Abraham Lincoln - The Civil War.

First of all, forgive me for starting another thread. I’m going to bump this thread as often as historical ignorance continues to rear it’s ugly head.

I cannot post under a thread started by bota. In every realm of human behavior, one can take things too far. bota throwing rocks at Lincoln is too far. If you are one of those jackasses (dustin) who thinks freedom of speech should not and does not have any limits, then you have to believe that anything goes. For instance, are you fine with david duke/louis farrakhan shouting racial slurs at passerbys in a mall? Are you sanguine about the most vile/foul language being shouted at a pre-schooler? You’d be fine with some asswipe making Pro-Nazi comments to a holocaust survivor.

As I said, there are some things said by some people that go too far. People should be offended by bota, in particular, throwing rocks at Abraham Lincoln.

Remember this is the same guy who was glad when we thought austrians were selling sniper weapons to the iranians.

I’ve been here for about four years. This is probably the fourth time some people have demonstrated their historical ignorance. It’s a circular argument that needs to be squashed each time it comes up.

First of all, the essential reason for the Civil War was slavery. It was the issue that couldn’t be resolved diplomatically.

Don’t believe me? Here’s Lincoln’s Second Inaugural:

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it”

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm

More Lincoln: Prior to Inauguration.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/newhaven.html

Second, Lincoln cared very much about the plight of the slaves.

Here is Fredrick Douglas giving an eulogy to Lincoln:

“Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery… [FOOTNOTE: I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel.'' Letter of Lincoln to Mr. Hodges, April 4, 1864.] The man who could say, Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,‘’ gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.”

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dougorat.htm

JeffR

Slavery had a lot to do with it. But it was more about competing visions and western expansion. A fundamental difference of views between the north and south about how the country should be run and concerns over which vision would prevail as the country rule. Slavery was part of this dichotomy, and key component of this fundamental difference, and a fundamental and central issue but not the only one.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Slavery had a lot to do with it. But it was more about competing visions and western expansion. A fundamental difference of views between the north and south about how the country should be run and concerns over which vision would prevail as the country rule. Slavery was part of this dichotomy, and key component of this fundamental difference, and a fundamental and central issue but not the only one. [/quote]

js,

Thanks for the response. When you say “but it was more about competing visions” be careful. The epicenter of the differences was slavery.

Slavery was the central, irreconcilable difference. The 1850’s was a bloody prelude to the Civil War. See Kansas-Nebraska act, Compromise of 1850, the border wars in Kansas, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (“So, you’re the Little Lady that Started this big war” (A. Lincoln to Harriet Beecher Stowe)), and John Brown’s Raid (s).

Now, there were other issues like the industrialization of the North. This in contrast to the agricultural and cotton reliance of the South.

There was the expanding political power of the Northern States. The South had a virtual monopoly of political power from the early days of the Republic.

However, these issues pale when compared to slavery.

Lincoln and Douglas understood this quite clearly.

If the board would like, we can produce plenty of quotes from prominent Southern Leaders to back this up.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I’ve been here for about four years. This is probably the fourth time some people have demonstrated their historical ignorance.

JeffR

[/quote]

??? WOW!

I’m confused. Are you saying Lincoln fought the civil war to end slavery, including in the south?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Slavery had a lot to do with it. But it was more about competing visions and western expansion. A fundamental difference of views between the north and south about how the country should be run and concerns over which vision would prevail as the country rule. Slavery was part of this dichotomy, and key component of this fundamental difference, and a fundamental and central issue but not the only one.

js,

Thanks for the response. When you say “but it was more about competing visions” be careful. The epicenter of the differences was slavery.

Slavery was the central, irreconcilable difference. The 1850’s was a bloody prelude to the Civil War. See Kansas-Nebraska act, Compromise of 1850, the border wars in Kansas, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (“So, you’re the Little Lady that Started this big war” (A. Lincoln to Harriet Beecher Stowe)), and John Brown’s Raid (s).

Now, there were other issues like the industrialization of the North. This in contrast to the agricultural and cotton reliance of the South.

There was the expanding political power of the Northern States. The South had a virtual monopoly of political power from the early days of the Republic.

However, these issues pale when compared to slavery.

Lincoln and Douglas understood this quite clearly.

If the board would like, we can produce plenty of quotes from prominent Southern Leaders to back this up.

JeffR

[/quote]

I’d agree with all that. But while slavery mattered to Lincoln, based on a lot of the reading I’ve done, I think that many other people got on board more out of concern for many of the other issues we both just mentioned than out of any view that slavery was reprehensible and had to be ended for moral reasons.

A lot of the writings of even prominent Northernern politicians who preached against slavery reveal they didn’t have the same sense of moral outrage we have today.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m confused. Are you saying Lincoln fought the civil war to end slavery, including in the south?[/quote]

Sloth,

Again, I’m worried about you.

I stated quite clearly that slavery was at the center of the Civil War.

Lincoln would have accepted Southern re-unification WITH slavery up until January 1st, 1863.

For Lincoln the Union was always the higher calling. He fought the war for the Union first and to end slavery second.

However, the war was the central issue that and was the catalyst for that war.

18 year old know-it-alls and viscious punks misinterpret this as “Lincoln didn’t care for the slaves.” Or, “States Rights were the main reason for the Civil War.”

Lincoln both cared deeply about the slaves (see Fredrick Douglas’ eulogy) and the “Right” the Southerners most frequently cited was slavery.

JeffR

[quote]Limbic wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I’ve been here for about four years. This is probably the fourth time some people have demonstrated their historical ignorance.

JeffR

??? WOW![/quote]

Care to elaborate?

JeffR

Another primary motivation of Lincoln’s was unification. The South was looking increasingly like a separate country, preparing to secede. That was largely because of a growing dispute over slavery, among other fundamentalissues.

I do think slavery was largely the catylyst behind everything. But I think history has been somewhat revised to suggest that it was some sense of moral outrage and desire for liberation and equality that was the primary motivating factor for the North’s decisions.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I’d agree with all that. But while slavery mattered to Lincoln, based on a lot of the reading I’ve done, I think that many other people got on board more out of concern for many of the other issues we both just mentioned than out of any view that slavery was reprehensible and had to be ended for moral reasons. A lot of the writings of even prominent Northernern politicians who preached against slavery reveal they didn’t have the same sense of moral outrage we have today. [/quote]

JS,

Plenty were incredibly outraged. Many were willing to risk hearth and home to run the Underground Railroad. Many sent their sons to war BECAUSE OF SLAVERY.

Was everyone as altruistic? Nope.

Were some people worried that the Northern army would fall apart after the Emancipation Proclamation? Yes.

But, ignoramuses and revisionists must not be allowed to darken the incredible sacrifices and monumental achievements of that generation.

JeffR

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Another primary motivation of Lincoln’s was unification. The South was looking increasingly like a separate country, preparing to secede. That was largely because of a growing dispute over slavery, among other fundamentalissues. I do think slavery was largely the catylyst behind everything. But I think history has been somewhat revised to suggest that it was some sense of moral outrage and desire for liberation and equality that was the primary motivating factor for the North’s decisions.[/quote]

JS,

I can agree with most of this. However, there was outrage and there was passion. See Uncle Tom’s cabin, and it’s sales.

It seems that around 1831, with Garrison’s founding of the Liberator, that the abolitionist movement became incredibly passionate.

For instance:

“The temperate�??and temporizing antislavery measures of the early republic were swept away by radical views, radical actions, and radical language, espoused by men and women committed to lifelong careers of social reform.2 2
Whether or not William Lloyd Garrison and the Liberator actually precipitated this “new antislavery era,” historians agree that Garrison crystallized a new antislavery rhetoric: vivid, sentimental, aggressive, graphic, and, at times, overwhelmingly physical. Following Garrison’s lead, after 1830 abolitionist literature demonstrated a major thematic shift. The dangers presented by power, luxury, and the unchecked will to dominate, always a staple of antislavery writing, became increasingly intertwined with images of sexual exploitation and actual physical suffering on the part of the slave.3”

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/88.1/arkin.html

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Another primary motivation of Lincoln’s was unification. The South was looking increasingly like a separate country, preparing to secede. That was largely because of a growing dispute over slavery, among other fundamentalissues. I do think slavery was largely the catylyst behind everything. But I think history has been somewhat revised to suggest that it was some sense of moral outrage and desire for liberation and equality that was the primary motivating factor for the North’s decisions.

JS,

I can agree with most of this. However, there was outrage and there was passion. See Uncle Tom’s cabin, and it’s sales.

It seems that around 1831, with Garrison’s founding of the Liberator, that the abolitionist movement became incredibly passionate.

For instance:

“The temperate�??and temporizing antislavery measures of the early republic were swept away by radical views, radical actions, and radical language, espoused by men and women committed to lifelong careers of social reform.2 2
Whether or not William Lloyd Garrison and the Liberator actually precipitated this “new antislavery era,” historians agree that Garrison crystallized a new antislavery rhetoric: vivid, sentimental, aggressive, graphic, and, at times, overwhelmingly physical. Following Garrison’s lead, after 1830 abolitionist literature demonstrated a major thematic shift. The dangers presented by power, luxury, and the unchecked will to dominate, always a staple of antislavery writing, became increasingly intertwined with images of sexual exploitation and actual physical suffering on the part of the slave.3”

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/88.1/arkin.html

JeffR

[/quote]

Sure, there were definitely passionate abolitionists. I agree. And these ideals did motivate some politicians and men in power. But many others were motivated by other goals and other reasons. I just think many historical accounts have ignored a lot of the greater complexity and dumbed things down a lot.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

I cannot post under a thread started by bota. In every realm of human behavior, one can take things too far. bota throwing rocks at Lincoln is too far. If you are one of those jackasses (dustin) who thinks freedom of speech should not and does not have any limits, then you have to believe that anything goes.

[/quote]

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You don’t like freedom of speech, or freedom for that matter. You want people to see the world in your delusional state.

You’re truly insane.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I cannot post under a thread started by bota. In every realm of human behavior, one can take things too far. bota throwing rocks at Lincoln is too far. If you are one of those jackasses (dustin) who thinks freedom of speech should not and does not have any limits, then you have to believe that anything goes.

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You don’t like freedom of speech, or freedom for that matter. You want people to see the world in your delusional state.

You’re truly insane.

Dustin

[/quote]

How can he be insane if he represents the norm?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Limbic wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I’ve been here for about four years. This is probably the fourth time some people have demonstrated their historical ignorance.

JeffR

??? WOW!

Care to elaborate?

JeffR

[/quote]

A True Jeffy-ism.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
JeffR wrote:

I cannot post under a thread started by bota. In every realm of human behavior, one can take things too far. bota throwing rocks at Lincoln is too far. If you are one of those jackasses (dustin) who thinks freedom of speech should not and does not have any limits, then you have to believe that anything goes.

If speech has limits, you silly bastard, it isn’t free speech. If speech is to have limits, who designates these limits, the fucking government? People who think like you?

You don’t like freedom of speech, or freedom for that matter. You want people to see the world in your delusional state.

You’re truly insane.

Dustin

[/quote]

… we have target acquisition …

lol

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m confused. Are you saying Lincoln fought the civil war to end slavery, including in the south?

Sloth,

Again, I’m worried about you.

I stated quite clearly that slavery was at the center of the Civil War.

Lincoln would have accepted Southern re-unification WITH slavery up until January 1st, 1863.

For Lincoln the Union was always the higher calling. He fought the war for the Union first and to end slavery second.

However, the war was the central issue that and was the catalyst for that war.

18 year old know-it-alls and viscious punks misinterpret this as “Lincoln didn’t care for the slaves.” Or, “States Rights were the main reason for the Civil War.”

Lincoln both cared deeply about the slaves (see Fredrick Douglas’ eulogy) and the “Right” the Southerners most frequently cited was slavery.

JeffR

[/quote]

Ok…Why are you worried about me?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok…Why are you worried about me? [/quote]

Because you are out of line.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok…Why are you worried about me?

Because you are out of line.[/quote]

I don’t think I even said anything out of line. heh. I merely asked asked for some clarification on his point. I wasn’t certain if he was claiming that Lincoln actually saw the Civil War as an opportunity to free slaves across the nation, from the outset. He’s cleared it up enough for me to mean that Lincoln’s position evolved during the course of the war. That’s how I’m reading him now, at least.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok…Why are you worried about me?

Because you are out of line.[/quote]

Come on Varq. We don’t do that when you get out of line in America. We do this:

mike