# Think Tank > History >  "Lincoln the Tyrant; Libertarians' favorite boogeyman."

## Knightskye

http://biggovernment.com/bschaeffer/...rite-bogeyman/

The article seems like it's preaching to the choir, rather than an attempt to convince us that Lincoln was a good guy.  Because if you criticize Lincoln, you're a "glib pro-Southern observer".




> What most glib pro-Southern observers of the war’s issues forget is that there were three million Americans enslaved in that same South


The author doesn't even note Ron Paul's idea of buying the slaves and releasing them -- "every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war."

Check back next week when a Big Government contributor lectures libertarians on why it was _absolutely necessary_ to enter World War I!

----------


## fisharmor

Why buy slaves, when you can spend several times that much and kill 650,000 in the process?

The problem with libertarians is that they never stop asking elephant-in-the-room type questions, and the problem with everyone else is that they refuse to talk about the elephant.

----------


## specsaregood

> What most glib pro-Southern observers of the wars issues forget is that there were three million Americans enslaved in that same South


How many were enslaved in the north?

----------


## fisharmor

> How many were enslaved in the north?


Before the war: don't know.
After the war: everyone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The emancipation proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the rebelling states, right?

----------


## YumYum

> The emancipation proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the rebelling states, right?


yes, and it didn't free the slaves in Southern territories that were occupied by Union troops.

----------


## eqcitizen

I believe New Jersey was the last state to free its slaves (1865)

----------


## SWATH

> I believe New Jersey was the last state to free its slaves (1865)


Nope New Jersey never freed its slaves.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

"Can any true libertarian argue that using the power of the federal government to end a state’s perpetuation of human bondage is an act of tyranny, regardless of the reason?"

The war started when The South broke from the union, not when he outlawed slavery. Lincoln fighting the war had nothing to do with ending slavery.

----------


## eqcitizen

> Nope New Jersey never freed its slaves.


Touché

----------


## eqcitizen

> "Can any true libertarian argue that using the power of the federal government to end a states perpetuation of human bondage is an act of tyranny"
> 
> The war started when The South broke from the union, not when he outlawed slavery.


Actually the war started when Lincoln sent his troops south.

----------


## fisharmor

> "Can any true libertarian argue that using the power of the federal government to end a state’s perpetuation of human bondage is an act of tyranny"
> 
> The war started when The South broke from the union, not when he outlawed slavery.


So, was there a declaration of war when the South broke?
Was secession illegal?
Was there any motion by the South which indicated hostility?
Did the Union offer to sell Ft. Sumter to the South, whereupon the South refused and immediately attacked?

Do some reading.  It doesn't take more than 20 minutes of reading and analysis (and assumption that the compulsory school narrative may not be entirely honest) to come to the conclusion that we're not being brainwashed with the entire story here.

(As an example: Lincoln never outlawed slavery.  Slavery was not outlawed in the US until after he was dead and in the ground.)

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

I'd say the war started when the South attacked Northern troops. I really don't care about the legality of it though, two groups of rich mother $#@!ers arguing over land and resources. Nothing to do with ending slavery like this douche in the article suggests. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

----------


## fisharmor

> I really don't care about the legality of it though


Money quote.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why buy slaves, when you can spend several times that much and kill 650,000 in the process?
> 
> The problem with libertarians is that they never stop asking elephant-in-the-room type questions, and the problem with everyone else is that they refuse to talk about the elephant.


*sigh* I've said this about a million times here, but here it goes again.

*LINCOLN TRIED COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION BUT IT WAS REJECTED BY THE BORDER STATES!*

(See: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/i...35&subjectID=3)

The slave owning border states wanted more money than was offered and the non slave holding states didn't want to pay what Lincoln was offering.

There ya go.  And I'm sure people will ignore the truth again.  The problem with the whole compensated emancipation idea is that it would have required a transfer of wealth from non slave holding states to slave holding states.  (And yes I freaking know that northern states once had slaves.  But by the time of the civil war that had pretty much ended in the north primarily due to economic reasons).  Anyway, northern states who weren't owning slaves weren't interested in transferring money to southern states just so that those states would do *what in reality they should have been willing to do for free anyway*.  Yes it would have been cheaper than going to war.  And it would be cheaper to pay bank robbers not to rob banks too.  Or to quote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...*If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him*.  But how many people actually think like that?

Compensated emancipation worked in other societies because in other societies slavery was a class thing, not a regional thing.  It's not hard for people with money to push the legislature to give them other people's money for their own selfish reasons.  (Look at all of the bailouts for instance).  But in the case of slavery you had to convince the rich from states where the rich didn't own slaves to compensate the rich from states that did just to avoid a war.  Why do that when these rich industrialists could personally make more money supplying iron, gunpowder and uniforms to the war effort?

Anyway, I'm sure many will ignore all of the differences between the U.S. which had a "free" region and a "slave" region, and other societies that didn't have that regional problem and say "If they could do it, why couldn't we" and so I'm basically wasting my time.  Oh well.

Note: None of the above means the south was "evil" or "100% wrong" or that Lincoln wasn't a tyrant.  So spare me those straw men in response.

----------


## jmdrake

> yes, and it didn't free the slaves in Southern territories that were occupied by Union troops.


Actually it did free the slaves in the Southern territories that were occupied by Union troops.  In fact that was largely the *point*.  Lincoln didn't have constitutional authority to free slaves generally.  But here he was using his "commander in chief" powers.  And it made sense with the way the war was being fought.  Why bother burning bridges and ironworks and such while leaving in place the labor force that built those bridges and ironworks?  

See: http://www.civilwar-history.com/Eman...clamation.aspx

----------


## johnrocks

Meh, Lincoln's dead, back to the current neo con/social con/liberal/government interventionist/authoritarian nightmare.

----------


## fisharmor

> The slave owning border states wanted more money than was offered and the non slave holding states didn't want to pay what Lincoln was offering.
> 
> There ya go.  And I'm sure people will ignore the truth again.


No, I got it - orchestrating the deaths of 650,000 of your own citizens is acceptable, if the price tag of the single attempt at the alternate idea is too high.

Forgive me if I don't agree.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I got it - orchestrating the deaths of 650,000 of your own citizens is acceptable, if the price tag of the single attempt at the alternate idea is too high.
> 
> Forgive me if I don't agree.


You = brick wall....

I already told you.  The slave holding states *rejected* the idea!  It doesn't matter how freaking good *YOU* think it was since *THEY REJECTED THE IDEA!*   Now maybe they didn't have your 20/20 hindsight crystal ball to go by (kind of a problem dontchathink?).  Maybe if they did...maybe if *EVERYBODY* did they would have made a different choice.  Then again maybe if the men who joined the Whiskey Rebellion realized their they would have been unfairly taxed by the very people who fought a revolution over taxes, they would have sided with the British.  Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

----------


## Rancher

> You = brick wall....
> 
> I already told you.  The slave holding states *rejected* the idea!  It doesn't matter how freaking good *YOU* think it was since *THEY REJECTED THE IDEA!*   Now maybe they didn't have your 20/20 hindsight crystal ball to go by (kind of a problem dontchathink?).  Maybe if they did...maybe if *EVERYBODY* did they would have made a different choice.  Then again maybe if the men who joined the Whiskey Rebellion realized their they would have been unfairly taxed by the very people who fought a revolution over taxes, they would have sided with the British.  Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.


+rep

----------


## YumYum

> Actually it did free the slaves in the Southern territories that were occupied by Union troops.  In fact that was largely the *point*.  Lincoln didn't have constitutional authority to free slaves generally.  But here he was using his "commander in chief" powers.  And it made sense with the way the war was being fought.  Why bother burning bridges and ironworks and such while leaving in place the labor force that built those bridges and ironworks?  
> 
> See: http://www.civilwar-history.com/Eman...clamation.aspx



*Intentionally omitted were Maryland and Delaware (which had never seceded), Tennessee (already under Union control)*, and Missouri and Kentucky (with factional governments that had been accepted to the Confederacy, but had not officially seceded). Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties designated to become the free state of West Virginia, *along with several other named counties of Virginia; and also New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control.*


Also, according to the Time/Life series "Brother Against Brother", in January, 1865, Lincoln had agents meet with Jefferson Davis' representatives and made an offer. The South could hold onto their slaves until 1870 and then the U.S. government would pay the slave owners $2,500 for each slave. The only condition was for the South to rejoin the Union and stop the rebellion. The South agreed to the slave offer, but refused to rejoin the Union; thus the war continued. The book points out that had the South been allowed to continue as a separate government, it would have sold the slaves to the U.S., thus freeing them,  if it meant ending the war. But rejoining the Union was out of the question.

----------


## jmdrake

> *Intentionally omitted were Maryland and Delaware (which had never seceded), Tennessee (already under Union control)*, and Missouri and Kentucky (with factional governments that had been accepted to the Confederacy, but had not officially seceded). Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties designated to become the free state of West Virginia, *along with several other named counties of Virginia; and also New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control.*


From the proclamation itself:

_Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina, and Virginia, (except the fortyeight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued._

Some areas in the above mentioned states were in Union control the day the emancipation proclamation was signed.  Also Tennessee was not fully under Union control until 1863.  Further the proclamation had an effect on territory gained after January 1, 1863.  As Sherman marched through Georgia in 1863 - 1864 a large group of freed slaves followed the union army.




> Also, according to the Time/Life series "Brother Against Brother", in January, 1865, Lincoln had agents meet with Jefferson Davis' representatives and made an offer. The South could hold onto their slaves until 1870 and then the U.S. government would pay the slave owners $2,500 for each slave. The only condition was for the South to rejoin the Union and stop the rebellion. The South agreed to the slave offer, but refused to rejoin the Union; thus the war continued. The book points out that had the South been allowed to continue as a separate government, it would have sold the slaves to the U.S., thus freeing them,  if it meant ending the war. But rejoining the Union was out of the question.


That's nice.  *By 1865 the south was effectively defeated already*.  Lee himself surrendered in April.  Lincoln was being magnanimous to even make the offer.

(See: http://americancivilwar.com/tl/tl1865.html)

Also if the civil war had been only about "tariffs" then secession was stupid.  The Morrill Tariff never would have passed had the senators from the south remained to vote against it.

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Intentionally omitted were Maryland and Delaware (which had never seceded), Tennessee (already under Union control)*, and Missouri and Kentucky (with factional governments that had been accepted to the Confederacy, but had not officially seceded). Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties designated to become the free state of West Virginia, *along with several other named counties of Virginia; and also New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control.*
> 
> 
> Also, according to the Time/Life series "Brother Against Brother", in January, 1865, Lincoln had agents meet with Jefferson Davis' representatives and made an offer. The South could hold onto their slaves until 1870 and then the U.S. government would pay the slave owners $2,500 for each slave. The only condition was for the South to rejoin the Union and stop the rebellion. The South agreed to the slave offer, but refused to rejoin the Union; thus the war continued. The book points out that had the South been allowed to continue as a separate government, it would have sold the slaves to the U.S., thus freeing them,  if it meant ending the war. But rejoining the Union was out of the question.


Lincoln was a tyrant.  The Southern States wanted to be free and Lincoln was not going to be satisfied with that.

I read a book called The Secret Six about Lincoln's cabinet and how tyrannical and evil it was.  It covers the supporters of John Browns radical butchering of innocent women and children. Great book.

----------


## fisharmor

> You = brick wall....
> 
> I already told you.  The slave holding states *rejected* the idea!  It doesn't matter how freaking good *YOU* think it was since *THEY REJECTED THE IDEA!*


Hey, I already told you I got the point.
Orchestrating the deaths of 650,000 of your own citizens is acceptable if your single attempt at an alternative fails.

We're still dealing with the fallout from that 145 years later.  But hey, he pitched one other idea, so it's all good.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hey, I already told you I got the point.
> Orchestrating the deaths of 650,000 of your own citizens is acceptable if your single attempt at an alternative fails.
> 
> We're still dealing with the fallout from that 145 years later.  But hey, he pitched one other idea, so it's all good.


And you base the idea that Lincoln had an estimated body count for the civil war on.......?

Anyhow, why do you think the south seceded (since higher tariffs weren't really passable until after secession) and why do you give them a free pass?

----------


## jmdrake

> Lincoln was a tyrant.  The Southern States wanted to be free and Lincoln was not going to be satisfied with that.
> 
> I read a book called The Secret Six about Lincoln's cabinet and how tyrannical and evil it was.  It covers the supporters of John Browns radical butchering of innocent women and children. Great book.


Yes.  Anti-slavery abolitionists = bad.  Pro slavery butchers = good.  There is no credible evidence of John Brown ever killing any women.  In response to the Lawrence massacre by pro-slavery forces, Mr. Brown and his sons attacked Pottowattaomie and killed 5 men.  (All adult from the accounts I've seen).  

Anyhow, there's no doubt at all that Brown was in the fight strictly over slavery.  Lincoln had mixed motives.

----------


## jmdrake

> Meh, Lincoln's dead, back to the current neo con/social con/liberal/government interventionist/authoritarian nightmare.


^This

----------


## malkusm

> Anyhow, why do you think the south seceded (since higher tariffs weren't really passable until after secession) and why do you give them a free pass?


A fruitful exercise for you would be to place the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution side by side, and compare the changes. The vast majority of these changes were to strengthen the rigidity of what constituted legitimate taxation, as well as a stronger assertion of decentralized power via more explicit clauses on the reservation of powers to the states.

So, yes, slavery was but a minor part of their reasoning.

----------


## jmdrake

> A fruitful exercise for you would be to place the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution side by side, and compare the changes. The vast majority of these changes were to strengthen the rigidity of what constituted legitimate taxation, as well as a stronger assertion of decentralized power via more explicit clauses on the reservation of powers to the states.
> 
> So, yes, slavery was but a minor part of their reasoning.


I've read the confederate constitution.  I noticed where it denied states the right to end slavery.  

_ARTICLE IV

Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired._

Anyhow, the hated "Morill Tariff" could *not* have  passed *without* secession.

----------


## AGRP

Big Government is an arm of Breitbart, who is a neoconservative.

----------


## YumYum

> *Anti-slavery abolitionists = bad.  Pro slavery butchers = good.*


No, Anti-slavery abolitionists = bad. Pro slavery butchers = bad. They were both bad.

While I don't understand the pro-slavery attitudes on this forum, I don't understand the pro-Union sentiments, either.

----------


## fisharmor

> And you base the idea that Lincoln had an estimated body count for the civil war on.......?


Well, I'm not.  Although he did have plenty of casualty reports to ruminate on over the course of four years, he was losing significantly in the beginning, the Union was clearly throwing more bodies into the meat grinder than the CSA, and he chose to continue.

However you seem to be not only defending Lincoln, but also the chain of events that took place.
I'm not going to defend wars happening ever again.  In the case of every problem except foreign invasion, there are nonviolent means that can be attempted.
Lincoln obviously didn't really believe this.




> Anyhow, why do you think the south seceded (since higher tariffs weren't really passable until after secession) and why do you give them a free pass?


Because they had the legal right to do so, and Lincoln had no legal right to stop them.
Everything else is quite outside that point.  Lincoln was an active destroyer of the rule of law.  What good he did in the process is immaterial, and I do not believe that the good he did was only doable in the manner he chose.
It happened and I can't change it - but I can call out similar bull$#@! pulled using similar arguments today, if I first admit that what he did was bull$#@!.




> Meh, Lincoln's dead, back to the current neo con/social con/liberal/government interventionist/authoritarian nightmare.


Uh huh, because not understanding how we got here is bound to help.

----------


## malkusm

> I've read the confederate constitution.  I noticed where it denied states the right to end slavery.  
> 
> _ARTICLE IV
> 
> Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
> 
> Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired._
> 
> Anyhow, the hated "Morill Tariff" could *not* have  passed *without* secession.


Ok, I won't argue with you. All of the information is out there. You seem to have gone over at least some of it and made your decision, and I can respect that. Don't expect too many people here to take your side, though 

Personally, I find statements such as the following to be quite prescient. I'll let everyone judge for themselves.




> If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity. -Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America





> I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. -Robert E. Lee, in a letter to Lord Acton

----------


## moostraks

While some here are ruminating over the ethics of Lincoln's decisions, I will once again remind them to recall that Lincoln presided over the ""Largest mass hanging in United States history"
38 Santee "Sioux" Indian men
Mankato, Minnesota, Dec. 16, 1862


http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html



I get sick of all the emancipation arguments regarding Lincoln while racism against the native americans perpetrated by the wonderful one gets swept by the wayside. His effect on the native populations was genocide.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> No, *Anti-slavery abolitionists = bad*. Pro slavery butchers = bad. They were both bad.
> 
> While I don't understand the pro-slavery attitudes on this forum, I don't understand the pro-Union sentiments, either.


Abolitionists should not be blamed for the Civil War. The war was caused by rich motherfuckers fighting over power and resources, just like every other one. Blame should be placed on the State and the rich $#@!s who own it.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> The problem with libertarians is that they never stop asking elephant-in-the-room type questions, and the problem with everyone else is that they refuse to talk about the elephant.

----------


## jmdrake

> Abolitionists should not be blamed for the Civil War. The war was caused by rich motherfuckers fighting over power and resources, just like every other one. Blame should be placed on the State and the rich $#@!s who own it.


^This.  It fight between rich northern industrialists and rich southern planters with the poor on both sides paying the price in blood.  But if you say anything critical about the south some folks want to say you're defending all things Lincoln.  I have to laugh at the "It was the south's legal right to secede" crowd.  That "legal right" is basically "natural law" (i.e. made up law) which also justified John Brown's massacre.  (Natural law is of course in the eye of the beholder).  

@malkusm: Don't worry about me.  As a black Ron Paul supporter I'm used to being on my own on a lot of things.

----------


## YumYum

> Abolitionists should not be blamed for the Civil War. The war was caused by rich motherfuckers fighting over power and resources, just like every other one. Blame should be placed on the State and the rich $#@!s who own it.


There are abolitionists, like the Quakers, who were not  responsible for the war. But abolitionists who were radical republicans, and the rich northern businessmen who claimed to be abolitionist were very much behind the war. The term "abolitionist", may too broad of a term. If I said republicans are responsible for the Iraq war, someone could correct me and say "No, not all republicans because Ron Paul was against the war."

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> There are abolitionists, like the Quakers, who were not  responsible for the war. *But abolitionists who were radical republicans*, and the rich northern businessmen who claimed to be abolitionist were very much behind the war. The term "abolitionist", may too broad of a term. If I said republicans are responsible for the Iraq war, someone could correct me and say "No, not all republicans because Ron Paul was against the war."


Lincoln's motives were clearly not to end slavery, but I fully support people like John Brown (a "radical Republican") who used violence in an attempt to free their fellow Americans. If I were to fall under that type of tyranny in America, I'd hope Americans would react in the same fashion to rescue me.

That said, I'll leave you with the quote: "_Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice_." --Goldwater

----------


## MichelleHeart

A few points:

1) Lincoln's compensated emancipation plan failed because he proposed to deport the slaves to various colonies in Africa rather than allow them to stay here on American soil. Like many in the Republican party at that time, he wanted an ethnically pure nation (a "white dream," if you will) devoid of anyone with slightly darker-colored skin. And that simply wasn't possible with the existence of slavery as an institution.

1856 Republican platform: "...all unoccupied territory of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, *shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race – a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."*
Many people who opposed slavery at the time opposed it not out of humanitarian or altruistic concern for the plight of their fellow human beings in bondage, but because the elimination of slavery would've spelled the beginning of a new era in which new territories would have been preserved for the Master Race. I believe Illinois at one time, a free state, barred blacks (even free ones) from entering their borders.

David Wilmot, though a Democrat, opposed slavery for similar reasons. As a legislator, the Wilmot Proviso (which he proposed as an attachment to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War) would have banned slavery in all newly acquired territory. Did he oppose slavery because he felt sorry for the poor slaves? No, not at all actually. His exact justifications for the proposal were as follows:

"I would preserve to free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, *can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free white labor."*
2) Anyone on this forum defending John Brown needs to have their heads examined. In one particular raid, he and his supporters dragged innocent men from their homes (none of whom owned slaves, but apparently belonged to the wrong Kansas "faction") and butchered them in front of their families, with their wives and children screaming in horror. I read a comment on here along the lines of, "He didn't kill any women, so it's okay." What. The. $#@!. Why is it any more horrible to kill an innocent woman than it is to kill an innocent man? The killing of innocents is never, ever justified. EVER.

3) Compensated emancipation, though a splendid proposal that the Northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner himself supported, was not the only alternative to the war, *in case anyone who dismisses it ipso facto concludes that the war was the only other option.* One method was to have the fugitive slaves escape to the North, who would then be under no obligation to return the slaves to the seceded South, since the North/South were separate jurisdictions not bound together by fugitive-slave laws. The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, in fact, heartily supported this position, saying before the Civil War that the North should secede from the South for this purpose. The cost of slavery would then become prohibitive, and the institution would collapse upon itself. Another was to allow for gradual emancipation. Slavery was already on its way out. Most Southerners at the time did not own slaves. By 1828, there were more than four times as many anti-slavery societies in the South as there were in the North. There existed an array of newspaper publications in the South publicly denouncing the institution of slavery. Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson described slavery as a "moral and political evil." Blacks fought alongside the Confederate troops, most by voluntary choice, and in defiance of laws written by Southern legislators prohibiting them from doing so. Another solution involved emancipation societies, whereby members would persuade slaveowners to voluntarily free their slaves. You also have to note that most civilized nations at the time were ending slavery. In order to maintain healthy trade relationships with other countries, the South would have had to end slavery eventually, lest trading partners refused to exchange goods with them on the basis that trading with partners who condoned slavery would generate barbaric symbolism. Also, the South would have most certainly lost its competitive edge in the world market, seeing as free laborers who reap rewards for their work and choose their areas of specialization, as any good libertarian knows, are more efficient, productive, and motivated to work than unpaid slave labor. The Southern economy would be devastated if it decided to keep slavery much longer. From an economic point of view, indefinite slavery is completely undesirable if you wish to generate prosperity. 

Anyone who demonizes the South as being "vicious" and "backwards" and "racist" must also do the same for the colonists who fought for their independence in the American Revolution. They, too, were fighting to maintain their institutions of self-government and traditional "English" liberties. Like the Confederate South, they owned slaves. Like the North, the British offered to free the slaves of the American colonies in exchange for their loyalty and allegiance. So you can definitely see the parallels. But does anybody – _anybody_ – on this board side with the British?

----------


## Knightskye

> A few points:
> 
> 1) Lincoln's compensated emancipation plan failed because he proposed to deport the slaves to various colonies in Africa rather than allow them to stay here on American soil. Like many in the Republican party at that time, he wanted an ethnically pure nation (a "white dream," if you will) devoid of anyone with slightly darker-colored skin. And that simply wasn't possible with the existence of slavery as an institution.
> 
> 1856 Republican platform: "...all unoccupied territory of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, *shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race  a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."*
> Many people who opposed slavery at the time opposed it not out of humanitarian or altruistic concern for the plight of their fellow human beings in bondage, but because the elimination of slavery would've spelled the beginning of a new era in which new territories would have been preserved for the Master Race. I believe Illinois at one time, a free state, barred blacks (even free ones) from entering their borders.
> 
> David Wilmot, though a Democrat, opposed slavery for similar reasons. As a legislator, the Wilmot Proviso (which he proposed as an attachment to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War) would have banned slavery in all newly acquired territory. Did he oppose slavery because he felt sorry for the poor slaves? No, not at all actually. His exact justifications for the proposal were as follows:
> 
> ...


+Rep.  Great post.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> A few points:
> 
> 1) Lincoln's compensated emancipation plan failed because he proposed to deport the slaves to various colonies in Africa rather than allow them to stay here on American soil. Like many in the Republican party at that time, he wanted an ethnically pure nation (a "white dream," if you will) devoid of anyone with slightly darker-colored skin. And that simply wasn't possible with the existence of slavery as an institution.
> 
> 1856 Republican platform: "...all unoccupied territory of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, *shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race – a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."*
> Many people who opposed slavery at the time opposed it not out of humanitarian or altruistic concern for the plight of their fellow human beings in bondage, but because the elimination of slavery would've spelled the beginning of a new era in which new territories would have been preserved for the Master Race. I believe Illinois at one time, a free state, barred blacks (even free ones) from entering their borders.
> 
> David Wilmot, though a Democrat, opposed slavery for similar reasons. As a legislator, the Wilmot Proviso (which he proposed as an attachment to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War) would have banned slavery in all newly acquired territory. Did he oppose slavery because he felt sorry for the poor slaves? No, not at all actually. His exact justifications for the proposal were as follows:
> 
> ...


Either you are purposefully misrepresenting the argument or you just want to rant. Nobody here is _defending The Union_!!! Especially on the grounds that they were attempting to end slavery in the south. Maybe John Brown wasn't perfect, but that shouldn't discredit using violence to free fellow Americans. Again, I'm not saying that's what the Civil war was trying to accomplish!

My take on the Civil War is that both sides are wrong. They were two power hungry States controlled by rich and powerful $#@!s. How they could pin American against American for their sick obsession with power is disturbing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A few points:
> 
> 1) Lincoln's compensated emancipation plan failed because he proposed to deport the slaves to various colonies in Africa rather than allow them to stay here on American soil. Like many in the Republican party at that time, he wanted an ethnically pure nation (a "white dream," if you will) devoid of anyone with slightly darker-colored skin. And that simply wasn't possible with the existence of slavery as an institution.
> 
> 1856 Republican platform: "...all unoccupied territory of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, *shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race  a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."*
> Many people who opposed slavery at the time opposed it not out of humanitarian or altruistic concern for the plight of their fellow human beings in bondage, but because the elimination of slavery would've spelled the beginning of a new era in which new territories would have been preserved for the Master Race. I believe Illinois at one time, a free state, barred blacks (even free ones) from entering their borders.
> 
> David Wilmot, though a Democrat, opposed slavery for similar reasons. As a legislator, the Wilmot Proviso (which he proposed as an attachment to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War) would have banned slavery in all newly acquired territory. Did he oppose slavery because he felt sorry for the poor slaves? No, not at all actually. His exact justifications for the proposal were as follows:
> 
> ...



Whoa.

Good post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lincoln's motives were clearly not to end slavery, but I fully support people like John Brown (a "radical Republican") who used violence in an attempt to free their fellow Americans. If I were to fall under that type of tyranny in America, I'd hope Americans would react in the same fashion to rescue me.
> 
> That said, I'll leave you with the quote: "_Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice_." --Goldwater


John Brown did not want to end tyranny.  His supporters (the secret six) were radical socialists who supported radical centralization.

They won too. Centralization is now here.  So we traded a "tyranny" that was bound to end in the next generation (chattel slavery) for a new statist slavery in which we are all subjects and will likely never end until the empire crumbles.  

Yeah...John Brown was great man....

----------


## jmdrake

> A few points:


A few rebuttals to a few points:

1) Lincoln's resettlement plan was to be *voluntary*.  Here is a speech from Lincoln on the subject.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/lincoln.htm
_This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them.

Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration.

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.

A Voice: Yes, sir.

The President---Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence._

And *it is completely ridiculous* to claim that Lincoln's voluntary resettlement plan had *anything* to do with why the plan failed.  That *never* came up in the discussion.  Further you would have people believe that the south just "loved their slaves so much" that they couldn't bear to see them leave this country.  *BULL*.  If you love something set it free.

2) RE John Brown, it's hypocritical to attack him *and not say anything about the slave owners who killed innocent abolitionists which prompted John Brown's raid!*

Further it's hypocritical to support the pre revolutionary "tarring and feathering" of 
those who assisted the British in taxing the colonists (thus enslaving them) while declaring the "innocence" of Kansas slaveowners who were in the vary least complicit in the massacre of abolitionists.

How many times have I seen this picture posted on this forum without *anybody* offering sympathy to the victim?



And the result of this torture was 2nd and 3rd degree burns all over the victims body.

3) Claiming that anyone dismissed compensated emancipation "ipso facto" is just being dishonest.  Sure it was a good idea.  *But the slaveholding states rejected it*.  I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in to the heads of some people.  You have to have two parties willing to deal before you can make a deal.  Sure, Jefferson Davis was willing to "make a deal" after he had already been beaten.  And then he had the gall to try to dictate the terms.

Lastly *nobody in this thread has accused the south of racism*.  There is a saying from the Bible.  *The guilty flee when no man pursues*.  Whenever these threads come up, if someone takes a different position than the *politically correct southern doctrine* the "Don't call us racist" card is played.  Playing that card, when no racism has been alleged, is proof positive of a bankrupt argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> John Brown did not want to end tyranny.  His supporters (the secret six) were radical socialists who supported radical centralization.
> 
> They won too. Centralization is now here.  So we traded a "tyranny" that was bound to end in the next generation (chattel slavery) for a new statist slavery in which we are all subjects and will likely never end until the empire crumbles.  
> 
> Yeah...John Brown was great man....


When all else fails just call the other side communists.  

Let me add this before the thread gets any sillier.  I am *not* holding up John Brown as a role model.  I generally abhor violence except for in self defense.  (And by that token I do not hold those "patriots" who tarred and feathered agents of the British crown in high esteem either.)  But to talk about Brown in a vacuum, and to ignore the pro slavery violence that precipitated his actions, is to not be historically accurate.

----------


## demolama

So he ran with the idea of compensated emancipation during the war when the south was committed fully to independence regardless of what schemes came out of Washington.  And this is suppose to prove...?

----------


## jmdrake

> So he ran with the idea of compensated emancipation during the war when the south was committed fully to independence regardless of what schemes came out of Washington.  And this is suppose to prove...?


Obvious.  

A) That the scheme wouldn't have prevented the war anyway since not only the states "fully committed to independence" rejected it, but also *the states that didn't seceded* rejected it.

B) That Lincoln did attempt to free slaves in states that didn't rebel even before the emancipation proclamation.  That refutes the argument that the E.P. was just a "ploy" and that Lincoln didn't want to free any slaves.  He did.  The constitution as written prevented him from doing so.

And I'll throw this one is as a freebie.  The fact that the hated Morill Tariff was only able to pass *after* the southern states had withdrawn their senators proves that the tariff itself didn't cause the war.  U.S. tariffs were actually at historic lows, and lower than most of the rest of the world, right before the southern states seceded because, contrary to popular belief, South Carolina won the nullification crisis.

See:
YouTube - Forgotten Lessons from the Nullification Crisis

The tariffs weren't just low.  They were steadily *decreasing*.  And all of this without secession of firing a single shot.  So if secession wasn't the reason for secession.....

----------


## fisharmor

> A) That the scheme wouldn't have prevented the war anyway since not only the states "fully committed to independence" rejected it, but also *the states that didn't seceded* rejected it.


Ok, now you need to prove that the responsibility for starting the war is someplace besides Lincoln's lap.
Arguing that such-and-such scheme tried by Lincoln wouldn't prevent Lincoln from starting a war is ridiculous.
If Lincoln didn't want a war, it would have been a simple matter of *not starting one*.




> Nobody here is defending The Union!!!


No, YOU'RE not defending the union, but jmdrake is.  He's assuming that the war was a foregone conclusion, and that 650,000 people had to die and the rule of law had to be destroyed in order to settle this problem.

----------

