Saturday, March 15, 2014
A Seceding Idea - Discussion
So, why did Mr. Lincoln change his tune on this? It certainly couldn't have been because of slavery (numerous quotations from the man continued to indicate his willingness to maintain legalized slavery if in fact the union could be saved). My personal theory is that he just got so addicted to the tariff revenue which had fallen disproportionately on the Southern states and with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself...................................................................................P.S. And it wasn't as if there was any sort of huge groundswell coming from the North to halt the South from seceding, either. In fact, it was just the opposite in that public opinion (right along with many major newspapers and even abolitionists - William Lloyd Garrison had even stated that slavery was probably more secure in the union than it was outside of it - a lesser incentive, monetarily, to return runaway slaves) was strongly opposed to a war and the citizens certainly didn't want to fight in one (and hence the need for conscription). As much as I hate to say it here, this war was Abraham Lincoln's war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I find it hard to find the Southern secession to be very legitimate as it was largely with the aim of brutalizing a very large minority (or more?) of the population.... a group of what should have been counted as citizens, but was expressly denied and opportunity to influence or participate in this secession decision.
Reality is the Civil War was more about economic realities than it was slavery. But all "good" wars need a rallying cry that gives it moral justification.
Yes, the Civil War was about economics and consolidatong federal power. In other words forcing the southern states who wished to sever political bonds with the north to conform to federal authority. Contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, Will. The victor gets to write the history. The South lost. They were at fault.
RN: It seems to vary depending on who I talk to, and the angles I look at. The last conversation was with neo-Confederates at "Always On Watch" who also insisted that it wasn't about slavery at all, and that the people were better off being slaves than free anyway.
Now, I know there are no neo-confederates here. At least not commenting anyway.
If the goal of the conflict was to get rid of slavery (and as Les has pointed out, it essentially wasn't), it could have been done through other means. Argentina, Columbia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and the entire British empire ALL had slavery and the ALL got rid of it without squandering 600-800,000 lives and destroying half their wealth.
If you look at the articles of sesession from the various states, it is clear that slavery was one of the primary reasons the states seceded. Why the US went to war to prevent the secession may be a little more nuanced.
Heh, it wasn't about slavery. No,
it was all about that 'peculiar
institution' and the 'logic' of a segment of the US that wanted to
be free-to enslave others. Dmarks
assessment is correct. RN is correct to the extent that slave
labor was the economic driving force in the antebellum south.
Considering the current states rights arguments still coming from the land of cotton, I would
disagree that the institution of slavery would ever have been voluntarily terminated. I would argue further that racial issues
(fear of millions of suddenly free blacks, the continued suppression through KKK and southern legislation) extended
the abscess even up until the time
that Eisenhower, hardly a bleeding heart, sent the 101st
Airborne to Little Rock to escort
little black girls to school. IMO,
the only possible peaceful solution should have been in the
writing of the US constitution.
It was not, the moral defect affecting the long torturous course of various 'compromises' and 'acts' catering to the south.
Anyone who argues slavery was not the issue, need read the proposal of the CSA general Cleburne, who
asked to free blacks to fight for
the south, manpower having become
critical. His proposal was derided
and buried, dying with him in 'Hood's Folly', the Battle of Franklin. OK, I'm biased, coming from the state the produced the Union Iron Brigade, but the history is all there for our various interpetations.
Its interesting discussing this with those who are not pro-slavery kooks....
The war began over states rights.... slavery was a secondary issue and as the war ground on slavery became the central issue for moral reasons and to keep the north east state's involved.
Most all northern states had already abolished slavery well before the war began.
The first cannon shot was indeed at Fort Sumpter but the fuse of war was lit in Bloody Kansas and it was lit because of states rights.
Jerry, Lincoln more than tripled the tariffs during his reign and they were all but crippling the Southern economy (80% of the tariffs were paid by states in the South). You're going to tell me with a straight face that that wasn't the major issue prompting the conflict (again, Lincoln said repeatedly that he was willing to allow slavery if it meant saving the Union)?
Good points, Will. Tariffs are a harsh, always destructive use of government power...
And, BB, I said said that the South would willingly give up slavery. But we could have done what England did and purchased the freedom of the slaves and, while, yes, that would have undoubtedly been very expensive, it would have been many fold times cheaper than the war and 0 deaths.
Actually, dmarks, the Civil War almost started 30 years earlier (Andrew Jackson mobilizing the troops) and just take a guess what the major issue was. I'll give you a clue. It starts with T and it rhymes with Sheriff.
And what happened to a lot of the freed slaves down South? Try the North conscripted them and basically used them as fodder.
And I don't believe that good old honest Abe ever spoke out against this atrocity IN THE NORTH, either - http://www.examiner.com/article/slavery-and-racism-early-indiana-a-very-brief-summary
According to their website, the GOP was born of born of abolutionism . As ugly and immoral as the practice of slavery, was the desperate attempt on the part of the slave-owning south to maintain a balance
in congress; as Rusty noted, both
sides poured money and men into
'bloody' Kansas, which after Quantrill's slaughter of innocents
in Lawrence, went to the north (perhaps Kansas lack of cotton contributed). I maintain, that
actions to ensure new states be
slave-owning demonstrates not only
an entrenchment to that institution, but an aggressive attempt to spread it, soley that it be legally maintained. Secession was only days old when they began to look to Cuba, Mexico and the Caribbean to extend their corrupt 'economic system' From what I read and argued on the neo confederate blogs, there would still be slavery there, had they
not been compelled to stay in the union. Consider that though tempted, not a single European nation would recognize the Confederacy, it was just too ugly
to join the family of nationhood.
Considering that families were split by the conflict (even most of Mary Lincoln's family were slaveowners) it is understandable
folks would spin its causes in
all conceivable directions: we simply note; before the Civil War,
there was slavery-after it, there was not.
Why purchase the freedom of the slaves? Seems like a financial reward.
Good topic, by the way, Will. Sometimes it is good to knaw very old bones, indeed.
Good conversation....great comments. Nice to know people still understand American history.....a course many public high schools no longer teach.
The Civil War destroyed half of the country's wealth and killed about 3% of its population. If such a similar thing happened today that would mean $7-8 TRILLION and 6-8 MILLION deaths. Yes, purchasing the freedom of another human being is an exceedingly unseemly thing to do but I strongly posit that it would have been much better than that 4 year long nightmare.
And, yes, the Republican party had a strong abolitionist wing to it (Abe Lincoln, not so much) but a lot of these same abolitionists were also anti-war and felt that secession would have actually been bad for slavery (the fact that the Fugitive Slave Act would have then been null and void and unenforced).
How much longer would slavery have lasted, do you think?
I don't think that it would have lasted very long. Even if we couldn't have purchased slaves' freedom (and I strongly maintain that we could have, a la England), between slaves escaping to the North, slave insurrections (that we could have readily encouraged), and economic sanctions from basically the entirety of the west, my suspicion is that slavery would have quickly withered on the vine.
I'm pretty much with just about everything BB has said here.
However, I do agree that the destructive toxicity of tariffs is a major problem.... then, as, of course, now. I am willing to bet also, Will, that the people who suffered most under the harsh punitive economics of tariffs were the working Joes: poor whites, and black slaves. Similar to how middle and lower class people pay the brunt of the tariff punishment in the modern era.
I think that the Southern states had every right to scream bloody murder over the tariffs, but not over the demand to end slavery.
Post a Comment