Misrepresenting the Civil War

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by just came back

Thank you!

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

He was President, not King. Not everything can be done via executive order. The 13th Amendment was passed by both House and Senate in Lincoln's presidency, and had he not been assassinated it would have been ratified during his presidency.

I think the insinuation here is beyond feeble.

I'm sure it would have eventually been ratified as well. I'm not sure what you think I'm insinuating - I thought my post was pretty straightforward.

[stevekehl]

Originally Posted by lerapt78

The EP was not evil at all. Just Came Back's point was that Lincoln is portrayed as the abolisher of slavery in general, when in fact abolition was only sought for specific states that defied the Union. If slavery is evil, it should be condemned for everyone - not just those that are in political opposition.

The EP was written to make it clear to potential Confederate allies in Europe that abolishing slavery was a major war aim. However, Lincoln couldn't alienate loyal border states that still allowed slavery ( and supplied a lot of soldiers). The EP made it clear that if the North won slavery would be abolished but still held the Union states together. Lincoln was a master politician, even timing the release of the EP after a Union victory so it wouldn't appear to be a desperate ploy for international support.

[hn160]

In the book The Cousins' War, the author make the case that the Revolutionary War was a direct result from the English Civil War and the American Civil War was the final curtain of the English Civil War. The same cast of characters fought against each other.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by TexanKnight

The War of Northern Aggression has always been misrepresented.

Agreed!

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by hn160

In the book The Cousins' War, the author make the case that the Revolutionary War was a direct result from the English Civil War

I think there is merit to this opinion.

Originally Posted by hn160

... and the American Civil War was the final curtain of the English Civil War. The same cast of characters fought against each other.

First time I heard of this, I don't know what to make of it.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by snarflemike

He was President, not King. Not everything can be done via executive order. The 13th Amendment was passed by both House and Senate in Lincoln's presidency, and had he not been assassinated it would have been ratified during his presidency.

I think the insinuation here is beyond feeble.

I disagree.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political act.

It is quite clear that President Lincoln disliked slavery, there is no question about that, but he freed the slaves to hurt the Confederate forces arrayed against the Federal government. He would not have and could not have simply attempted such a thing on his own if the war had not started. He would have let it be.

If the Confederacy had sued for peace early on the condition the 'peculiar institution' would be preserved and guaranteed, I believe President Lincoln would have agreed to it.

"... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

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"
Abraham Lincoln - Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

From the article: "Goldfield is guilty of one misrepresentation after another."

My history professor defined history as, "lies the living tell about the dead." It seems to be appropriate here.

There was some thought on the idea that slavery was dying out and would have gone out of existence on its own due to economic factors. This was lent some credibility by de Tocqueville's 1833 book Democracy in America where he observed a vast difference between the prosperities of two adjacent states, Ohio and Kentucky, separated by only a river. He concluded that slavery held back economic progress. It doesn't take too much imagination to reach this conclusion because a person will naturally work harder if he is the major beneficiary of his labors rather than someone else.
_________________
Activity that is rewarded is likely to be repeated.

The Boll Weevil Epidemic of the early 20th century might have broken up the cotton industry even if the war had been avoided, and the South would have faced the same crisis that Virginia did even before the war: too any slaves, too little income. But fast is that slavery was an institution that had to spread or die. Wheat plantations manned by slaves probably would have thrived in Iowa. American power would have been projected southward except this encroached on British and French interests in meso-America. The effort to gain Cuba. before the war was but one instance of expansion to the South.

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by stevekehl

The EP was written to make it clear to potential Confederate allies in Europe that abolishing slavery was a major war aim. However, Lincoln couldn't alienate loyal border states that still allowed slavery ( and supplied a lot of soldiers). The EP made it clear that if the North won slavery would be abolished but still held the Union states together. Lincoln was a master politician, even timing the release of the EP after a Union victory so it wouldn't appear to be a desperate ploy for international support.

Yes, that is how I understand it as well. He feared the assistance of France to the Confederacy, if I'm not mistaken. My understanding is that Lincoln maintained that slavery would be abolished in the south first (as a war tactic to weaken the south), and then his plans would change to include abolition in the north only after the Union was preserved. Am I correct?

[exnihilo]

Regarding Lincoln and slavery I've never understood how one reconciles conscripting (enslaving men) to die in a foreign land (the CSA was its own country and people of that time viewed themselves more as being from their particular state than the US) with the purported goal of ending slavery. The whole notion is incoherent.

Originally Posted by just came back

Indeed. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves except in confederate states.

The EP not only did not apply to slave states in the Union but it also exempted huge portions of the Confederate States. I suggest anyone who has not actually read the rather short text to do so. Lincoln exempted many parishes in Louisiana, West Virginia (a state illegally carved out of Virginia during the war), and other counties and cities in modern Virginia. Those were all areas the Union controlled like New Orleans. So Lincoln freed the slaves everywhere he had no power and kept them enslaved everywhere he did have power. The act is really a joke and it is hard to imagine how anyone who has actually read it can conclude it free slaves or Lincoln was courageous.

Originally Posted by stevekehl

The EP was written to make it clear to potential Confederate allies in Europe that abolishing slavery was a major war aim. However, Lincoln couldn't alienate loyal border states that still allowed slavery ( and supplied a lot of soldiers).

Possibly. But I think a better explanation was to inspire a slave revolt. Warring nations have done this throughout history. In fact the British emancipated colonial slaves during the Revolutionary War. The idea is to cause a slave revolt to divert resources. This seems to me the best explanation since slavery continued in Union states and in ares of the Confederate States controlled by the Union.

Originally Posted by snarflemike

He was President, not King. Not everything can be done via executive order. The 13th Amendment was passed by both House and Senate in Lincoln's presidency, and had he not been assassinated it would have been ratified during his presidency.

It should be pointed out that after the war the former Confederate States voted in Congress along with Union states for the 13th Amendment. They agreed to end slavery. Then the 14th Amendment was proposed which among other things disenfranchised Confederates. The South of course voted against this amendment. The result was the Union government made up the notion that the Confederate states no longer existed. It turns out they were really military districts and thus could not vote on the 14th (but somehow they had been states when they voted for the 13th). As a result the new vote, counting only Union states, passed the amendment. As a result some Union states offended at the abandonment of the rule of law rescinded their votes (which would have made the vote come out against the 14th even counting only Union states). But it was decided that the amendment still passed. It is very interesting history and greatly undermines the myth of America.

[jam070406]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I disagree.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political act.

It is quite clear that President Lincoln disliked slavery, there is no question about that, but he freed the slaves to hurt the Confederate forces arrayed against the Federal government. He would not have and could not have simply attempted such a thing on his own if the war had not started. He would have let it be.

If the Confederacy had sued for peace early on the condition the 'peculiar institution' would be preserved and guaranteed, I believe President Lincoln would have agreed to it.

"... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

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"
Abraham Lincoln - Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862

Federal expansion of power is always portrayed to look like a noble cause.