Thanks for the correction. Lincoln didn't even need the fugitive slave laws to defend the rights of slaveholders. I'm glad we can agree that Lincoln was in fact not an abolitionist.
The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams
- Thread starter noztnac
- Start date
-
- Tags
- u.s. civil war
Thanks for the correction. Lincoln didn't even need the fugitive slave laws to defend the rights of slaveholders. I'm glad we can agree that Lincoln was in fact not an abolitionist.
Slavery in Union states was fine with Lincoln. Slavery continued in the Union during the war in the Union slave states and Union generals used slaves during their campaigns - which makes any claim of slavery being the cause of the war fall to dust.You mean the War Where the Yankees Kicked the Rebel's Asses?It is incorrect to think of Illinois as a purely "northern" state that was anti-slavery. The southern portion of the state was nestled in between two slave states, and slavery was allowed in salt mines there until about 1850, IIRC. It was populated by southerners. Sentiment in southern Illinois was sympathetic to the slave states.
wasn't the wording of the E.P in 1863 due to the political clout of tennessee's military governor?
indirectly slavery is the issue that politically polarized our politics prior to the war. technically
the way fort sumter was fired on and/or supplied lit the fuse for the almost inevitable war...
indirectly slavery is the issue that politically polarized our politics prior to the war. technically
the way fort sumter was fired on and/or supplied lit the fuse for the almost inevitable war...
showpan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,385
The nullification movement was always at the heart of the conflict, I agree that it was not a civil war because a civil war is fought for control and power. The South did not want to control the North, it was the North who wanted to control the Southern economy while opening up new markets in the Western territories. The North would have never won if it weren't for the great land giveaway that brought in over 1 Million immigrants to fight for them.
The nullification movement began many years before and Georgia and South Carolina had already threatened to secede in the early 1800's. There was a growing rift between President Jackson and John C. Calhoun of S. Carolina and the two friends had parted ways and became opponents. Fights had broke out in congress and heated debates were common. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s.
States rights were always the issue and anything else, slavery and tariffs, were only secondary issues used to fan the flames that were already raging for over 50 years before the War even started.
The issue of whether or not a state had the right to nullify a federal law was not a new issue in 1832. Over thirty years earlier, the Kentucky Resolution was secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Along with the Virginia Resolution, which was written by James Madison, the Kentucky Resolution argued that state legislatures had the right to nullify Federal statutes. This version of the Kentucky Resolution is from the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress. The text in the first column is from the rough draft, and that in the second from a fair copy. The facsimile is the text actually adopted by the Kentucky legislature and sent to the other state legislatures
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/
The nullification movement began many years before and Georgia and South Carolina had already threatened to secede in the early 1800's. There was a growing rift between President Jackson and John C. Calhoun of S. Carolina and the two friends had parted ways and became opponents. Fights had broke out in congress and heated debates were common. The 1830 Webster-Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s.
States rights were always the issue and anything else, slavery and tariffs, were only secondary issues used to fan the flames that were already raging for over 50 years before the War even started.
The issue of whether or not a state had the right to nullify a federal law was not a new issue in 1832. Over thirty years earlier, the Kentucky Resolution was secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Along with the Virginia Resolution, which was written by James Madison, the Kentucky Resolution argued that state legislatures had the right to nullify Federal statutes. This version of the Kentucky Resolution is from the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress. The text in the first column is from the rough draft, and that in the second from a fair copy. The facsimile is the text actually adopted by the Kentucky legislature and sent to the other state legislatures
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/
You obviously read just what you want, make up what you want, and discard all the rest. Not a good recipe for understanding anything.
Whose nullification? The only people bitching about nullification in the 1850s were southerners, and they were bitching about northern states nullifying fugitive slave laws with their Personal Liberty Laws. So, do we hear any libertarian hoorahs here for the northern states who fought against federal power to capture negroes and take them South into slavery? Understand, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 obligated citizens under threat of fine and imprisonment to aid in the capture of alleged runaways, denied the accused runaway any testimony on his behalf in front of a federal judge, and then paid that judge $5 if he found the man to be free, but $10 if he found him to be a runaway. Where is the libertarian outrage for that type of federal scam.
Please elaborate.
Really? How do you figure? In 1860 the states that would make up the confederacy had a population of around 5.5 million whites and the states remaining in the Union had around 21 million whites. If you figure in free blacks, then it swings the advantage even further to the Union. That's a spread of quite a lot more than 1 million, not to mention the great manufacturing and agricultural capabilities of the North, and their ability to distribute it.
The think the "nullification' threats of Calhoun is little more than a politician flapping his jaws in the wind. We can read all the "We are not going to collect your tariff." claims that can be shoveled out, but the fact of the matter is, states don't collect the tariff anyway. They are assessed at a US Custom-house by US Customs inspectors and the duties are collected by Customs agents for the US Treasury Department. Just exactly where does South Carolina think they had a role in any of this. To stop collections would mean the governor of a state would have to take a militia down to a US Custom-house and arrest the Customs employees. That oughta go over well. Is it the view here of people in favor of nullification that, for instance, a state that doesn't agree with federal immigration laws should be able to take a militia and arrest all the Customs and Border Patrol agents and open the border crossings in their state to unfettered travel?
Could you please give some specific example of "states rights" that were being violated and how they were "states rights"? For instance, I don't consider a Georgia planter not being able to move his slavery operation to Oregon as an infringement against the state of Georgia, anymore than I would consider a casino operator from Las Vegas not being able to open a casino in New Hampshire as a "state's rights" violation against Nevada.
Thank you
If you would like to rely on Prof. James D Fearon's definition of what a civil war is, as does heavenlyboy34, here is a more complete version from a 2006 Washington Post article of his:
1) Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side's separatist goals, or some divisive government policy.
http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/civil_war_definition_transcends_politics_20060410/
[emphasis mine]
I trust you have re-corrected the wiki entry to show that free blacks were not allowed in Illinois?
Are you seriously claiming that Lincoln was an abolitionist?
I think its important to realize that the original wave of secession of the deep South was a colossal failure. Out of 15 slave states, only seven seceded. They threw a great party and no one of importance showed up.
The Confederacy was delivered into this world stillborn.
And what did these states of the confederacy have in common (besides slavery) in the spring of 1860? They hardly had any population. The number of citizens in just Pennsylvania alone was 200,000 more than the entire confederacy put together. No single state in the confederacy even had as many citizens as little ol' North Carolina. There were more citizens living in the deep woods and rocky coastline of Maine than there were in any state of the early confederacy. It was of paramount importance that the more populous border slave states join the gulf states, otherwise it was predicted by some that the next round of conventions in the South would be on the subject of rejoining the Union. Without at least Virginia and Tennessee, the confederacy was doomed.
From my perspective, that is why Sumter was attacked before the resupply got there. It was not because Charleston needed defending against Anderson. It was because they needed the "victory" of reducing the fort, drawing blood, and bringing the conflict to a boiling point. There are those who think Lincoln "maneuvered" Davis into firing, but I see it more as challenging him with several options. Lincoln had to reverse the policy of the Buchanan administration that stood by with folded arms while the confederates seized federal properties, arsenals, mints, ships, and took Union soldiers prisoner in Texas.
Had Davis been smarter about it, they would have attacked Sumter while Buchanan was still in office so that it would have been a done deal when Lincoln arrived.
You obviously read just what you want, make up what you want, and discard all the rest. Not a good recipe for understanding anything.
So you admit Abe Lincoln was not an abolitionist?
Did Lincoln want to abolish slavery? Yes.
Was he in favor of slavery? Not in any way that I am aware of.
Did he think there was any constitutional power for the president to interfere with slavery where it then existed? No.
Did he support a plan to re-establish blacks in Africa? Yes , at first. He later rejected that plan. It was I believe in great part to his seeing how well black soldiers fought for the Union.
Was Lincoln a racist? Perhaps by today's standards, but not by 1860s standards. If you want to truly get a handle on the views of Abe Lincoln, I suggest you read a good biography (try David Herbert Donald's) or two about him along with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Cooper Union address for starters. If you just want to ignorantly slander him, then stick with works by Lew Rockwell, Dilorenzo, Kennedy Bros. etc..
Meanwhile, I realize that you will just read what you want, make up what you want and discard the rest.
Abraham Lincoln, Speech fragment concerning the abolition of slavery, c. July 1858. The Gilder Lehrman Collection.
"I have never professed an indifference to the honors of official station; and were I to do so now, I should only make myself ridiculous. Yet I have never failed – do not now fail – to remember that in the republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office. I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the Slave-trade by Great Brittain, was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure had it’s open fire-eating opponents; it’s stealthy “don’t care” opponents; it’s dollar and cent opponents; it’s inferior race opponents; its negro equality opponents; and its religion and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and their adversaries got none. But I have also remembered that though they blazed, like tallow-candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell. School –boys know that Wilbe[r]force, and Granville Sharpe, helped that cause forward; but who can now name a single man who labored to retard it? Remembering these things I can not but regard it as possible that the higher object of this contest may not be completely attained within the term of my natural life. But I can not doubt either that it will come in due time. Even in this view, I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may [struck: never] not last to see."
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/collection/online/wilberforce/slide05a.html
Last edited:
I suppose you are admitting Lincoln was not an abolitionist, since you don't deny this fact? He fought in court to maintain slavery. He pushed a constitutional amendment to protect slavery. And he invaded the South instead of freeing the slaves in the slave states that remained in his Union.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
While we're quoting Lincoln, let's remember this one that you keep trying to ignore:
"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."
~Excerpt from a letter from Lincoln to Horace Greely
Now there's and inconvenient truth for you, burt.
I have never claimed Lincoln was an abolitionist in the sense of a Garrison or Brown, although he was one in the sense that he favored the institution's ultimate extinction. You seem incapable of understanding that difference.
No, he represented a client in court in respect of the existing law. You seem incapable of understanding that difference, too.
Really? Please provide a credible source that he "pushed" the Corwin Amendment. And you do realize that the Corwin Amendment merely offered to protect constitutionally what was already considered protected constitutionally...and it was no more than a last ditch effort the stall secession....and it was all done with by the time Lincoln took office.
Have you consistently missed all the times that you have read where Lincoln acknowledged that he had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery where it existed??? There's something about you.....oh, yea, you read what you want, make up what you want and discard the rest.
While we're quoting Lincoln, let's remember this one that you keep trying to ignore:
"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."
~Excerpt from a letter from Lincoln to Horace Greely
Now there's and inconvenient truth for you, burt.
It would do you so much good if you would include things in their context.
from Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley: "
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 will translate the parts for you that you seem not to understand. Lincoln's paramount object is to save the Union. His paramount object is not to save or destroy slavery. If it were it would be more important than saving the union. Nobody ever makes that claim. Do you understand? He makes it very clear that what is most important to him in this struggle is saving the Union. However, that does not mean that he therefore was not in favor of seeing the ultimate end to slavery. He did not want to see it protected in the territories. He did not want to see it protected in the free states. It should have been obvious to all that by this time in the war, the cancer that brought this all on had to be eliminated, or it would simply keep infecting the corpse.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.
Last edited:
So we can agree that Lincoln was pretty much a Jefferson Davis type abolitionist?
Lincoln fought in court to maintain slavery.
And he certainly had no objection to the Corwin Amendment.
isn't lincoln encouraging ALL fACTIONS in the 1860s with promices, keeping in mind
that sec' seward was an abolitionist but andrew johnson was only a unionist? i feel
he kept his options flexible + open, and antietum gave him an openning in 1862/63!
GOTO doris kearns goodwin. monsieur seward almost won the GOP nomination in 1860
until middle of the road Honest Abe began to surge. sec' seward was an unvarnish'd
totally pragmatic abolitionist who eventually became a key administration team player.
that sec' seward was an abolitionist but andrew johnson was only a unionist? i feel
he kept his options flexible + open, and antietum gave him an openning in 1862/63!
GOTO doris kearns goodwin. monsieur seward almost won the GOP nomination in 1860
until middle of the road Honest Abe began to surge. sec' seward was an unvarnish'd
totally pragmatic abolitionist who eventually became a key administration team player.
Last edited:
You read what you want, make up what you want, and discard the rest.
Shit, you are obtuse! The Corwin Amendment accomplished nothing that Lincoln hadn't already stated his beliefs about - that there was no authority to interfere with slavery where it existed. If it had been successful in keeping some border states from seceding then it had value. As a personal aside, even had it been ratified, I don't think it would have been irrevocable. I don't think any amendment can be made irrevocable.
It would be helpful if you would either link or give a source when you paste something.
I think you will find that this is just more incorrect rubbish from DiLorenzo and that he is not accurately quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin (big surprise there - I don't know if he accurately quotes anyone). Lincoln did not instruct Seward to introduce the Corwin Amendment. He had several other proposals, but they did not include the amendment.
