Causes of the Civil War

[Dman979]

[snipped for length]

It doesn't rebut my remarks at all. In fact, it reinforces them. My point was specifically that people were thinking about slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation, and felt quite strongly on it, too. Perhaps that could have been supported more with the addition of a few Northern sources, but I hardly think it invalidates my point.

It bothers me when people say that the war was not about slavery. It quite clearly was.

[dmurray6]

Would you rather he had not tried to end the war by political means and jumped straight into the carnage instead I wonder?

- Trusty

Unfortunately Trusty, those political means actually have more to do with someone's morals. And yes, I would have held a lot more respect for the man for fighting for what he believed in versus trying to hide behind political agenda's represented by poor verbiage, as is represented by the Corwin Amendment. It's very clear that Lincoln cared more about the solidarity of his Union then he did the welfare of the enslaved, as evidenced by the Lincoln quote in my last post. Why is it that people refuse to see that Lincoln had zero feelings about ending slavery. People just want to jump right to the 1862 emancipation but refuse to identify the efforts (or lack thereof) of the government prior to the emancipation. Is it not appalling that the President of the United States was just as happy to think "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." What part of Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment suggest that he had ANY interest what-so-ever in ending slavery?

[dmurray6]

It doesn't rebut my remarks at all. In fact, it reinforces them. My point was specifically that people were thinking about slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation, and felt quite strongly on it, too. Perhaps that could have been supported more with the addition of a few Northern sources, but I hardly think it invalidates my point.

It bothers me when people say that the war was not about slavery. It quite clearly was.

It would support them, if the timeline was skewed. Unfortunately, the first thought was focused toward doing what they could to solidify the Union, with no regard to slavery. Go back and look at the resolutions that were suggested in Congress pertaining to slavery. The only way you can support a statement that the war was about slavery is to make the statement as generic as possible "The War was about slavery", with no details pertaining to what was being done to either end or continue slavery. Because to say that the war was about ending slavery is immediately debunked by Congress' passing the Corwin Amendment, and states beginning to ratify said amendment.

[TrustyJam]

Unfortunately Trusty, those political means actually have more to do with someone's morals. And yes, I would have held a lot more respect for the man for fighting for what he believed in versus trying to hide behind political agenda's represented by poor verbiage, as is represented by the Corwin Amendment. It's very clear that Lincoln cared more about the solidarity of his Union then he did the welfare of the enslaved, as evidenced by the Lincoln quote in my last post. Why is it that people refuse to see that Lincoln had zero feelings about ending slavery. People just want to jump right to the 1862 emancipation but refuse to identify the efforts (or lack thereof) of the government prior to the emancipation. Is it not appalling that the President of the United States was just as happy to think "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." What part of Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment suggest that he had ANY interest what-so-ever in ending slavery?

I don't agree with your statement. Lincoln was against slavery. What mattered to him most was preserving the Union however (surely that should matter the most to any man in office). I'll let others with more knowledge continue the discussion - I know it will never end. :P

- Trusty

[thomas aagaard]

suggest that he had ANY interest what-so-ever in ending slavery?

Lincoln was going to ban slavery in the territories.(and this was something that he could get done) This was a core part of his and the Republican party platform.
And the entire platform was anti slavery.

He just accepted that he could not stop slavery where it already existed.
(banning slavery in the territories could be done by congress... Banning slavery where it was, would require a Constitutional amendment)

This was seen by the south as a direct threat to slavery and the election of an obviously anti slavery president was what caused the south to seceded.

But obviously he cared more about preserving the union... as he should as President. But he was not going to go against the platform he was elected on. Had he done so, he and the republican party would have been politically dead.


And Lincoln did not support the Corwin Amendment.
During his first inaugural address on March 4, he said:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
This is not support, he just didn't fight it because his goal was limiting slavery in the territories... not banning it where it existed.

By the time it passed it was not going to make any difference anyway since the south saw any limit on slavery as a direct threat to the institution.

[dmurray6]

Lincoln was going to ban slavery in the territories.(and this was something that he could get done) This was a core part of his and the Republican party platform.
And the entire platform was anti slavery.

He just accepted that he could not stop slavery where it already existed.
(banning slavery in the territories could be done by congress... Banning slavery where it was, would require a Constitutional amendment)

This was seen by the south as a direct threat to slavery and the election of an obviously anti slavery president was what caused the south to seceded.

But obviously he cared more about preserving the union... as he should as President. But he was not going to go against the platform he was elected on. Had he done so, he and the republican party would have been politically dead.


And Lincoln did not support the Corwin Amendment.
During his first inaugural address on March 4, he said:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
This is not support, he just didn't fight it because his goal was limiting slavery in the territories... not banning it where it existed.

By the time it passed it was not going to make any difference anyway since the south saw any limit on slavery as a direct threat to the institution.

We've been through thisThomas, and I'm not going into with you again. One can certainly ascertain that if Lincoln didnt fight to reject the Corwin Amendment, then his level of effort to abolish slavery sure wasnt strong. To say that he didnt support it, but he didnt fight it is a very poor stance. Is this your opinion or a documented historical account? For a topic as strong as oppressing and enslaving people, thats a hell ofa time to just say "well oh damn, this fight just isnt worth my time". Really? That doesnt change your opinion of the man?

[TrustyJam]

We've been through thisThomas, and I'm not going into with you again. One can certainly ascertain that if Lincoln didnt fight to reject the Corwin Amendment, then his level of effort to abolish slavery sure wasnt strong. To say that he didnt support it, but he didnt fight it is a very poor stance. Is this your opinion or a documented historical account? For a topic as strong as oppressing and enslaving people, thats a hell ofa time to just say "well oh damn, this fight just isnt worth my time". Really? That doesnt change your opinion of the man?

I feel like you're failing to look at its context. It's not that it wasn't worth his time to fight for abolishment. The country was killing itself over the issue. Surely that is a genuine cause for cautiousness?

- Trusty

[[WoR] Kiff]

Jesus, I learn more things from you all then I ever did in my history classes lol.

[A. P. Hill]

... It bothers me when people say that the war was not about slavery. It quite clearly was.

Your opinion.

It changes nothing relating to period history.

What should bother you though is all these people who are harboring hatred so much that they think revising history, by taking down monuments, and flags, and the like will eliminate what actually happened. It's a case of misguided revenge for something they couldn't and still can't prevent.

Jesus, I learn more things from you all then I ever did in my history classes lol.

Jesus had nothing to do with it!
Glad you're learning however.

[Conway]

Your opinion.

It changes nothing relating to period history.

What should bother you though is all these people who are harboring hatred so much that they think revising history, by taking down monuments, and flags, and the like will eliminate what actually happened. It's a case of misguided revenge for something they couldn't and still can't prevent.



Jesus had nothing to do with it!
Glad you're learning however.

In my personal opinion, outside of battlegrounds the CSA flag or Battle-Flag has no place being flown officially nor should there be any monuments commemorating the CSA outside of sites significant to the civil war.
Removing Battle-flags from government buildings isn't revising history, because the battle-flag was never flown from buildings. Removing monuments to the CSA from town squares isn't altering history unless there was a battle in said town. The United States government should not have to provide reservations for the nation that caused the bloodiest war on U.S soil.