Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 09-23-2017, 12:37 PM
Status: "It Can't Rain All The Time" (set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576


Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Ok, as you say here, if Lincoln did not want to take their slaves, why then did South Carolina and the other deep South states secede?
Taxes and to acquire equal representation in the Government and the Confederates didn't believe in a centralized federal government, in that all should be bound together under one umbrella. But that the states should stand individually and respectfully take care of their own citizens.

"The tariff, Southerners objected, was essential a tax on their region to assist northern manufacturers."

"Over the long term, the Three-Fifths Compromise did not work as the South anticipated. Since the northern states grew more rapidly than the South, by 1820, southern representation in the House had fallen to 42 percent."

why then did South Carolina and the other deep South states secede?
Politics ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 09-23-2017, 02:37 PM
2,022 posts, read 1,313,188 times
Reputation: 5076
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Lincoln didn't want to take their slaves

"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.".
We have all seen that fragment of a quote many times.
It is BS to extrapolate from that letter that "Lincoln didn't want to take their slaves". Lincoln did indeed want all slaves to be freed, but he is saying that his job is president of the United States and maintaining the Union is his first responsibility.

Here the whole thing. It's the Greeley editorial called "The Prayer of the Twenty Millions" and Lincoln's response.,

If you haven't heard of the confiscation acts, here's a brief wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Acts
more detail:
Was the 1862 Confiscation Act Really the First Emancipation Proclamation? – Civil War Daily Gazette

In contrast, here's some other thought's by Lincoln on slavery:

The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes.
--August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
--April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.
--July 6, 1852 Eulogy on Henry Clay

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.
--October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.
--August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

Welcome, or unwelcome, agreeable, or disagreeable, whether this shall be an entire slave nation, is the issue before us.
--ca. May 18, 1858 Fragment of a Speech
I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
--June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
--ca. August 1, 1858 Fragment on Democracy

Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil.
--October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
-- October 15, 1858 Debate at Alton, Illinois

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
--April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
Now what is Judge Douglas' Popular Sovereignty? It is, as a principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object.
--September 16, 1859 Speech in Columbus, Ohio
We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself.
--September 17, 1859 Speech in Cincinnati, Ohio

We know, Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know, whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us ... Free labor has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope.
--ca. September 17, 1859 Fragment on Free Labor

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave in not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it.
--February 27, 1860 Speech at the Cooper Institute
Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again.
--December 10, 1860 Letter to Lyman Trumbull

You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.
--December 22, 1860 Letter to Alexander Stephens

I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question -- that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, -- I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation.
--February 1, 1861 Letter to William H. Seward

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
--August 22, 1862 Letter to Horace Greeley
What I did, I did after very full deliberation, and under a heavy and solemn sense of responsibility. I can only trust in God that I have made no mistake.
--September 24, 1862 Reply to Serenade in Honor of [Preliminary] Emancipation Proclamation

In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.
--December 1, 1862 Message to Congress

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
--January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation

I have very earnestly urged the slave-states to adopt emancipation; and it ought to be, and is an object with me not to overthrow, or thwart what any of them may in good faith do, to that end.
--June 23, 1863 Letter to John M. Schofield

"The emancipation proclamation applies to Arkansas. I think it is valid in law, and will be so held by the courts. I think I shall not retract or repudiate it. Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe can never be slaves, or quasi slaves again."
--July 31, 1863 Letter to Stephen A. Hurlburt

If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.
--April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation.
--June 9, 1864 Reply to Committee Notifying Lincoln of his Renomination
Every advocate of slavery naturally desires to see blasted, and crushed, the liberty promised the black man by the new constitution.
--November 14, 1864 Letter to Stephen A. Hurlbut

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.
--March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.
--March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-23-2017, 06:31 PM
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,713,551 times
Reputation: 9829
Lincoln was beholden to the Constitution, which allowed states to make their own decisions about slavery. He was in favor of stopping the spread of slavery to federally controlled territories and in letting free states make their own decisions about fugitives. In no way did he believe he could free slaves over the objections of the states. The southern states made a stupid decision to secede, ironically giving up Constitutional protection when they did so. Under military confiscation, the timetable for emancipation was moved up decades. The south gave abolitionists a gift by rebelling. Too bad for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-23-2017, 09:37 PM
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post

However, Lincoln had no intention of going to war simply to end slavery. If the South had agreed not to leave the Union there wouldn't have been a war and slavery would have continued.
Let's see if people finally accept this
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-23-2017, 10:05 PM
Status: "It Can't Rain All The Time" (set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Let's see if people finally accept this
Bible thumpers won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-24-2017, 08:39 AM
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,660,890 times
Reputation: 5661
I don't remember what i learned in school about the Civil War but to be sure, I have learned 100 times more since then. I don't think the Public School system intentionally mislead me.. they simply didn't have the time or resources to thoroughly cover the Civil War...

It doesn't take a genius to know what the Civil War, as in all wars, was fought over; money and power! Most of the Souths money was tied up in Slavery and most of its power was bound to the Slave owners. The fact that Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860 despite not being on the ballot in most Southern states convinced all of the powerful slave owning leaders of the South that their NATIONAL power was diminishing and was never going to return. So they seceded. Now they knew that Lincoln would not let them go quietly and fully expected, albeit a short, war effort.

Without Lincoln's steadfast resolve to maintain the UNION, the South no doubt would have won the war... Without the South's steadfast resolve to maintain their POWER... the North would have won the war much sooner... Either of these 2 things occur, the Civil would not have been about slavery. The slavery mantra came about long after the Civil War ended. Initially, freeing the slaves was merely contraband for the North.. no different that the burning of cotton or the slaughter of cattle. It was a spoils of war measure and more importantly, punishing the South.

I think its hard to argue the South didn't fight the Civil War to maintain slavery. Slavery was tied to their $ and power without it, there is no Civil War. I don't think you can honestly argue that if the US has outlawed slavery in 1776 there still would have been a Civil War 85 years later... i just don't know how you make that argument. Like others who mention revisionist history... I think you can theoretically revise history and come up with a scenario where the South secedes because of political differences with the North but i think it would have been much harder to get ALL of the South's powerful leaders behind such an action.

But remember there were two sides of this story. The Souths reason for fighting the Civil did not have to be and certainly was NOT the North's reason for fighting the Civil War. They were fighting for the same cause though.. The North was fighting to keep the union whole and the South was fighting to be a free, separate, country. It is ironic that the South was fighting a Civil War so that half of their countrymen could be FREE, free to keep the other half of their countrymen slaves! I think that's the uncomfortable part for most southern sympathizers, which i am to be honest.. but because i am honest, i have no problem pointing this out.

If Lincoln had mentioned in his call for Volunteer troops after South Carolina bombarded Sumter that he needed 75,000 volunteers to help put down the rebellion in South Carolina and to FREE their Slaves he would have gotten zero volunteers. NONE.. count 'em.. zippo. The North wasn't fighting the Civil War to free slaves, even Lincoln wasn't fighting to free slaves.. he was fighting to maintain the Union.. end of story.. nothing more, nothing less. I think this is the uncomfortable part for most Southern bashers.. they abhor the South so much for their peculiar institution that they over look the fact that Slavery started in the North, Slaves were transported to the US via Northern ships.. the North had no more intention of freeing slaves than the South did. If Lincoln had run an anti Slavery campaign in 1860, he looses.. if he had run an anti slavery campaign in 1864, he losses.. ! Lincoln certainly was anti slavery but he was NOT pro equal rights! That is uncomfortable for most Lincoln worshipers.. he had many flaws but they will forgive him for those once they are brought to light but they will not forgive Southerners who were not perfect either...

Slavery was horrible, the blackest eye on AMERICAN history.. not just Southern history, but AMERICAN history. We all bear the cross for that injustice. The reason that slavery is the loudest voice concerning the cause of the Civil War is because the abolishment of slavery is the ONLY good thing that came out of this war. You will never hear historians glorify the expansion of the Federal Governments power because of the Civil War.. uh, that's not fun.. Slavery, yes.. there's the rub!

Last edited by mco65; 09-24-2017 at 08:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-24-2017, 08:45 AM
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,244,033 times
Reputation: 10141
Ok, this has to be one of the most confusing threads ever lol.

Some people that have been arguing this entire thread that the Civil War was entirely caused by slavery are now saying that President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.

That is an interesting thing to say because if you argue that the Civil War was entirely over slavery and President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves - why did the Southern states start seceding just one month after his election? Could there be other factors involved besides the slavery issue that the Southerners were concerned about?

Hopefully, people are starting to see that the question what caused the Civil War is a lot more complicated then just one word answers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-24-2017, 11:37 AM
2,212 posts, read 1,073,740 times
Reputation: 1381
In K-12 what I learned was the basic gist that everyone else learned..the North fought the South to free the slaves.

It wasn't until I took a college history course (Civil War era) that my eyes got opened and from there I started reading so much more. And the more you read the more complex the issue became.

My opinion:

I don't think the Civil War was a humanitarian war to free the slaves. The North already had power enough to free them through legislation but they didn't.

The South started the war. Was it a war to "keep their slaves" or "the RIGHT to keep their slaves" ?
Slavery was the engine of their economy.

Lincoln went to war to reunite and preserver the union first and foremost. The war was not about morals and ethics.
In fact Lincoln's inaugural address in 1861 addressed "states' rights". He was telling the southern states that he was going to leave them alone.

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-24-2017, 02:11 PM
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Some people that have been arguing this entire thread that the Civil War was entirely caused by slavery are now saying that President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.
The civil war was fought over slavery (slaves running away to the North and the South getting mad about it)

It wasn't fought to stop slavery
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-24-2017, 03:04 PM
9,613 posts, read 6,944,788 times
Reputation: 6842
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
The civil war was fought over slavery (slaves running away to the North and the South getting mad about it)

It wasn't fought to stop slavery
I think you're over emphasizing the "slaves running away to the north thing".
That may have been the pretext of the South thinking the federal government wasn't doing its part to uphold state law and therefore leaving the union since the union wasn't doing anything to benefit the south anyway, but overall it was a much smaller issue in comparison to the breakdown of the Missouri Compromise. Knowing that all future territorial states can be representative of the opposing party at the national level who can then further diminish the power of your region by national political majority is a much bigger deal than a couple runaway slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top