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.
Go back and read post #42. Lincoln did it as a strategic military move to isolate the South fom her European allies. The North knew they couldn't beat the European powers so Lincoln had to do something to take them out of hte equation. You are right that Lincoln didn't give a crap about slavery; he only cared about preserving the union (at the expense of the states that were a part of it, by the way). Northerners were no so anti-slavery that they were willing to lay down their lives for Blacks in the south. Get real.
It's one thing to say that Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. It's another to say the North was not so anti-slavery. Southerners KNEW the Republican Party platform was a anti-slavery platform. In several of the Declaration of Secession documents for Southern states the Republican anti-slavery platform is mentioned.
This is from the Georgia Declaration of Secession:
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery and to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.
For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us.
The Abolitionist Movement was a key part of an organized political movement to end slavery in the United States. It was also key in influencing Abraham Lincolns signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Not only did Emancipation Proclamation free slaves it ended any chance that the Confederate States of America would gain recognition and support of countries like England that had already abolished slavery.
I don't agree. I have never felt that the south was a willing partner in this nation. From my time there, I feel that they despise and hate the Fed Govt to this very day. That is what I find so conflicted about the place. And why maybe it would be better for them to go a ahead and start the legal means for getting out.
Are you kidding? Check again who was the power house of a colony before the revolution and from what colony, later a state those major founding fathers were in fact from.
The Founders of the Confederate States of America, the likes of Jeff Davis, had thought of themselves of the continuation of the American Revolution. The idea, that the states are soveriegn, slavery or not. The South could not see eye to eye with the north on it, slavery and bookoos of other things.
I never once denied that slavery was a cause, slavery was that final trigger issue that drove everybody crazy. But the oversimplification of the war itself, as put by some (should I say, uninformed) users here are trying to paint a North=Good, South=Evil, Bad, needs destroying yesterday, and needs to be put down again today because they don't vote Democrat or whatever. The very result of the Civil War (social upheavel, violence and economic destruction.) is what they had feared. Had the CSA won, it would more or less be an economic USA-lite, which is much better than what some think.
You CANNOT oversimplify the causes of the Civil War, and not one Confederate was charged of treason, before 1869 secession was legal, Constitutional, it was not treason.
Wow, this might very well be THE dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on C-D. And that is saying something!
Unbelievable...
What's wrong with helping southerners finally get the govt they want. A very weak central govt with a bunch of squabbling states eventually descending into perpetual conflict, ya know, like the Balkans.
If anyone is genuinely interested on why Lincoln entered into war with the insurrectionist, I strongly suggest reading his July 4th, 1861 address to the special session of Congress.
This sophism derives much---perhaps the whole---of its currency, from the assumption, that there is some omnipotent, and sacred supremacy, pertaining to a State---to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution---no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in, and by, the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies’’ were declared to be "Free and Independent States’’; but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union; but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show. The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights,’’ asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty’’ of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty,’’ in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "A political community, without a political superior’’? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union.
The Founders of the Confederate States of America, the likes of Jeff Davis, had thought of themselves of the continuation of the American Revolution. The idea, that the states are soveriegn, slavery or not. The South could not see eye to eye with the north on it, slavery and bookoos of other things.
I never once denied that slavery was a cause, slavery was that final trigger issue that drove everybody crazy. But the oversimplification of the war itself, as put by some (should I say, uninformed) users here are trying to paint a North=Good, South=Evil, Bad, needs destroying yesterday, and needs to be put down again today because they don't vote Democrat or whatever. The very result of the Civil War (social upheavel, violence and economic destruction.) is what they had feared. Had the CSA won, it would more or less be an economic USA-lite, which is much better than what some think.
You CANNOT oversimplify the causes of the Civil War, and not one Confederate was charged of treason, before 1869 secession was legal, Constitutional, it was not treason.
The Confederacy could just as easily, had it prevailed, broken apart after the war (weak central govt). Then on this continent we may well have had a bunch of little banana republics. Keep in mind, the slave populations in many of these states outnumbered whites.
No, I did not read all of the previous posts but my take on the Civil War (living in the city that started it all!) is that it boils down to the same thing these things usually are about - money. The South was a great source of wealth for the North with the rich available resources available of cotton, indigo, and rice. The South looked upon slaves as a conduit to maintaining their own wealth and the North just looked at the end product and quite honestly didn't care how they gained those resources (see remarks by Lincoln). With secession, the North would no longer be the primary benefactor of the resources from the South and Europe stood to be the primary benefactor. This would have grave economic impacts in the North. Money is often a huge motivator in war.
On another note, I have been to each historical site here in Charleston and I can say that Charleston, at least, does not "ignore" that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Civil War agrarian society. In fact, I have seen more and more museums, exhibits, etc that are making great efforts to chronicle the life of slaves in this area.
I do believe the New York Times is naturally inclined to see the worst in the South and if you ask 99.9% of Southerners if slavery was a reprehensible practice, you would get a resounding yes. I do not see the Civil War as being rebranded but I do get the feeling that Southerners in general are tired of having to apologize for "being Southern." Perhaps not always politically correct, but emotions are a fickle thing.
not one Confederate was charged of treason, before 1869 secession was legal, Constitutional, it was not treason.
Ah, Jefferson Davis was indeed charged with treason.
Robert E. Lee was stripped of his citizenship as were other leaders of the confederacy.
Some folks were far too forgiving.
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.
