Another Selma brewing? (1 Viewer)

Just to be clear I'm not pro slavery, the war was bad but necessary to eradicate a greater evil.

Brian

Brianwarnock said:

My memory, but I admit to it being suspect now, is that the South wanted to keep slavery and Lincoln wanted to keep the Union and was prepared to accept slavery if that would maintain it, however the South did not trust him and stormed some fort, Sumner I think, and thus precipitated the war.

I'm not going to revisit this as it is too big a subject and I no longer have the books I had so would end up Googling my life away.

Brian

Click to expand...

You are sort of right. Lincoln's campaign was very much pro-abolition, which is why the South found him completely unacceptable.

Once the war started, though, his top priority was keeping the nation in one piece. His comment (in a letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862) about keeping slavery if it preserved the union and eliminating slavery if it preserved the union was made during the hostilities, not during his campaign. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation (which only freed southern slaves) was a political move meant to cut off pending European assistance for the Confederacy at the knees, which it did quite effectively, as the English government could no longer ignore why the war was being fought.

Oh, and it was the Battle of Fort Sumter, on April 12-14, 1861. Brigadier General Beauregard (the very first Confederate general) attacked the fort after the secession declaration when the Union garrison refused to leave it, eventually forcing a Union withdrawal. Those were the first shots fired in the Civil War.

Edit: Also, I never thought you were pro-slavery. Very few, even among the most ardent defenders of the Great Southern Lie, actually support re-enslaving black people, if only because they know it will never fly.

In fact, just to avoid confusion, let's have the text of the entire letter in question:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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 every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Click to expand...

Frothingslosh said:

In fact, just to avoid confusion, let's have the text of the entire letter in question:

Click to expand...

One and one half year after the war started.

Bladerunner said:

One and one half year after the war started.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was the point I was making, as opposed to someone's earlier inference that that was his stance from the time he was elected.

So your point in re-stating my point is...?

I'm confused, how is the fact that this speech is made after the war has started proof that that was not his inclination at his inauguration, the quote in post 17 states that he had no intention to abolish slavery.

Didn't he have slaves of his own?

Brian

Brianwarnock said:

I'm confused, how is the fact that this speech is made after the war has started proof that that was not his inclination at his inauguration, the quote in post 17 states that he had no intention to abolish slavery.

Didn't he have slaves of his own?

Brian

Click to expand...

I guess I misread where you were going with that, my apologies.

The point here is that what LINCOLN wanted is honestly irrelevant. The war was started by the South, so their reasons for doing so are the ones that need to be determined, not the Government's.

Yes, Lincoln was an abolitionist, and before the secession, he may have been planning on pushing an abolitionist agenda because of it. By the time he made that address, though, the South had already announced they were seceding, and war was imminent - in fact, it was about a month away.

However, for causes, look to the people who instigated the crisis, and who fired the first shot. It really didn't matter in the end what Lincoln wanted - the war was about slavery because the people who instigated the war and who fired the first shots expressly did so because of slavery, because they found it intolerable that someone vehemently opposed to slavery (read his last line in the letter I quoted) was elected President, regardless of his stated intentions.

What those people said when they issued their declarations of secession was that it was ABSOLUTELY about slavery, and nothing else. That's why I linked to all 7 as well as posting quotes from them.

Oh, and also - my understanding is he had no slaves of his own. He came from a rather poor frontier family.

The reason I entered the discussion is that many people assume that the North went to war to abolish slavery, it didn't , but I guess I should put 2 and 2 together say that the South started the war to maintain slavery. Thanks for making me appreciate the obvious.

Brian

Yeah, the North's entire goal was to preserve the Union, nothing more.

Abolition came about as a result postbellum, but it wasn't actually the US Government's goal at any point during the war.

Brianwarnock said:

The reason I entered the discussion is that many people assume that the North went to war to abolish slavery, it didn't , but I guess I should put 2 and 2 together say that the South started the war to maintain slavery. Thanks for making me appreciate the obvious.

Brian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brian, it seems we have gotten bogged down in the war itself. However, it was brewing years in advance. Here is a article that pretty well explains that the war precipitated years earlier from the Greed of the Northern Businesses and government at that time.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

Aaaand there's my example of revisionist history in action.

Frothingslosh said:

Aaaand there's my example of revisionist history in action.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As you have rather been extensive in your painting of the Southern slavery at the beginning and during the war, this also paints the north benefiting from economical products of the South a few years earlier and trying to control it. Either way, it was a bad war, many good people and a whole lot of fathers, sons and brothers died for their OPINIONS. I find it fascinating that we still hold those opinions so high. It is one thing that makes the USA a Great country.

Let me start out by saying that my relatives living at that time were not slave owners as far back as my family's limited genealogy allows me to discover. I made no profit (and CERTAINLY inherited no estate) based on slavery profits. I believe in equality (as has been more forcefully demonstrated in the "Are you an atheist" thread) and do not wish harm on any person be they black, white, yellow, red ... or purple if that's what you have. I even work for a minority-owned business and the boss is one helluva great guy.

Having said that, neither modern side exactly has it right. The states rights that were being violated included the right to transact business, which the Northern businesses didn't like because the South did it cheaper. Did the South want to keep slaves? Yes, that point is granted. Was it why the Civil War started? No. It was because the North wanted to eliminate competition and it would have been too expensive for the South to adjust to the North's business models.

The problem is not that the South viewed the slaves as inferior people. Boston, New York, Watts, Detroit, and other Northern (or at least, non-Southern) cities have had race troubles. Look at Ferguson. Oh, heck, pick your area. They've had troubles with race for years, with more or less violence at any given time. The problem is as always that ANYBODY can hate without firm reason. They just get up and do it. It is because the human animal, in evolutionary terms, is territorial and we have not yet learned how to breed that out of ourselves yet. So we form these small, medium, and sometimes very large cliques that shut out those who are "not of the body" - with apologies to Star Trek and the episode, "Return of the Archons."

The South had their clique. The North had theirs. Their economic growth was threatened, each by the other. The South DID NOT wish to keep slavery for slavery's sake. They wished to keep it for economic survival. The actions of the North threatened their survival. What happens when you threaten the survival of any group?

I won't deny that the South had much to lose if they lost slavery. But the South was not so immoral on the subject as one might think, given the Northern Apologist articles written after the war.

Was the South wrong? Oh, HELL yes. They put their eggs in one basket rather than diversify, Then, when the basket got all shot up, they were up the proverbial creek with no paddle in sight. But let's not paint all Southerners with the same brush. But did they want slavery for its own sake? No. What is the practical difference? By claiming that the South wanted to keep slavery for its own sake, it allowed the North to claim higher moral ground to which they really weren't entitled. But... the South lost and it is the winners who write the history books. It took the North a longer time to reach the point of racial tension - but now they've got it.

Are we returning for the formation of a new "Selma" ? Not unless you are willing to admit that the new Selma is the size of the entire USA.

May I offer one more observation here? Consider European nations with their influxes of Muslims, Southwest Asians, etc. Look at the French and their ongoing disagreement with their Muslim immigrants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't England have a current problem with its Pakistani and other immigrants from that same region? I think this shows that the problem isn't ust black or white. It probably also is in the "my clique vs. your clique" category.

Thank you Doc...great post

Following all the above this article will complete the history of slaves in the US, an excellent article along with references, figures for most northern states, southern states and the New World (Americas). Enjoy!

http://slavenorth.com/

Frothingslosh said:

Yeah, the North's entire goal was to preserve the Union, nothing more.

Abolition came about as a result antebellum, but it wasn't actually the US Government's goal at any point during the war.

Click to expand...

did you mean antebellum

AnthonyGerrard said:

Frothingslosh said:

Yeah, the North's entire goal was to preserve the Union, nothing more.

Abolition came about as a result antebellum, but it wasn't actually the US Government's goal at any point during the war.

Click to expand...

did you mean antebellum

Click to expand...

No, I meant postbellum. Oops.

Doc, according to the South's own words (you DID read the link to the declarations of secession I provided earlire, didn't you?), the cause of the war absolutely was slavery. Every one of their complaints revolved around slavery, be it the abolitionist movement, the refusal of some Northern states to define slaves as 'property', the North's determination that there be no more slave states, or the economic prospects of slavery being obsoleted by industrialism (which the Southern plantation owners fought with every tool at their disposal). Every single complaint went back to slavery.

When the people doing the rebelling straight-up say it's about slavery, then perhaps we should consider that they're being honest.

AnthonyGerrard said:

Trivia question- Where did the final confederate surrender take place Brian?

Click to expand...

I thought you'd jump on this Brian - you have obviously done more reading than most on the civil war and its local to you as well - Liverpool is the answer.

Sorry Anthony I got distracted and then forgot, yes that was the Shenandoar, umm that doesn't look right, but the warship did indeed surrender in Liverpool.
Try Shenandoah, yep that looks better

Lancashire the county I was born in , but later , was hit hard by the civil war and if my memory serves me correctly that whilst the bosses were on the Southern side the mill workers had great sympathy for the slaves, but then I guess they weren't far removed from that condition themselves.

Brian