Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

The Confederacy 'We will keep slavery and states rights!....

4 (15.4%)

The Union '....over John Browns dead body'

19 (73.1%)

The State of Texas 'Texan's always move 'em'

3 (11.5%)

Total Members Voted: 26

[mainiac]

Abolitionists were not an extreme position in the north.  The abolitionist party had just won the popular vote in every single northern state.  Bar none.  Therefore it stands to reason that a majority of the population in the north did not consider abolition to be a disqualifying position.  40% of the US population in total had voted for a candidate who was explicitly pro-abolition, just not pro immediate abolition.

Yes Lincoln didn't declare emancipation the second the war started.  The still doesn't mean it wasn't a war against slavery.  The south started the war!  They were the ones who declared secession and fired on federal troops.  They did so because they feared lincoln would abolish slavery, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon and for the rest of their lives!

Lincoln and the abolitionists believed that the issue could take the backburner at first.  This is hardly surprising, they had a goddamn war to win!  It doesn't mean that they didn't move to solidify the abolitionist position early, with for example the move to abolish slavery in Delaware.

A) He only got elected because he promised not to touch slavery where it existed. Yes abolishionists were a minority and extremist and highly outspoken group.

No he did not.  No they were not.  They were a mainstream group that won the election.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

This is the best known passage from the best known pre-bellum speech by Lincoln.  One simply can not state that he was not an abolition or that he didn't campaign on eventual abolition.

Lincoln didn't promise immediate emancipation.  However long term emancipation was his stated goal.  He merely wished to bring it about peacefully if possible, a possibility that the south rejected.

[Deadmeat1471]

He didn't start emancipation straight away because there was such virilant opposition to it within his government and the (northern) people.

Yes he was against the spread of slavery.
He was elected as a comparitive moderate within his party. The people wanted the status quo.

I'm not going to say any more on the EP issue.

[mainiac]

He didn't start emancipation straight away because there was such virilant opposition to it within his gorvernment and the (northern) people.

I'm not going to say any more on the EP issue.

So if he had been an abolitionist he would have declared it on day 1?  Because he didn't have anything better to do what with the war going on?

How 'virulent' could this opposition be if the people had just elected in a candidate who promised to allow not one more acre of slave states to exist and to bring about the eventual end of slavery?  Funny way to oppose something, voting for it.

[Deadmeat1471]

He didn't start emancipation straight away because there was such virilant opposition to it within his gorvernment and the (northern) people.

I'm not going to say any more on the EP issue.

So if he had been an abolitionist he would have declared it on day 1?  Because he didn't have anything better to do what with the war going on?

How 'virulent' could this opposition be if the people had just elected in a candidate who promised to allow not one more acre of slave states to exist and to bring about the eventual end of slavery?  Funny way to oppose something, voting for it.

Thats Status quo, thats better than radical abolishion for the people. He broke the status quo, he angered the people and government in general, thats how simple it is.

Enough, this is a boring sideline.

[nenjin]

The idea of actually repealing slavery federally was still a radical idea then, and Lincoln was a pragmatist. He wanted a compromise. It was his refusal to support slavery to the degree that made Southern states feel comfortable that got him labeled a radical (which is what he acted like when he was in the Senate.) He moderated himself quite a bit once he got to office, and actually tried to placate the South by saying he wouldn't touch slavery in the South. That was actually the solution he thought would work.

But the South challenged him to toe the line on the Constitution as they saw it in other places. The Fugitive Slave Laws. Free state/slave state when it came to new territories being added to the Union. The use of Federal troops to quell slave rebellions. All these things were the South's way of trying to hold Lincoln to their standard of slavery and the Constitution, and he wouldn't do it. Lincoln felt like he couldn't win. The South felt like Lincoln was just quietly giving them the finger while trying to put them in a box.

There is a huge disconnect between Lincoln the Senator, and Lincoln the President. It's called political reality. When Lincoln got to office, he realized he couldn't live up to the ideals that had in some ways carried him to office, because it would take the country straight to war. He tried to back away from it as much as possible without completely reversing himself.....but that only bought him and the country time.

[mainiac]

He didn't start emancipation straight away because there was such virilant opposition to it within his gorvernment and the (northern) people.

I'm not going to say any more on the EP issue.

So if he had been an abolitionist he would have declared it on day 1?  Because he didn't have anything better to do what with the war going on?

How 'virulent' could this opposition be if the people had just elected in a candidate who promised to allow not one more acre of slave states to exist and to bring about the eventual end of slavery?  Funny way to oppose something, voting for it.

Thats Status quo, thats better than radical abolishion for the people. He broke the status quo, he angered the people and government in general, thats how simple it is.

But it wasn't radical when he issued it.  There was a freaking war going on.  People hadn't wanted immediate abolition because they feared the south would secede.  What would the south do?  Secede again?

You ever heard a little known song called "battle hymn of the republic?" listen to that and tell me that people didn't want abolition.

You are providing motives but you haven't provided one iota of evidence.  Where were the anti-abolition riots?  Where were the protests in congress?

The idea of actually repealing slavery federally was still a radical idea then, and Lincoln was a pragmatist. He wanted a compromise. It was his refusal to support slavery to the degree that made Southern states feel comfortable that got him labeled a radical (which is what he acted like when he was in the Senate.) He moderated himself quite a bit once he got to office, and actually tried to placate the South by saying he wouldn't touch slavery in the South. That was actually the solution he thought would work.

But the South challenged him to toe the line on the Constitution as they saw it in other place. The Fugitive Slave Laws. Free state/slave state when it came to new territories being added to the Union. The use of Federal troops to quell slave rebellions. All these things were the South's way of trying to hold Lincoln to their standard of slavery and the Constitution, and he wouldn't do it. Lincoln felt like he couldn't win. The South felt like Lincoln was just quietly giving them the finger while trying to put them in a box.

Your chronology is off.

[nenjin]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

[Deadmeat1471]

Some people did want abolishon, quite a few people. But they were not the majority, they were infact considered extremists. Lincoln was seen as a moderate because he promised not to take these rash actions. As you yourself said (mainiac)

'But it wasn't radical when he issued it.  There was a freaking war going on.  People hadn't wanted immediate abolition because they feared the south would secede.  What would the south do?  Secede again?

You are under the misguided illusion that the north wanted to emancipate the slaves in general. They wern't scared of the south, they had as much disagreement with is as the south did.

Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war and, like others of his time and background, he did not believe in "Negro equality."[84] Before the war, Sherman at times even expressed some sympathy with the view of Southern whites that the black race was benefiting from slavery, although he opposed breaking up slave families and advocated teaching slaves to read and write.[29] During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies.

Seen as a moses to the slaves, didnt even believe in abolishion. This is one of thousands.

[mainiac]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

I meant your chronology was off in the sense that the fugitive slave laws, etc.  all predated Lincolns candidacy, let alone his presidency.  By the time Lincoln was in the white house, the south had already fired on federal troops.

[Deadmeat1471]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

I meant your chronology was off in the sense that the fugitive slave laws, etc.  all predated Lincolns candidacy, let alone his presidency.  By the time Lincoln was in the white house, the south had already fired on federal troops.

Hes right here, they were all preludes, same with Kansas-Nebraska etc limiting slave states.

*There is a perfect quote here somewhere where Sherman basicly says in a letter 'im not fighting no war for no n*****s. Alas I canno't find it easily, gee I wonder why that is, goes against the legend of the north.

[mainiac]

Some people did want abolishon, quite a few people. But they were not the majority, they were infact considered extremists. Lincoln was seen as a moderate because he promised not to take these rash actions. As you yourself said (mainiac)

No, they were a majority.  They won the election.  Lincoln campaigned on a platform of explicity eventual end to slavery.  There is a word for that.  It's called "abolition".  Furthermore they had been a majority in the north for decades as evidenced by the fact that the northern states have peacefully abolished slavery through legislative means.

Saying that abolition wasn't a majority position in the north just illustrates why it's generally a good idea to provide historical evidence for a point before arguing it.

[mainiac]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

I meant your chronology was off in the sense that the fugitive slave laws, etc.  all predated Lincolns candidacy, let alone his presidency.  By the time Lincoln was in the white house, the south had already fired on federal troops.

*There is a perfect quote here somewhere where Sherman basicly says in a letter 'im not fighting no war for no n*****s. Alas I canno't find it easily, gee I wonder why that is, goes against the legend of the north.

Yes, racism existed.  Not everyone was an abolitionist and non-abolition was a large portion of the north.  That doesn't mean that the majority of the population in the north hadn't just voted for an abolitionist.

[Deadmeat1471]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

I meant your chronology was off in the sense that the fugitive slave laws, etc.  all predated Lincolns candidacy, let alone his presidency.  By the time Lincoln was in the white house, the south had already fired on federal troops.

*There is a perfect quote here somewhere where Sherman basicly says in a letter 'im not fighting no war for no n*****s. Alas I canno't find it easily, gee I wonder why that is, goes against the legend of the north.

Yes, racism existed.  Not everyone was an abolitionist and non-abolition was a large portion of the north.  That doesn't mean that the majority of the population in the north hadn't just voted for an abolitionist.

They voted for a man with abolishonist sentiments(just) who promised not to destroy slavery where it existed. Both north and south they held that promise to high regard, it is evident in the outcry when he proclaimed it that they were a mite pissed that he broke it, though i'd wager not entirely surprised.


Bottom line, there is no point continuing this argument without us both providing evidence and turning this into an essay.

Lets stop it here, if you want to continue this mainiac, I am more than willing to take it to a higher level and begin a proper debate on it, eitherway, lets drop this in this thread yeah?

[mainiac]

They voted for a man with abolishonist sentiments(just) who promised not to destroy slavery where it existed.

This is flatly wrong.  His most famous pre-war quote was about the need to abolish slavery eventually.  Everyone in the union would have known it.  It was what made him famous in the first place.

[Deadmeat1471]

How so? (That's also about 5 replies old.) I meant the EP was radical when he was elected....not in the middle of the war.

By then it was like "why not? We need troops!"

I meant your chronology was off in the sense that the fugitive slave laws, etc.  all predated Lincolns candidacy, let alone his presidency.  By the time Lincoln was in the white house, the south had already fired on federal troops.

*There is a perfect quote here somewhere where Sherman basicly says in a letter 'im not fighting no war for no n*****s. Alas I canno't find it easily, gee I wonder why that is, goes against the legend of the north.

Yes, racism existed.  Not everyone was an abolitionist and non-abolition was a large portion of the north.  That doesn't mean that the majority of the population in the north hadn't just voted for an abolitionist.

They voted for a man with abolishonist sentiments(just) who promised not to destroy slavery where it existed. Both north and south they held that promise to high regard, it is evident in the outcry when he proclaimed it that they were a mite pissed that he broke it, though i'd wager not entirely surprised.


Bottom line, there is no point continuing this argument without us both providing evidence and turning this into an essay.

Lets stop it here, if you want to continue this mainiac, I am more than willing to take it to a higher level and begin a proper debate on it, eitherway, lets drop this in this thread yeah?

This, it's both pointless and going nowhere debating without refering to sources, i've refered to wikipedia source to support this but apparently(agreed) that doesn't count as a very credible source.

Even then, I honestly don't think youre ever going to see my side, and most historians point of views on this. Some people just love the legend of Lincoln or the lost cause of the Confederacy too much to change their minds.