Jefferson vs Lincoln

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
<<< Unless a universal standard (which used to be the will of God) can be found which will be adhered to by all parties concerned, then morality is meaningless and power is everything.
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you’re saying you stand here, but there has not ever been a post on this site (or anywhere else) I could possibly agree with more than the above. It was exactly that assumption that put this nation in motion. That is evinced almost everywhere in even the non religious founders. I don’t wanna steer this thread offtrack though. [/quote]

I got it from Nietzsche. “God is dead!” He predicted lots of wars. He was right.

Remember, power is everything. Morality is nothing.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
<<< Unless a universal standard (which used to be the will of God) can be found which will be adhered to by all parties concerned, then morality is meaningless and power is everything.
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you’re saying you stand here, but there has not ever been a post on this site (or anywhere else) I could possibly agree with more than the above. It was exactly that assumption that put this nation in motion. That is evinced almost everywhere in even the non religious founders. I don’t wanna steer this thread offtrack though. [/quote]

I got it from Nietzsche. “God is dead!” He predicted lots of wars. He was right.

Remember, power is everything. Morality is nothing.
[/quote]
There’s no way I can answer this here without a thoroughgoing hijack of this thread. I’m not ignoring you,

If there’s one thing I AM sure of it’s that most southern slave holders were not giving up their slaves except by force. After the emancipation proclamation some publicly executed them rather than see them go free.

The socio-economic/cultural poison left by slavery persisted practically en masse for another hundred years in the south even with abolition.

It’s been replaced by a national socio-economic/political voluntary slavery that in my view is on some levels even worse, but that is a different point.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If talk and diplomacy could be successful, what human cost would have been spared if the secession were recognized, and war averted? What if…? [/quote]

I find the “What ifs” fascinating. Intriguing. I dig this stuff. I can’t change anything but I feel I can learn a lot about what actually happened by playing with the “What could’ve happened” game.

Incidentally, I read a great book a couple of years ago by Robert Crowley who actually edited a series of essays by eminent historians about various events in human history. Title is “What If?”

One of the essays is by James McPherson and is titled, “If the Lost Order Hadn’t Been Lost - Robert E. Lee Humbles the Union 1862”. Good stuff.[quote]

To that hypothetical, I would answer with one of my own. Since the territories were under Federal, and not state sovereignty, would a negotiated settlement have to include a division of territory and the introduction of legalized slavery, without the consent of the inhabitants? Would Bloody Kansas be relived in every western territory and in California, without end? Could a war between the territories not blow-back to the Union and the Confederacy?[/quote]

Without giving it much thought my first response would be the territories had no right to secede because they hadn’t joined the Union. And like you said they were under federal, not state, sovereignty.[quote]

In short, Lincoln did make a good-faith effort to cool the flame. In the spring of 1861, there was no authority in the South capable of diplomacy which could then enforce an agreement. And an agreement would not necessarily lead to a lasting peace.
[/quote]

And he was somehow incapable of continuing to make good-faith efforts to cool the flame?[/quote]

Oh, surely the Confederacy would have demanded some part of the western territories to expand population and Slave Power. After all, that was the precipitant cause of The Unpleasantness.

As for Lincoln being incapable of diplomacy–I have a whole bookful of his efforts. So I lob this ball back into your court: name a legitimate Confederate official–if such a thing can be said to have existed–who made an effort to contact Lincoln and negotiate. Or who would have. (Vallandigham does not count. Canadian intermediaries allowed.)

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

In short, Lincoln did make a good-faith effort to cool the flame.
[/quote]

And he was somehow incapable of continuing to make good-faith efforts to cool the flame?[/quote]

Oh, surely the Confederacy would have demanded some part of the western territories to expand population and Slave Power. After all, that was the precipitant cause of The Unpleasantness.

As for Lincoln being incapable of diplomacy–I have a whole bookful of his efforts…[/quote]

You may have missed my point. You said, “Lincoln did make a good-faith effort to cool the flame.”

I then asked you if he was somehow incapable of continuing to do so. And if so, why?

Now your likely answer is “He had to do ‘something’. If he had delayed attacking the South at that juncture…X, Y, and Z coulda/woulda happened…and that coulda/woulda been disastrous for the preservation of the Union, abolition of slavery, etc.”

But see, now we’re back to hypotheticals and hypotheticals are slippery creatures. You might not be able to hang on to 'em any better than I can.[/quote]

I purposefully avoided that piece of speculation.
The ball is over the net and bounced in your court. Now then, you were going to name the “legitimate” Confederate negotiators who were willing to sit down with Lincoln or his intermediary…

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I purposefully avoided that piece of speculation.
The ball is over the net and bounced in your court. Now then, you were going to name the “legitimate” Confederate negotiators who were willing to sit down with Lincoln or his intermediary…[/quote]

If you purposely avoided that piece of speculation then surely the ball is still on your side of the court, no?

Now smack that sunuvagun.[/quote]

I did not start that pointless speculation because I do not need to provide more instances of Lincoln’s will to negotiate an end.
I contend that Lincoln had no one with whom to negotiate. I invite you to prove me wrong: provide the person, a legitimate leader or officer of the South, for whom the historical record shows a willingness to negotiate a compromise with Lincoln.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…pointless speculation…[/quote]

BTW, 1.1 million casualties suggest the speculation may indeed have a point.[/quote]

Nope. You can’t “guilt me” into a retraction.
Speculation is pointless because it saves no casualty’ it merely invites other rhetoric. If my grandmother had a beard, she would have been my grandfather, and no one would have died in the Civil War.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I purposefully avoided that piece of speculation.
The ball is over the net and bounced in your court. Now then, you were going to name the “legitimate” Confederate negotiators who were willing to sit down with Lincoln or his intermediary…[/quote]

If you purposely avoided that piece of speculation then surely the ball is still on your side of the court, no?

Now smack that sunuvagun.[/quote]

I did not start that pointless speculation because I do not need to provide more instances of Lincoln’s will to negotiate an end.[/quote]

I didn’t ask you to provide more instances. I asked you to explain why it was absolutely imperative that he negotiate no longer; that he exhibit no more patience; that he launch a military action with no more delay, etc.[quote]

I contend that Lincoln had no one with whom to negotiate. I invite you to prove me wrong: provide the person, legitimate leader or officer of the South, for whom the historical record shows a willingness to negotiate a compromise with Lincoln.[/quote]

OK, for the sake of argument let’s say he had no one. Now please answer the above question. Hit the ball back over the net.

Why, why, why did the six gun have to come out of the holster so fast? The dead South Carolina cow?
[/quote]

You know that the cow joke is a little stale by the 15th page. It was not for the loss of a cow that the war was started, but it clearly was the threat of re-provisioning Ft Sumter that caused rebels to fire. So I turn the same question on you: why why why did the rebels–not yet a legitimate government of any type–choose to fire on Federal forces so fast. For the sake of honor, somehow just then discovered? No, you answer that question and then the answer to your question becomes obvious, yes?

Next. You agree that there was not one “legitimate” Southern leader who could or would negotiate with Lincoln in 1861. One cannot negotiate with an empty chair.
Now the lost cow was not the cause, but the lost fort certainly heightened Lincoln’s sense of danger. Remember, he had made the first peace overture during the Richmond secessionist convention (which, by the way, had absolutely no legal basis). Once Virginia seceded, and Mryland hung in confusion, Washington was directly threatened. Federal forts and naval facilities were directly threatened by Virginia’s action, and there was proof–through Ft Sumter and not a dead cow–that rebels would not refrain from taking strategic Federal property.

Did Lincoln then take an aggressive and inflammatory stance? Leaders of Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky warned him that an “invasion” would force these border states into secession. Lincoln replied “the sole purpose of bringing troops here is to defend the capital…I have no purpose to invade Virginia, with them or any other troops…” But if Confederate troops from Virginia were to “assail this capital, am I not to repel them, even to the crossing of the Potomac…I do not mean to let them invade us without striking back.”

A statement of defensive posture, not intended to cajole border states only. This is the type of astute message that was intended to get back to Virginia’s leaders; a show of purpose, not force, to invite a negotiated settlement, or a stand-off on the Potomac?

So, no one with whom to negotiate, three serious personal appeals at the outset to settle, without any reception. Does Lincoln seem to be hurrying to slaughter? I submit, no.

Game and set.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

You know that the cow joke is a little stale by the 15th page. It was not for the loss of a cow that the war was started, but it clearly was the threat of re-provisioning Ft Sumter that caused rebels to fire. So I turn the same question on you: why why why did the rebels–not yet a legitimate government of any type–choose to fire on Federal forces so fast. For the sake of honor, somehow just then discovered? No, you answer that question and then the answer to your question becomes obvious, yes?

Next. You agree that there was not one “legitimate” Southern leader who could or would negotiate with Lincoln in 1861. One cannot negotiate with an empty chair.
Now the lost cow was not the cause, but the lost fort certainly heightened Lincoln’s sense of danger. Remember, he had made the first peace overture during the Richmond secessionist convention (which, by the way, had absolutely no legal basis). Once Virginia seceded, and Mryland hung in confusion, Washington was directly threatened. Federal forts and naval facilities were directly threatened by Virginia’s action, and there was proof–through Ft Sumter and not a dead cow–that rebels would not refrain from taking strategic Federal property.

Did Lincoln then take an aggressive and inflammatory stance? Leaders of Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky warned him that an “invasion” would force these border states into secession. Lincoln replied “the sole purpose of bringing troops here is to defend the capital…I have no purpose to invade Virginia, with them or any other troops…” But if Confederate troops from Virginia were to “assail this capital, am I not to repel them, even to the crossing of the Potomac…I do not mean to let them invade us without striking back.”

A statement of defensive posture, not intended to cajole border states only. This is the type of astute message that was intended to get back to Virginia’s leaders; a show of purpose, not force, to invite a negotiated settlement, or a stand-off on the Potomac?

So, no one with whom to negotiate, three serious personal appeals at the outset to settle, without any reception. Does Lincoln seem to be hurrying to slaughter? I submit, no.

Game and set.
[/quote]

C’mon, Doc, you and I both know Lincoln did not prosecute a defensive war.[/quote]

But I did answer your question, and you have not answered one of mine. Lincoln tried on at least 3 documented occasions to avert the escalation of the war in February and March of 1861.
There was no offer of negotiation on the part of the South, which did, contrary to conventional wisdom, start with offensive strategic maneuvers, before and after the inauguration. And here I have just offered an instance of Lincoln trying to de-escalate the war and signal his willingness to assume a defensive position if Virginia remained a non-combatant. At that point, he was not even bargaining or demanding that Virginia rejoin the Union as a precondition.

Lincoln did not prosecute a defensive war–that was the mistake of his generals for the first three years–but then it was the South that gave him no choice in the Spring of 1861. Where was their peace envoy?

I invite you–again–prove me wrong. Fact, not opinion.

Match point.

“You know that the cow joke is a little stale by the 15th page. It was not for the loss of a cow that the war was started, but it clearly was the threat of re-provisioning Ft Sumter that caused rebels to fire. So I turn the same question on you: why why why did the rebels–not yet a legitimate government of any type–choose to fire on Federal forces so fast. For the sake of honor, somehow just then discovered?”" - DrSkeptix

Jefferson Davis was under extreme pressure to do something. Louis Wigfall and several other Southern politicians of the fire-eating sort wanted an attack on Sumter to prompt Virginia and other upper-South states to join the Confederacy. Roger Pryor, pissed off at lingering unionism in Virginia, told South Carolina: “If you want us to join you, strike a blow!”

“The shedding of blood will serve to change many voters in the hesitating states, from submission or procrastinating ranks, to the zealous for immediate secession.” Edmund Ruffin

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
“You know that the cow joke is a little stale by the 15th page. It was not for the loss of a cow that the war was started, but it clearly was the threat of re-provisioning Ft Sumter that caused rebels to fire. So I turn the same question on you: why why why did the rebels–not yet a legitimate government of any type–choose to fire on Federal forces so fast. For the sake of honor, somehow just then discovered?”" - DrSkeptix

Jefferson Davis was under extreme pressure to do something. Louis Wigfall and several other Southern politicians of the fire-eating sort wanted an attack on Sumter to prompt Virginia and other upper-South states to join the Confederacy. Roger Pryor, pissed off at lingering unionism in Virginia, told South Carolina: “If you want us to join you, strike a blow!”

“The shedding of blood will serve to change many voters in the hesitating states, from submission or procrastinating ranks, to the zealous for immediate secession.” Edmund Ruffin[/quote]

[…and thanks, Jack_D.,for elaborating]

Ah, yes, he who has yet to be named, that other Jefferson, Mr. Davis.

Let’s snap the time line forward to January 1865. Lincoln called on Preston Blair, a personal friend of Davis, to initiate peace feelers. Lincoln in fact arranged safe conduct through the lines to Davis in Richmond. Blair, on his own initiative, re-proposed a plan (initially from Stanton four years earlier) to put the the war on hold and confront the French forces in Mexico (!). In any case, Davis agreed to send Peace Commisioners to Washington “with a view to secure pece to the two countries.” (sic)

On hearing this particular turn of phrase, Lincoln recalled Stanton, then in transit to Virginia for consultation, and, at personal risk, sailed himself to Hampton Roads on January 29 to meet with Confederate VP Alexander Stephens and two others (including John Campbell). Stephens opened with the Blair proposal, but Lincoln made it very clear that Blair had proposed this on his own, and reaffirmed that , “…The restoration of the Union is a sine qua non with me.” When Campbell raised the question of how the restoration of union was to take place, it was affirmed that Lincoln would not–and could not --rescind the Emancipation Proclamation; a constitutional amendment had passed outlawing slavery throughout the Union. However, Lincoln indicated that he thought the North would be willing “to be taxed to remunerate the Southern people for their slaves” to as as much as “Four Hundred Millions of Dollars.” But Lincoln did not abandon the singular principle that the Union was to remain intact. The compromise was on the table.

Of course, Davis rejected this and the Hampton Roads conference collapsed without further productive talks. (Nevertheless, Lincoln drafted a proposal for Congress to appropriate that $400 million, provided the “resistance to national authority” would end by April 1–note please, the choice of words. Pardons would follow once resistance had ended.)

Davis response to the Hampton Roads conference was bellicose; he pledged eternal resistance, and demanded that the war continue.


Now the reader may remember that pushharder insisted that the South was on its knees in September 1864, and that taking Atlanta, and Sherman’s march to sea was completely unnecessary since the war was already won. And here, a month after Savannah was taken, Davis was intransigent, and quite willing to see the killing go on.

Can we now forget the notion that it was in Lincoln’s power to negotiate with Davis an end before September 1864? Or before January 1863, when the South was still convinced it could “win” the war?

No. As I have shown, Lincoln did not “hurry” into the war; he was confronted with it as a fact and as a threat. He had made overtures to stop it in an honorable fashion, even as the South was truly incapacitated in January 1865, but it was the intransigence of Slave Power which demanded both secession and its slaves, that sent men to gory graves.

It should be clear by now that the bullets and Dustin’s “big balls” did not fly in only one direction, and that honor did not segregate only to slaveholders.

(Game and match.)

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It should be clear by now that the bullets and Dustin’s “big balls” did not fly in only one direction, and that honor did not segregate only to slaveholders.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this. Arguing for one side doesn’t equate to that side being virtuous. We could start a separate thread highlighting Jeff Davis’s transgressions that could go on for pages.

That said, Davis’s refusal to surrender doesn’t negate the point that Push made regarding the South being defeated late into 1864, early 1865. A politician in Davis’s position can make all sorts of demands, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.

p.s. My “big balls” were mentioned on T-Nation. How many people can claim that?

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It should be clear by now that the bullets and Dustin’s “big balls” did not fly in only one direction, and that honor did not segregate only to slaveholders.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this. …
That said, Davis’s refusal to surrender doesn’t negate the point that Push made regarding the South being defeated late into 1864, early 1865. …[/quote]

Oh, but it does negate Push’s point and yours. A war does not end until one adversary has lost the will to fight. Even knowing that they could not get a better negotiated end than that which was just offered, Davis, Stephens, and the other Slavers still had the will to fight and the will to command others to their pointless deaths.

(As for your details of your anatomy, pix or didn’t happen.)