LINCOLN, the CIVIL WAR and SLAVERY

D

Dachshynddawg

Verified User
There are some American members of this forum (like "Domer") who still do not understand that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War in order to abolish slavery. Here is an extract from a letter he wrote in 1862 (during the Civil War) to Horace Greely in which he explicitly states that he viewed saving the Union to be a higher priority than ending slavery.


Lincoln writes...


"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 destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave then 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 coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not think it will help 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."


So, there you have it, straight from the pen of "Honest Abe" himself. For Lincoln the conflict was all about saving the Union, NOTHING ELSE. He believed it was imperative that the Union survived to provide an example that free men can rule themselves without a Monarch. Right Domer ?


Dachshund
 
Last edited:
Dachshynddawg said:
There are some American members of this forum (like "Domer") who still do not understand that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War in order to abolish slavery. Here is an extract from a letter he wrote in 1862 (during the Civil War) to Horace Greely in which he explicitly states that he viewed saving the Union to be a higher priority than ending slavery.


Lincoln writes...


"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."
Click to expand...

That all changed Jan 1863,with the emancipation proclamation
 
What is your point?

The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter.
 
Shel said:
That all changed Jan 1863,with the emancipation proclamation
Click to expand...



In principle, Lincoln approved of emancipation as a war measure. From the beginning of the Civil War through to its end, his primary objective was to win the conflict so that the Union would be preserved. He believed that the Emancipation Proclamation (EP) of 1863 was " a fit and necessary MILITARY measure" that would help him achieve this goal. Some of the more important reasons for this were...



(1) The EP allowed slave states that fought on the side of the North (Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, Maryland) to keep their slaves in order not to drive them to the other side.

(2) There was a high demand for soldiers and the EP allowed freed slaves to fight in the Union army.

(3)The EP linked slavery, as a moral issue, directly to the war. This was a key factor in persuading foreign nations like Britain not to fight on the side of the South.





The way I see it, Lincoln was very much a principled abolitionist. He repeatedly states how, brutal, horrific and an inhumane he finds the institution of slavery to be. But when it comes the question of the Civil War, he emphasises that his abhorrence of slavery is a PERSONAL view, and that as President he is first and foremost duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and defend the integrity of the Union. The EP was primarily a military strategy; a successful one that played an important role in the the Union army's ultimate victory over the Confederacy.


There was, of course, an inextricable moral dimension to the EP. In 1863, when Lincoln ratified the EP, with the stroke of a pen, he liberated millions of enslaved human beings in America. His EP re-established their God-given, Natural Right to freedom and rectified a great moral wrong. And that was all great. But the way I see it Lincoln, the Commander- in - Chief's, primary motivation for fighting the Civil War was not the duty he felt to uphold a moral precept, i.e; the universal, inalienable Right to freedom that all human beings are endowed with according to the Divinely - ordained Natural Law. Rather, in the context of a bitter, and bloody Civil War, the mass emancipation of slaves under the EP of 1863 was predicted to be an effective military measure. And for Lincoln, the war It turned out that the EP did bolster the military strength of the Union and I think Lincoln regarded the fact that it had also liberated millions of Negro slaves in the US from bondage was a wonderful "bonus."



When Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States on 4th March, 1861, seven (7) states from the Deep South had already seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA). In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear that declaring secession was illegal as there was no legal mechanism provided by the Constitution for secession. He said...


"No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that "resolves" and "ordinances" to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any state or states against the authority of the United States are insurrectionist or revolutionary, according to circumstances."



Lincoln declared that he would do anything within his power to keep the United States as the Founding Fathers has intended - a permanent Union. Secession, he believed, would lead to anarchy. (Moreover, no country can survive if it allows chunks of itself to break off every time there is a disagreement - because there will always be disagreements).



What I think is most noteworthy about Lincoln's inaugural speech is his position on slavery, which is very conciliatory; in fact, it is pretty much a plea to the South. He explains that he is not planning on outlawing slavery, and that the anti-slavery platform he ascribes to specifically about not extending slavery to the WEST. That is, he is not in favour of getting rid of slavery where it is, so there is no need for the Southern slave States to secede. If they come back home to the Union, everything will be fine - "situation normal.". Here is a relevant passage from his inaugural address where Lincoln humbly states...



" 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."



But the Confederate States didn't "come back. " They've already seen that this is their opportunity to ensure that slavery continues by creating their own nation.



Throughout the South there were, at the time, a sizeable number of of garrisons, forts, arsenals and ther military installations that belonged to the United States, many of which had been were taken over by the Confederacy when it became its own nation. One which had no been taken over by the CSA was Fort Sumpter. Fort Sumpter was located in Charleston Harbour which was rebel territory South Carolina. Fort Sumpter was "holding out" for the Union and was manned by two Companies of Federal troops under the command of Major Robert Anderson. At 4:30 AM on April, 1861, Confederate batteries on Jame's Island opened fire with their artillery on the US garrison at Fort Sumpter. These were the first shots fired in a Civil War that would last over 4 years and ultimately claim the lives of 620,000 men.


Dachshund
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
What is your point?

The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter.
Click to expand...

There were several different reasons that the southern states felt disenfranchised from the union.
 
Tacomaman said:
There were several different reasons that the southern states felt disenfranchised from the union.
Click to expand...

I agree...there WERE several different reasons that the southern states felt "disenfranchised from" the union.

And what I said is also correct, "The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter."

So I ask you the same question I asked, Dash. What is your point?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I agree...there WERE several different reasons that the southern states felt "disenfranchised from" the union.

And what I said is also correct, "The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter."

So I ask you the same question I asked, Dash. What is your point?
Click to expand...


My point is that Abraham Lincoln is revered by Americans an iconic President - "The "Great Emancipator."

Lincoln was the President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the Union forces who fought the Civil War against the Confederacy. What really upset Lincoln was was the secession of rebel states from the Union. More than freeing slaves Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact.

In his inaugural address that was delivered shortly after he was elected President he says to the South "OK, OK, you can keep your slaves, I promise that I wont interfere, its none of my business in any case so I wont stick my nose into it. So, trust me, you don't need to secede; you can stay in the Union and everything will be cool.

Then, a few years later in 1863 (during the Civil War), Lincoln issues his Emancipation Proclamation, with which he liberates millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. But the Emancipation Proclamation is not motivated by any genuine sense of moral duty to "unshackle" Black slaves in the South in respect of the Natural Right to freedom they possess as human beings. Rather the Emancipation Proclamation represents a military measure/strategy Lincoln believes will help the Union army defeat the Rebels AND PREVENT THE UNION FROM BREAKING UP.


Lincoln PERSONALLY loathed slavery, he felt it was a great evil. But so do most reasonable, average, adult human beings in the West today. Lincoln THE US PRESIDENT lived in an era where the issue of slavery was beginning to disintegrate the UNION (the UNITED STATES) and he was not prepared to allow that to happen. He repeatedly said he would do ANYTHING within his power to prevent the UNION falling apart. My point is that it happened to be the issue of slavery that was threat to the Union in 1860 when Lincoln was elected President, but it could well have been some other destructive issue: political, economic, social, cultural, etc that was causing the Union to crumble
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
What is your point?

The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter.
Click to expand...

Slavery played a role, but it wasn't the cause of the war. If America never had slavery, the war likely still would have happened.
 
Dachshynddawg said:
My point is that Abraham Lincoln is revered by Americans an iconic President - "The "Great Emancipator."

Lincoln was the President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the Union forces who fought the Civil War against the Confederacy. What really upset Lincoln was was the secession of rebel states from the Union. More than freeing slaves Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact.

In his inaugural address that was delivered shortly after he was elected President he says to the South "OK, OK, you can keep your slaves, I promise that I wont interfere, its none of my business in any case so I wont stick my nose into it. So, trust me, you don't need to secede; you can stay in the Union and everything will be cool.

Then, a few years later in 1863 (during the Civil War), Lincoln issues his Emancipation Proclamation, with which he liberates millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. But the Emancipation Proclamation is not motivated by any genuine sense of moral duty to "unshackle" Black slaves in the South in respect of the Natural Right to freedom they possess as human beings. Rather the Emancipation Proclamation represents a military measure/strategy Lincoln believes will help the Union army defeat the Rebels AND PREVENT THE UNION FROM BREAKING UP.


Lincoln PERSONALLY loathed slavery, he felt it was a great evil. But so do most reasonable, average, adult human beings in the West today. Lincoln THE US PRESIDENT lived in an era where the issue of slavery was beginning to disintegrate the UNION (the UNITED STATES) and he was not prepared to allow that to happen. He repeatedly said he would do ANYTHING within his power to prevent the UNION falling apart. My point is that it happened to be the issue of slavery that was threat to the Union in 1860 when Lincoln was elected President, but it could well have been some other destructive issue: political, economic, social, cultural, etc that was causing the Union to crumble
Click to expand...

MY POINT WAS: "The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter."


That pretty much is what I've said so far.

Do you disagree?
 
StoneByStone said:
Slavery played a role, but it wasn't the cause of the war. If America never had slavery, the war likely still would have happened.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!

The reason the south seceded was to protect the right to own slaves.

But I'll give you a shot at it.

What other states-rights issue do you think was so important to the southern states that they would have taken the HUGE step of seceding from the Union even if protecting the right to own slaves had not existed as a reason?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I agree...there WERE several different reasons that the southern states felt "disenfranchised from" the union.

And what I said is also correct, "The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter."

So I ask you the same question I asked, Dash. What is your point?
Click to expand...



Yes, I agree, slavery was certainly one of the important causal factors that gave rise to the American Civil War (1861 - 1865).


My point is that Abraham Lincoln is revered by Americans an iconic President - "The "Great Emancipator."

Lincoln was the President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the Union forces who fought the Civil War against the Confederacy. What really upset Lincoln was was the secession of rebel states from the Union. More than freeing slaves Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact; to preserve it as an integrated whole.

In his inaugural address that was delivered shortly after he was elected President he says to the South "OK, OK, you can keep your slaves, I promise that I wont interfere, its none of my business in any case so I wont stick my nose into it. So, trust me, you don't need to secede; you can stay in the Union and everything will be cool.

Then, a few years later in 1863 (during the Civil War), Lincoln issues his Emancipation Proclamation, with which he liberates millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. But the Emancipation Proclamation is not motivated by any genuine sense of moral duty to "unshackle" Black slaves in the South in respect of the Natural Right to freedom they possess as human beings. Rather the Emancipation Proclamation represents a military measure/strategy Lincoln believes will help the Union army defeat the Rebels AND PREVENT THE UNION FROM BREAKING UP.


Lincoln PERSONALLY loathed slavery, he felt it was a great evil. But so do most reasonable, average, adult human beings in the West today. Lincoln THE US PRESIDENT lived in an era where the issue of slavery was beginning to divide and disintegrate the UNION (the UNITED STATES) and he was ABSOLUTELY determined that that was not going to happen "on his watch". He repeatedly said he would do ANYTHING within his power to prevent the UNION falling apart. My point is that it happened to be the issues of slavery that was threatening the integrity of the UNION when Lincoln became President in 1860, but imagine that it was not slavery but some other destructive/divisive social, cultural, political, economic factor that was fracturing the unity the United States. Lincoln's response would have been the same. His primary objective would be to preserve the integrity of the Union, and be willing to do ANYTHING he possibly could to prevent it being torn apart.


Finally. I think Lincoln's current honorific,"The Great Emancipator", should be changed to something more fitting, say, like, "The Great Unifier."


Dachshund
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
I agree...there WERE several different reasons that the southern states felt "disenfranchised from" the union.

And what I said is also correct, "The reason the American Civil War was being fought was inexorably tied to slavery...no matter what Abraham Lincoln said in that letter."

So I ask you the same question I asked, Dash. What is your point?
Click to expand...

He mentions slavery several times, there was no denial, said or implied, it stressed his paramount goal was preservation of the union..

Even the proclamation was part of the war effort- he freed slaves IN THE SOUTH!!!
 
StoneByStone said:
Slavery played a role, but it wasn't the cause of the war. If America never had slavery, the war likely still would have happened.
Click to expand...

I dunno if it would have still happened, but the south wasn't the only area unhappy.. They were also concerned new England would pull away as well..

Lots of unhappy ppl, kinda like today:thinking:
 
Bill said:
I dunno if it would have still happened, but the south wasn't the only area unhappy.. They were also concerned new England would pull away as well..

Lots of unhappy ppl, kinda like today:thinking:
Click to expand...

The truth is a country as big as America can only succeed if states' rights are taken seriously. Since that seems impossible for this country, it might be better if a few regions secede.
 
StoneByStone said:
The truth is a country as big as America can only succeed if states' rights are taken seriously. Since that seems impossible for this country, it might be better if a few regions secede.
Click to expand...

lol,& I bet you got some recommendations which ones should leave & save the rest of us lots headaches & money supporting them..

First thing they would ask for is a loan & credit line.....
 
Bill said:
lol,& I bet you got some recommendations which ones should leave & save the rest of us lots headaches & money supporting them..

First thing they would ask for is a loan & credit line.....
Click to expand...

We definitely would be a lot better off without the red states. Though we could also let go of the most multiracial states and the country would become super liberal on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top