[Nesster]

I'm just now reading an excellent Lincoln biography, by David Herbert Donald.

It is true that Lincoln did not want to get ahead of public opinion and was constantly trying to do political triangulation -- his Republican party was anti-slavery, no doubt about it, yet in order to win, this was expressed in language that stressed the Union and the elimination of slavery in the territories. (Douglas. Buchanam and the supreme court had seemingly weakened prior compromises about how the territories decided about the slavery issue - Douglas stressed self determination, aka territories' rights.) Lincoln did not receive any votes in the South. The states were seceding as he was taking office - the war started before Congress had even ratified his cabinet.

For political purposes, Lincoln made sure at the start of the war the stress was uniformly on preserving the Union; his hope was to end it quick and re-integrate the South with slavery and all. This stemmed from his belief - shared by Douglas by the way - that denied expansion into the territories slavery would die on its own accord. It is true that the Emancipation Proclamation was also politically driven; however Lincoln grew into the idea.

It is also true that like many whites of the time, Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites; however, he also insisted that fact did not invalidate the idea of equal liberty and justice for all. He did support colonization of Liberia and/or Panama with freed blacks, though eventually he saw the impracticality of it, and adopted different ideas.

Despite the political posturing, it was clear that slavery was at the root of the war: the North no longer wanted to make those old line compromises in order to preserve the Union. The policy would have been one of containment with agitation by the abolitionists. The Southern states wanted no part in that - economically, they saw an expansion into the territories as necessity.

Once abolition became officially joined with unionism (and the right generals finally put in place) the tide of the war changed.

By the way, the parallels between Lincoln and Obama are interesting - both were relatively inexperienced and entered their presidencies in a crisis. Both were seen as disappointments early in their terms (and we'll see how Obama does in the next two to 6 years), and both suffered large rebuffs in the mid term elections.

[thazooo]

Why Haley Barbour whitewashes history - Race - Salon.com

I'll feel sorry for all you Yanks if Gov. Barbour makes a run for the Prez. Y'all need an interpreter just to understand what he says He's my Gov. and his Southernese Accent is so thick I can barely understand him .

Whoever wins a War gets to write or rewrite the history.

The Civil War is part of our American history and needs to be remembered. Kinda like 'Never Forget'.

I don't think it will ever be settled as to the cause of the War. There's enough info on both sides of the argument to draw a conclusion either way. What amazes me is that 150 years later, the argument still continues. Us Rebs will be having a celebration about our lost Heritage, which 99% of us never had any part in except to die on a battle field. And the Yanks will be all over us for celebrating a lost cause. Doesn't make any sense to me either way. Maybe we should just remember that it happened and move on.

[GeneV]

Gene, I have indeed read a few history books in my time...and the post that started this thread.

And it's a pretty well defended and documented belief that Lincoln's "fight" against slavery was only driven and motivated by Sumter and secession, and a way to hurt certain southern states.

Yes, slavery was indeed an issue before Sumter, but to say Lincoln somehow campaigned against slavery...except for a sentence here and there in his speeches...is to rewrite history a bit.

And the fact that he only abolished slavery in the "rebel" states kind of proves that point.

You are rewriting my post. I did not say Lincoln campaigned strongly against slavery, but that abolition was part of his party's platform, and it was. Indeed regional conflicts over slavery were a big reason why the Whigs disintegrated and the Republicans were formed. Of course there was no one cause of the war, but the issue of slavery was the biggest expressed by the secessionists at the time who reacted to the Republican victory.

[Nesster]

Let's put it this way: if you removed slavery as an issue, would there have been any reason for the Southern states to secede, would there have been popular support for it in those states? If we removed abolition as a radical issue, would there have been any incentive to secede?

Clearly, the answer is no to the above. Whatever regional conflict or divergence in interests, the government under the Constitution has shown itself capable of handling, before and after. Only slavery was too big, too crucial, too basic to the meaning of America and what it means to self govern.


+++++

interesting alt-history thought: Let's say Obama was elected in a highly racially polarized time, where a certain block of states had an 'whites only' policy, one that had been extremely controversial since the beginning of the country. As Obama is sworn in, the white only states one after another secede. There are still some important states on the fence - say, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Obama, coming into office must deal with this mess... he's probably not going to make the first issue be about his race, but rather about the duty to the Constitution he is sworn to uphold. He needs to keep PA and NJ from joining the other break-away states.

Once the war has run its course - and Obama has made his Integration Proclamation: that no state may deny a citizen a place to live, work, and pursue liberty and happiness based on race or color of skin - the White States insist the war wasn't about race at all, it was about the right of the people, in the face of tyranny and overbearing government, to declare themselves free and self-governing, that this inalienable right is a founding principle of our country, etc etc.

---

Last edited by Nesster; 12-21-2010 at 08:10 AM.

[GeneV]

There have been so many spins put on this over the years. Ira your points are very valid. Most people (on both sides) only look at the part of the picture that they want to see. The Civil War was about ECONOMICS not ideology!
BTW Lincoln wanted to send freed slaves back to Africa he didn't believe in equality , it was just politics.
And before any of you go calling me a cracker redneck bigot , I'd suggest you look at some of the old posts with refference to my family history.

It was largely about the economics of slavery. Ken, have you spent any quality, intimate time with someone close to you who grew up in the South during the civil war or reconstruction? FWIW, I have. Thanks to a family history of both longevity and having children after 40 (after 50 in the case of my mother's mother) I spent lots of quality time with close family members who grew up in the 19th century south.

One side was Republican abolitionist during Reconstruction, and only my great grandfather and his brother escaped Miss. alive for that sin. The other side owned slaves (also in Miss.). My family on the side that owned slaves was educated and genteel, but my grandmother was raised by a former slave "mammy." I remember hearing the statement from my 19th century family on the slave owning side as a child was that the North tried to "tell us what to do with our n-----s." The side of the family which was run out of Miss. (to Texas, of all places) had a similar recollection about what the war was about. When "states rights" crossed the lips of a grandparent or great-grandparent, it was a reference to the state's right to deal with "coloreds" as they chose.

[reeftool]

I'm not saying I'm right, but according to the history sources/books that I read, the only reason that Lincoln "abolished" slavery...and when it actually happened...was after secession and the attack on Sumter.

And slavery was only abolished in the traitor states.

There seems to be a big misconception about how slavery instigated the Civil War.

It didn't. It only became an issue after Sumter.

Technically, you are right as slavery was not abolished until the middle of the war. However, slavery was the big, looming issue at hand. The northern states and the Federal govt. wanted slavery to end. The overlying fear of the Confederacy was that the Federal govt. was taking too much power away from the states and eventually that was going to lead to the abolition of slavery. I believe most of the other issues surrounding trade, tarriffs, could have been worked out. The southerners viewed this as the first step and seceded. The south had a huge stake in this issue as their economy was largely based on slave labor. Abolition was going to happen soon and they knew it. It's true that there were some Confederates who were anti slavery, Robert E. Lee being the most well known. But none of them believed that the govt. had the right to abolish the practice and most of all, didn't want to deal with the economic impact of having to hire workers. As is often the case, money overruled ethics.

[GeneV]

Perish the thought! It was only about taxes, 'tradition,' and states' rights!

Yah.

One only has to read the Statement of Immediate Causes for the secession of South Carolina to put slavery in perspective as a cause of the civil war. http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/Transcription_002.pdf

Number of times the Statement mentions "tariffs"--0
Number of times the Statement mentions "tradition"--0
Number of times the Statement mentions phrase "states' rights" as cause--0
Number of times the Statement mentions slaves, slaveholding or slavery --18.

Oh, and taxes are mentioned once--relating to slaves.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 12-21-2010 at 10:54 AM.

[Sparkle]

The Government abolished slavery and made all citizens its slaves!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

So had there been no civil war, would there still be slavery in the southern states?
When would they have abandoned slavery without the war?
Just curious.

[Sparkle]

Is anyone really free? A lot of "Slaves" were better off as "Slaves". Equality and Civil Rights still pose problems. Those are the real issues. The media plays a big roll in assuring that people are treated equally. More than a few have died in the cause. Education, improved earning capacity and such things have improved the playing field. Speculation is quite difficult. Perhaps we make the best of what we yet may spend. Manual work has to be done by somebody. Fair pay, benefits, treatment and working conditions must make a difference. Oh yeah, this is a "Quick Reply". Enough said. Happy Holidays.

[GeneV]

So had there been no civil war, would there still be slavery in the southern states?
When would they have abandoned slavery without the war?
Just curious.

One could argue that slavery did not really disappear until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until that time, unequal treatment because of race was legal and was widely practiced (not just in the South, BTW). If you are restricted as to where you can live, what you will do and be paid, what respect you must give to a person of another race and what establishments or facilities you may enter, how far are you from slavery?

[reeftool]

So had there been no civil war, would there still be slavery in the southern states?
When would they have abandoned slavery without the war?
Just curious.

Probably never. The war was inevitable. Either that or 2 nations if the North chose not to fight to hold the Union together.

[jolepp]

I guess the concept of Redneckstan has its merits?