --interest--, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interst, he has the right to enslave you."
1854
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.]
I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
August, 1858
"I do not perceive how I can express myself, more plainly, than I have done in the foregoing extracts. In four of them I have expressly disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality between the white and black races, and, in all the rest, I have done the same thing by clear implication.
I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence. I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others -- individuals, free-states and national government -- are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present.
...It does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not."
10/18/58
"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
All honor to Jefferson -- to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicible to to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyrany and oppression."
3/1/59
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not."
8/24/63
Your statement is not well supported in the record.
As to the Fort Sumter thing, let me do some more checking. Thanks for the input.
Walt
Saying that Lincoln only adopted an anti-slavery stance as a war measure is not well supported in the record, and your quotes do not suggest otherwise.
Saying oneself to oppose slavery personally does not equal supporting the abolition of the practice. Lincoln only turned to the latter when it was a convenient war time maneuver. Prior to then he had repeatedly stated that he would not abolish slavery and personally endorsed a constitutional amendment to that end in his inaugural address.
Lincoln made plain well before the war that he was an oppenent of slavery.
In that sense, so did Robert E. Lee. But simply opposing slavery as a practice does not equal politically supporting a government action to abolish it. Lincoln only supported that, and even then in a limited sense, when it was an opportune wartime manuever.
Simplistic.
Too, the quote you provide doesn't support your statement; it was not 'unrepealable"; it was left to the states. Big difference. You might want to re-read the proposed amendment.
Now, Lincoln, as I as say, among his many gifts, was a pragmatic man. He knew that if slavery were limited to the areas where it existed and was not allowed to expand into other states and terrtories, it would ultimately die. The slave holders knew that too, and they said as much:
"Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by al1 the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars."
--Jefferson Davis
Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record.
Walt
In that sense, so did Robert E. Lee. But simply opposing slavery as a practice does not equal politically supporting a government action to abolish it.
Your statement is not well supported in the record.
I will not at this time suggest that you are being disingenous. But to compare Lincoln's amd Lee's positions on slavery is a bit of a stretch. Lincoln repeatedly said that all men should be free-Lee said the best relationship between black and white was that of master and slave.
Too, you state that "simply opposing slavery as a practice does not equal politically supporting a government action to abolish it". Well, as my note put up just a few minutes ago shows, Lincoln wrote legislation in the late 1840's to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.<>That is a governmental action. I do not think Robert E. Lee ever did as much. In fact, any opposition to slavery by Lee was just lip service. Lincoln took action --before the war.
It is simply incorrrect to say that Lincoln only adopted opposition to slavery as as war measure. The record simply will not support that.
Walt
Lincoln was a moderate statesman, who pursued his goals with moderation and prudence. What's the crime in that? He was a man of his time and had to deal with the people of the time. He also had to avert the chaos that the plans of more radical men on both sides would have created. His own attitudes had to change and evolve over time. Are we surprised, angry or bitter that he wasn't born with our own 21st century views?
Confederate apologists always want to have things both ways. Anything radically abolitionist is condemned as agression against the South. Anything more moderate is attacked as being insufficiently abolitionist. So in their own minds the neo-confederates win either way. Until they subject Southern leaders attitudes and actions to the same scrutiny, they will always be playing the same shell game.
As for the territorial, economic, and moral motivations of the free soilers, there is something to that order of motives. But motives can't be that rigidly separated from each other. Should we presume that the opposition to owning or beating or chaining up another human being had no moral component simply because it wasn't accompanied by the integrationist sentiments of the 1960s, the affirmative action ideas of the 1980s, or the multiculturalism of the 1990s? Moreover, these attitudes were much more indefinite and in flux. The politics of free states like Illinois or Ohio involved a complicated mixture of Yankees, Southerners, foreign immigrants and others, so generalizations are dangerous. Someone who might have wanted to keep Blacks away at all costs in 1860 or 1862, might have fought and died for Black freedom in 1864 or 1865. In any case, Northern attitudes have to be seen in the context of national attitudes of the time -- North and South.
It's certainly nowhere near as simplistic as your historically oblivious presentation of Lincoln as a great opponent of slavery.
Too, the quote you provide doesn't support your statement;
I beg to differ for reasons noted (see previous post where I specifically outlined elements of Lincoln's quote while detailing what they referred to). As for your above assertion seeing as you have done nothing to demonstrate why what you assert is so, I need only point out quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
: it was not 'unrepealable"
To the contrary. The amendment's authors specifically wrote it to be established as an unamendable amendment. Yes, there is some question as to if and to what degree they could prevent themselves from passing a second amendment altering it, but in its intent and original form, the amendment was said to be unrepealable.
it was left to the states.
Insofar as the government specifically could not impose a ban on slavery on any of the states.
You might want to re-read the proposed amendment.
I've already read it repeatedly. I do advise you to take your own advice though.
Now, Lincoln, as I as say, among his many gifts, was a pragmatic man. He knew that if slavery were limited to the areas where it existed and was not allowed to expand into other states and terrtories, it would ultimately die.
Ultimately it sure would have. But unfortunately for your cause, his little amendment would have prolongued that quite a bit. Go read it again. It prevents the government from interfering with the domestic institutions of any state with no further stipulation. Under any reasonable reading, this must be taken to apply unconditionally to any state so, for example, if, say, Arizona came into the union and then decided it wanted to be a slave state, the congress could not have done one thing to stop it because doing so would have been in interference "with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In other words, your argument that simply containing slavery to the existing slave states was Lincoln's goal fails you, as his amendment does not do that.
Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record.
Ah, I see you are skilled at jousting with scarecrows, as that is not what I said. I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."
There's a BIG difference between that and saying "lincoln only opposed slavery because of the war." Even you must admit that much. And considering that Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed...and perhaps even then some...as demonstrated for his prominent public support of an amendment that did exactly that, I think it is safe to say that my comment was perfectly legitimate and accurate.
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.