Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He had vowed to free all slaves in his campaign for president. When he was elected, the contract with the south had been breached. So that was earlier than the EP.
Since in the 19th century candidates did very little to no campaigning themselves I have real questions regarding the validity of your statement. I can find no reference to any speech given or public utterance stating that he would free a slave much less all of them. Now if you have a citation to this speech I would appreciate seeing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobo7396
In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
This speech which took place on that date as part of the series of debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas?
When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,---to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.
Yes, it was Lincoln's personal preference to utterly end slavery a sentiment fully shared by Thomas Jefferson which Lincoln in the same speech points out. But personal sentiment and actual policy are two different things. In this speech like all others Lincoln is adamant that slavery where it existed would continue to exist. The debate itself was the about Lincoln and the Republican Party's adamant opposition to the expansion of slavery.
Lincoln believed prior to the Civil War that slavery could not be eliminated in the slave states without amending the Constitution. Thus, when he swore to defend the Constitution, he was also swearing to defend the existence of slavery in the slave states, even though he believed it to be immoral and an evil.
He was, however, unalterably opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories and new states. He did believe that, if it was denied new lands, slavery would wither away. This was the real reason for Secession, not the defense of slavery, but of its expansion.
When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he did so under the War Powers of the Presidency, but only within areas still in rebellion. Ultimately, it took the 13th Amendment to end slavery throughout the nation.
However, the state government was changed and so the contracts or deeds could also be viewed as changed. This happens with governments and corporations all the time. The difference with GITMO is Cuba doesn't have the military power to take and hold the base without powerful foreign aid. At the time Castro took power and for decades after the base was surrounded by mine fields on land and in water. The base was occupied by Marine troops and US Navy warships. Air bases in Florida could easily scramble air support and bomb any force trying to take over the base. That was the military reality of the time so Cuba didn't try to take the base by force. In the case of Fort Sumter, they didn't have such support and were outgunned and outgunned and yet Lincoln still kept them at the base. Those killed at Fort Sumpter were used as martyrs to generate support for all out war.
It is not an unusual occurrence for countries to keep forts, Great Britain had forts in the United State until 1815.
Basically, only a treaty with South Carolina could legally remove Sumter from Federal hands, instead the South Carolinians were trigger happy.
and for the Bold the south didn't have the power to defeat the Union without powerful foreign aid (Granted they believed they would get it)
Lincoln probably knew that secession was inevitable and that he would be most effective in keeping the union by manipulating the executive branch rather than the legislative one. He didn't want to preside over a collapsing nation by virtue of his own presidential mandate, but that's exactly what was in the cards all along. Most likely, he simply didn't want to go down in history as the president who disolved the United States of America. Thus, war was the only way out.
Most black historians and religious believers simply rationalize that the war against the south was the way America paid for the sins of slavery. Ever since Lincoln's assassination, there have been many conjectures as to the why we fought the south, and what I think (or anyone else for that matter) about all this is as irrelevant as the real reason why Lincoln did...
Lincoln probably knew that secession was inevitable and that he would be most effective in keeping the union by manipulating the executive branch rather than the legislative one.
Lincoln was unalterably opposed to the expansion of slavery, but was resigned to tolerating it in the states where it existed due to the high unlikelihood that it could be constitutionally repealed. He did believe that, if contained, it would wither away over time.
The South was unalterably committed to the expansion of slavery, believing that the plantation economy required new (unexhausted) lands if it was to survive economically.
That the British textile industry during the Civil War was fairly easily able to replace the southern supply with cotton from Egypt and India, grown without slave labor, only substantiates the thesis, held in common by both Lincoln and the "cotton aristocracy" of the South, that slavery without expansion was a dying and uneconomic institution.
Lincoln was prepared to isolate the South economically, while defending key federal facilities. The South, knowing they would be economically strangled by the North, through blockade and containment, took the initiative and started the war.
When Afghanistan and Iraq got new governments, old contracts with the previous governments (like oil contracts with France and Germany) had to change. Look at the history of countries that went through a revolution or civil war and you'll see examples of previous government agreements declared void by the New government.
Sorry, but there's a world of difference here.
On the one hand, the recognized national governments of Afghanistan and of Iraq reneged on contracts with foreign corporations. Happens all the time, look at nations such as the Soviet Union and Argentina and their repudiation of their foreign debt. But Afghanistan, Iraq, the Soviet Union, nor Argentina attacked and seized U.S. military bases. Now, Japan did attack a U.S. military facility back in 1941 - perhaps you believe that the United States should have complied with Japanese demands at that time.
On the other hand, a group of state militias attacked and seized federal military property, and not for the first time that year. During the Buchanan administration, Confederate forces seized both military armories and installations, while Buchanan sat on his thumbs in Washington. By comparison, Lincoln followed in the footsteps of Washington and of Jackson when he drew the line on Fort Sumter.
Want to claim that a rebellion has a right to attack and seize military assets? Then don't complain when the attacked party fights back.
[EDIT] being able to appoint who goes where to the front and who does what for him in his cabinet was easier than trying to manipulate governors, senators or congressmen to do the things he needed or wanted done before, during and after the war...
Last edited by mariogames; 06-28-2015 at 04:09 PM..
Reason: Correction
There was no such thing as president "Commander In Chief" in 1860, so being able to appoint who goes where to the front and who does what for him in his cabinet was easier than trying to manipulate governors, senators or congressmen to do the things he needed or wanted before, during and after the war...
Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution:
Quote:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Hint - Article II of the Constitution predates 1860 (though Abraham Lincoln did not become President until 1861, you know).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why Lincoln Fought the South
