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.
Well then maybe you should run down to UTA and wave your two bachelors degrees under his nose. When he stops laughing, you two can hash it out.
As I stated in my first post, I was passing along what this man taught based on his PHD studies and doctoral thesis in this area.
That's not my point.
My point is I HAD PROFESSOR'S TOO - who also had extensive knowledge of the Civil War.
I'm not debating with YOUR professor - any more than you are debating with MY professors.
I'm debating with YOU.
Well then maybe you should run down to UTA and wave your two bachelors degrees under his nose. When he stops laughing, you two can hash it out.
As I stated in my first post, I was passing along what this man taught based on his PHD studies and doctoral thesis in this area.
I've seen folks criticize Lincoln before on this board because the Emancipation Proclamation only affected those states in revolt - the implication being that because the Proclamation didn't affect the Union states, it clearly meant that Lincoln was pro-slavery - or at the very least didn't care one way or the other. This is simply NOT true. Lincoln was clearly anti-slavery - that was a big part of the reason the South left the Union upon his election and his pre-election speaches make that ABUNDANTLY clear.
But the fact remains, that Lincoln was not all-powerful in the Union and some of the border states that remained in the Union were teetering on the edge of leaving themselves, so he had to tread lightly on the issue of slavery. One political mistep could easily result in more states leaving the Union and shifting the balance of power to the South.
He CLEARLY had NO authority whatsoever to abolish slavery in the remaining states of the Union. In truth, he had no legal authority to abolish it in the Confederate states either - but as Commander in Chief, he could enforce that rule in occupied Confederate states through marshal law, so legal authority in that case was a moot point.
So, he made the decision to announce the emancipation of slaves in the Confederate states only. This was clearly for military reasons (he hoped the slaves would rise up in revolt) but it was also meant as a veiled threat to the border slave states, that if they chose to leave the Union their slaves would be "freed" by decree as well.
To claim however that it meant that Lincoln was OK with slavery in the North is just plain wrong. Clearly Lincoln dispised slavery - and there is PLENTY of written documentation to that effect, but his foremost concern was winning the war so as to preserve the Union. By 1863 it was becoming quite clear that in the long run slavery - even in the border states - was on the way out (even though some in the border states were resisting that inevitablity), so dealing with slavery in the remaining states was something that could wait until the situation was less precarious.
Just because Lincoln's primary concern was preservation of the Union did not mean he didn't oppose slavery. Appologists for the CSA make this incorrect claim ALL the time.
Yes this is almost getting into the repeat of the other post, which is why I hesitated to answer, along with the mess of posters answering without a good grasp of history ("Lincoln is a racist" and all that, those absolutes don't work when understanding history).
Also - I assume most of us went to college, it's only after a few years after college that you learn that what was taught to you by that much admired and "hip" pony-tailed PHd professor was just as biased, misdirected, and inaccurate as the rubbish you learn watching broadcast mainstream news on TV.
And edit for Lindsey - nothing you stated was factually incorrect, it just requires expansion to explain the hows and whys and put it into context.
Well maybe you should speak to the Dr of history who had a concentration in Civil War and Reconstruction history that taught the classes I took. His Doctoral thesis was on this very topic. Do you have similar credientials? He was a tenured professor in the UT system.
Oh man, don't mess with LordB!!! This topic was covered a month or so ago and he PWND everyone on the thread.
Lincoln made slavery a morality issue to keep the British from fighting with the confederacy. The slaves were pawns.
I've seen folks criticize Lincoln before on this board because the Emancipation Proclamation only affected those states in revolt - the implication being that because the Proclamation didn't affect the Union states, it clearly meant that Lincoln was pro-slavery - or at the very least didn't care one way or the other. This is simply NOT true. Lincoln was clearly anti-slavery - that was a big part of the reason the South left the Union upon his election and his pre-election speaches make that ABUNDANTLY clear.
But the fact remains, that Lincoln was not all-powerful in the Union and some of the border states that remained in the Union were teetering on the edge of leaving themselves, so he had to tread lightly on the issue of slavery. One political mistep could easily result in more states leaving the Union and shifting the balance of power to the South.
He CLEARLY had NO authority whatsoever to abolish slavery in the remaining states of the Union. In truth, he had no legal authority to abolish it in the Confederate states either - but as Commander in Chief, he could enforce that rule in occupied Confederate states through marshal law, so legal authority in that case was a moot point.
So, he made the decision to announce the emancipation of slaves in the Confederate states only. This was clearly for military reasons (he hoped the slaves would rise up in revolt) but it was also meant as a veiled threat to the border slave states, that if they chose to leave the Union their slaves would be "freed" by decree as well.
To claim however that it meant that Lincoln was OK with slavery in the North is just plain wrong. Clearly Lincoln dispised slavery - and there is PLENTY of written documentation to that effect, but his foremost concern was winning the war so as to preserve the Union. By 1863 it was becoming quite clear that in the long run slavery - even in the border states - was on the way out (even though some in the border states were resisting that inevitablity), so dealing with slavery in the remaining states was something that could wait until the situation was less precarious.
Just because Lincoln's primary concern was preservation of the Union did not mean he didn't oppose slavery. Appologists for the CSA make this incorrect claim ALL the time.
Ken
See what I mean?
Lindsay .. did your UT prof get his PhD from a southern university?
He CLEARLY had NO authority whatsoever to abolish slavery in the remaining states of the Union. In truth, he had no legal authority to abolish it in the Confederate states either - but as Commander in Chief, he could enforce that rule in occupied Confederate states through marshal law, so legal authority in that case was a moot point.
So how is this even REMOTELY consistent with his pre-war treatment of the Maryland legislature??? So Lincoln refrained from abolishing slavery in Maryland because he had no right, but he had every right to arrest the Maryland legislators before they could vote on the issue of secession???
Let's be careful in dealing in black and whites (no pun intended) with regard to Lincoln. He was more than willing to bend, oh who am I kidding, I mean BREAK the rules when it suited him.
Fact of the matter was that it wasn't about what he could or couldn't legally do. It was clearly meant as a propaganda tool meant to keep Europe out of the war.
Fact of the matter was that it wasn't about what he could or couldn't legally do. It was clearly meant as a propaganda tool meant to keep Europe out of the war.
It was a small part, not the total reason. I am saying that because from what I've read the south never really had a serious chance of getting Europe into the war. After mid-1862 or so southern diplomats weren't even successful in getting appoitments with anyone over low level political grade in Parlaiment to see them. The south totally overestimated the importance of cotton in swinging Europe to there side.
And France? They wouldn't have done anything without England making the first move at that point in time in History, and also Napolean III was too busy in Mexico.
Another point is some of the English papers of the time pointed out the hypocrisy of freeing the slaves in part of the south much as we are doing here.
It's unpopular in this cynical time to beleive this - but Lincoln really did want the theme of the war at that point, when he knew no compromise could bring the states back together after a year and a half of war, to turn to one of the slavery issue. Both because he thought it was the right thing to do (he had a religous passion on the issue of slavery and freedom in the second half of the civil war), and because it would inspire the nation to fight for a greater cause. And also, of course, he wanted to secure his place in history. It was still an imperfect compromise dictated by the political realities of the time, but it accomplished it's goals.
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.
