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.
You are also ignoring Lincoln's later words, which contradict your "to the end" comments.
I said that Lincoln believed blacks were inferior to whites, that Lincoln wanted to remove blacks from the country, and that he wanted to end slavery for the benefit of whites.
I never said that he didn't want blacks to be free. I know that Lincoln wanted blacks to be free. But he also said he would be perfectly fine with keeping blacks in slavery if that was the only way to save the union. Which is why he promised the south repeatedly not to interfere with southern slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Secondly you are wrong about the to the end part - Lincoln had long ago given up ideas of recolonizing slaves after they were freed - look up Lincoln's last speech, he recommends black CITIZENSHIP and VOTING RIGHTS. John Wilkes Booth shot him in part for that speech.
It is difficult to really decipher what it is he is trying to accomplish. He talks of voting rights. And he does say that intelligent blacks and blacks who joined the military should be allowed to vote.
My question is, why did Lincoln suddenly decide that at least some blacks should be given the right to vote? It doesn't seem to match everything else he had said before then.
Well, it seems that his primary interest in his last speech is in making sure the ex-confederate states regain "proper relations" with the north. And most importantly, he wants to make sure the ex-confederate states agree to ratify the 13th amendment.
He wrote, " if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned; while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable."
It seems to me that Lincoln wanted to give blacks the right to vote in order to guarantee the passage of the 13th amendment, and to create a new "pro-union" government.
He also said, "Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, "Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?" "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?"
Which doesn't really surprise me. The radical Republicans did the same stuff after Lincoln was shot. They disbanded southern governments, denied the right to vote to ex-confederates, gave a right to vote to blacks, and then pushed through the 14th and 15th amendments.
Study up on the Reconstruction Era.
1870 was a fun time to be in the southern state legislatures and be governors of those states.
Reconstruction Act of 1867, which separated the South into five military districts and organized how governments based on universal suffrage were to be organized. The law also required southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, which broadened the definition of citizenship, granting “equal protection” of the Constitution to former slaves, before they could rejoin the Union.
In February 1869, Congress approved the 15th Amendment (adopted in 1870), which guaranteed that a citizen’s right to vote would not be denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
1870, all of the former Confederate states had been admitted to the Union, with placement of the legislators of those states, done by President Johnson, and the state constitutions during the years of Radical Reconstruction were the most progressive in the region’s history. African-American participation in southern public life after 1867 would be by far the most radical development of Reconstruction, which was essentially a large-scale experiment in interracial democracy unlike that of any other society following the abolition of slavery.
The South actually re-wrote the Constitution, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The following link contains a line-by-line comparison between the 2 Constitutions. Here's the Summary of Changes:
I've actually read the changes to the Constitution by the Confederacy a bunch. And your list of changes is a little too small. I actually love quite a few changes in the Confederate Constitution.
I like the line-item veto, "The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President."
I also like that all bills would be limited to only one topic(Article 9, section 20), which would prevent earmarks or things like the "omni-bus spending bills", "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
The Confederacy took out the words "General welfare" in the general welfare clause, they also heavily restricted tariffs, by adding "no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;"
They also seriously weakened the commerce clause. And made spending bills require a 2/3rds vote(instead of the current majority). Plus every dollar has to be accounted for. No "discretionary spending" allowed.
The president only receives one six-year term.
And as for slavery. There isn't quite a right to slavery, but its a bit complicated. The congress cannot interfere with slavery. And people are given a right to take their slaves from state to state, regardless of the legality of slavery in that state.
But that is basically the same as in America after Dred Scott. You should read the Dred Scott decision.
I'm quite familiar with the Reconstruction Era, thanks. My point is the idiocy of believing elected officials of a government which lost a war were somehow automatically entitled to retain their positions.
Frankly, the worst thing that happened to the former Confederate states was Lincoln's assassination. Reconstruction and reconciliation would have gone a lot better for them had that "hero of the South" not committed his crime.
"Governor John Letcher of Virginia, whose state had been requested to furnish three regiments totaling 2,340 men and officers, had stated in the past his intent for his state to remain neutral. He replied to Lincoln that since the latter had "chosen to inaugurate civil war, he would be sent no troops from the Old Dominion.""
Basically, Virginia declared that it was Lincoln who had chosen civil-war by asking Virginia to provide soldiers to suppress southern secession. Up until then, Virginia(and seven other slave states) had stayed loyal to the union because they believed the issue could be resolved peacefully.
I've actually read the changes to the Constitution by the Confederacy a bunch. And your list of changes is a little too small. I actually love quite a few changes in the Confederate Constitution.
I like the line-item veto, "The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President."
I also like that all bills would be limited to only one topic(Article 9, section 20), which would prevent earmarks or things like the "omni-bus spending bills", "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
The Confederacy took out the words "General welfare" in the general welfare clause, they also heavily restricted tariffs, by adding "no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;"
They also seriously weakened the commerce clause. And made spending bills require a 2/3rds vote(instead of the current majority). Plus every dollar has to be accounted for. No "discretionary spending" allowed.
The president only receives one six-year term.
And as for slavery. There isn't quite a right to slavery, but its a bit complicated. The congress cannot interfere with slavery. And people are given a right to take their slaves from state to state, regardless of the legality of slavery in that state.
But that is basically the same as in America after Dred Scott. You should read the Dred Scott decision.
The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere, overturning the Missouri compromise, enabling "popular sovereignty", and bloody Kansas.[16]
The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[16]
Quote:
There are several major differences in the two constitutions in the area concerning slavery.
Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word slavery or the term "Negro Slaves",[27] but "Person[s] held to Service or Labour"[28] which included whites in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
Though Article I Section 9(1) of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations the Confederate Constitution permits the CSA to import slaves from the United States and specifies Africans as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808.[29]
Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.[14]
While the U.S. Constitution reads
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[30]
The Confederate Constitution then adds a clause that the CSA Congress has the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any state that is a non-Confederate State.
Article I Section 9(2)
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.[14]
While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"[30] the Confederate Constitution adds a phrase to protect slavery.
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[14]
The U.S Constitution states in Article IV Section 2 that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitutions adds that a state government cannot prohibit the rights of a slave owner traveling or visiting from a different state with his or her slaves.
Article IV Section 2(1)
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.[31]
The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories (the key Constitutional debate of the 1860 election) by explicitly stating that slavery is legally protected in the territories.
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[32]
Let's face it, slavery was the (sine qua non) essential condition without which ... there would be no ACW.
Sine qua non refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing".
It was a lost cause then as it's a lost cause now.
You are really missing the point. James Buchanan let dozens of forts go without a fight. Was James Buchanan wrong in letting those forts go? Do you think James Buchanan should have raised an army in December of 1860 to start taking back those forts?
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
"(The Congress shall have power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8:
"Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:
"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; ..."
Buchanan failed in his responsibilities as President of the United States and violated his oath of office, by allowing Federal military installations to be seized by insurrectionists and taking no action.
Quote:
Wasn't it actually Lincoln's call for an Army to put down the insurrection, that caused Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas to secede from the union?
As noted above, the federal government has the power and responsibility to call forth the various state militias to put down insurrections and the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the various state militias when called into service of the federal government. It's not that Lincoln forced four the remaining eight slave states into insurrection, it's that the political power structures in four of those states made the conscious decision to defy their duty as required by the Constitution.
During the Whiskey Rebellion, the state militias of New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania were used in federal service in Pennsylvania, under the command of George Washington. As such, there was not only a Constitutional duty for Virginia to call forth its militia for service under Lincoln, there was also historical precedent for doing so. Virginia and the other three states aren't allowed to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are to be followed and which are to be ignored.
Quote:
For that matter, those who say that the south started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, seem to be saying that had the south not fired on Fort Sumter, that Lincoln was just going to let the south secede.
Who says that Lincoln was going to let the southern states secede?
Quote:
But if Lincoln was going to let the south secede, then why would he push so hard to keep Fort Sumter? What benefit was it to the union?
Federal assets were being seized by armed insurrectionists, and the federal government wasn't supposed to do anything? Someone should let John Brown's widow know that.
Quote:
If we can be honest with each other, lets just agree that Lincoln, and the north, weren't just going to let the south secede. It simply wasn't going to happen. Lincoln didn't care whatsoever about Fort Sumter. No one was hurt at Fort Sumter, and the Union soldiers just got on their boats and left. But Lincoln used it to convince the North to launch a full-scale invasion of the south. And his calling up of troops caused four more states to secede and join the Confederacy. Further increasing the magnitude of the eventual carnage.
No, Lincoln didn't force four more states to secede. Those states on their own decided to defy their responsibilities and join in the insurrection.
Quote:
It was Lincoln's pride which caused him to hold Fort Sumter at all costs. It was South Carolina's pride that caused them to fire on Fort Sumter. Then it was Lincoln's pride which caused him to foolishly demand states like Virginia and Tennessee to send him troops for the purpose of invading the southern states in response. And thus it was the idiotic pride of both South Carolina and Lincoln which eventually set the country on a path to war.
Lincoln's action regarding Fort Sumter was to re-provision a federal military installation and to not reinforce it with arms, munitions, or soldiers. It was the insurrectionists of South Carolina who decided that providing food to federal soldiers in a federal installation was intolerable.
Quote:
I hold Lincoln ultimately responsible, because the south merely needed a guarantee of protection of their rights. They were seeking a compromise. And a majority of the slave states remained loyal to the union until Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops.
Seven states (South Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) entered into insurrection in response to a federal presidential election, not because they were seeking some sort of compromise. Four more states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) joined the Confederacy to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities in putting down insurrection.
These states were not seeking compromise, they were seeking repudiation of the election process. They were defying the United States Constitution.
Quote:
Instead of Lincoln being a statesman like his predecessors, Lincoln instead wanted to act like Mr. Tough guy. Which made a bad situation even worse, and ultimately plunged the nation into a horrible Civil War.
Federal property was being seized and the federal government was supposed to ignore it? Insurrection is the correct response to losing a fairly contested federal election of a President? The President, in enforcing the law, was acting as a 'Mr. Tough Guy'?
George Washington didn't put up with the Whiskey Rebellion. Andrew Jackson didn't put up with South Carolina's Nullification attempt. Either one of those Presidents would not have tolerated the actions of 1861. Jackson himself accepted his first loss in a presidential election without resorting to military action.
Quote:
I still insist that if Lincoln had just let Fort Sumter go. Virginia wouldn't have joined the Confederacy.
If Lincoln hadn't responded to armed rebellion, then the United States was dead. It wasn't a matter of if Virginia would have left the Union, but more a matter of when all the states eventually left.
Quote:
The Corwin amendment would have been passed, the seven original states of the Confederacy would have rejoined the union, and slavery would have ended by 1873(when the cotton market collapsed).
The Corwin amendment had no chance of ratification by the northern states.
Assuming that the original states would have rejoined the union is at best wishful thinking. To follow the thought through, allowing secession would have reduced the United States to a loose trade alliance, with states leaving the Union whenever it suited them and with states resorting to military conflict whenever a state lost out on a disagreement.
Quote:
The Civil War was an unnecessary war.
And the Southern states, by choosing insurrection in response to a fairly contested federal election, caused that war.
The Union was the morally wrong aggressor attacking the Confederacy which lawfully left the Union. So no way would I fight for the Union. The South had the ugly practice of slavery so I don't think I could fight for that except if I was Southern, I would have had to defend my family from attackers.
There is no legal ability for any state to succeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
When Lincoln saw no chance of an amendment to the constitution, he abolished the parts he didn't like.
He abolished slavery? That's not protected by the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
This caused a civil war.
No, a bunch of rich guys fearing the loss of their slaves started the war after they lost the presidential election that put Lincoln in power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Then after the civil war, the federal government did not recognize the elected officials in the southern confederate states.
Reconstruction, placed the federal governments appointed people as rulers and deciders, ignoring the elected officials. Had they not, the 13th & 14th amendments would not have passed.
Because they don't get their rights back, until the American government decided to give them. They were traitors. If anything, the North went easy on the South. If this was many other countries at the time putting down a rebellion, thousands more would have been executed for being traitors.
You don't just get to rebel and then sign the surrender papers and poof, you have all your rights back the next day. Doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
So according to the US Constitution, the Constitution was not only broken, it was abolished.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The Consequences of that has been raging resentment for the last 150 years, that will only go away with a very bloody conflict.
I've actually read those quite a bit. If you read Georgia's reasoning behind secession. You'll realize that they are talking about how Northern economic interests were using the politics of slavery to further their interests. In effect, they are declaring that it was politics and economics which caused the Civil War, not slavery. Slavery was merely the issue that was exploited by the large economic interests to seize control of the government for their benefit.[/i]
They used the words "slave" and "slavery" 83 times in their declarations. I only see economy mentioned twice.
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.
I'm quite familiar with the Reconstruction Era, thanks. My point is the idiocy of believing elected officials of a government which lost a war were somehow automatically entitled to retain their positions. 