Lincoln

[Kosmo]

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever.

His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

[docoflove1974]

I guess it's because he's seen as the president who liberated the slaves, and the president who made it so that all men could vote, regardless of status.

[Primus Pilus]

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever.

His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

 

The conflict over both states rights and slavery had been in place long before Lincoln. His election and the secession of the southern states that had followed was the culmination of decades of political wrangling.

 

The constitutional crisis over state's rights and slavery was already well in motion prior to Lincoln's election. There were diplomatic attempts to stop the secession, such as the Crittendon Compromise but it failed in the House of Representatives (Dec. 18, 1960). South Carolina seceded 2 days later. 6 more states seceded and federal military installations were seized even before Lincoln took office officially in March of 1861.

 

Other than allowing the continued proliferation of slavery in the south and in expanding US territories west, there was little that could be done. Lincoln could be blamed I suppose for his determination that the southern states had no right to secede from the Union, but his choices were limited to either a full endorsement of the continuation and expansion of slavery in the United States and it's territories, allowing the southern states to secede unimpeded, or going to war.

[Ludovicus]

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever.

His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

 

 

 

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. It was the aggressiveness of the South in its drive to push slavery into the West. They even had eyes on Cuba.

 

Before Abraham Lincoln's presidency the US was often referred to in the plural, e. g. The United States "are" exporting cotton. After the Civil War, the United States "is" exporting cotton.

 

Although he hadn't originally intended to end slavery, the course of the Civil War convinced Lincoln that the back of the slave holding economy had to be broken in order to secure victory for the Union. By freeing the Confederacy's slaves, he quickly erased millions of dollars of the slave holders' capital and thereby impoverishing the enemy.

[Primus Pilus]

By freeing the Confederacy's slaves, he quickly erased millions of dollars of the slave holders' capital and thereby impoverishing the enemy.

 

And gave Britain and France enough reason to remain neutral.

[Julius Ratus]

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever.

His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

 

By freeing the Confederacy's slaves, he quickly erased millions of dollars of the slave holders' capital and thereby impoverishing the enemy.

 

Lincoln didn't free the Confederacy's slaves. He only freed the slaves in States loyal to the Union, or in conquered areas. By the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, the CSA had ceased to exist.

 

 

If I give my opinion on the Civil War I will come off sounding like a hot-head who can't let things go. If I were to write with a cool and level sate of mind, I would rewrite what PP wrote in his first post.

 

Otherwise, God save General Lee.

[Ludovicus]

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever.

His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

 

By freeing the Confederacy's slaves, he quickly erased millions of dollars of the slave holders' capital and thereby impoverishing the enemy.

 

Lincoln didn't free the Confederacy's slaves. He only freed the slaves in States loyal to the Union, or in conquered areas. By the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, the CSA had ceased to exist.

 

 

If I give my opinion on the Civil War I will come off sounding like a hot-head who can't let things go. If I were to write with a cool and level sate of mind, I would rewrite what PP wrote in his first post.

 

Otherwise, God save General Lee.

 

 

We're both in error. Lincoln freed the slaves only in the areas in rebellion. Those areas of the Confederacy under Union Army control continued with slavery until slavery was outlawed in the Constitution, December 1865. However it's limitations, the Emancipation Proclamation did deprive the areas still in rebellion of vast amounts of capital since many slaves left, especially with the approach of the Union Army.

 

From the US Government Archives:

 

"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

 

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

 

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom."

 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_...n_proclamation/

Edited March 12, 2008 by Ludovicus

[Kosmo]

I don't have a problem with Lincoln's actions during the war, but with those preceeding it. Thru the creation of the republican party, his energic opposition to slavery and his victorious election he created a fear that the North will impose on South the abolition of slavery. His opposition had nothing to hope from his presidential term and the anti-slavery republican majority, so they chose seccesion rather then accepting him as president. Rather then seeking change they refuted the change he was going to make.

This type of leadership that crashes the opposition, albeit democratic in forms it's undemocratic in spirit. The majority democraticaly persecutes the minority (not that this minority was nice).

And by creating an anti slavery party he made the issue of slavery a highly political one so that the 2 main parties phisicaly divided the country.

Yes, the issues of slavery were present in US politics since independance, so why the war broke out when it did?

I believe that himself and the issues of his folowers were highly divisive forcing people to chose beetwen beligerant sides, pushing out of the political discourse both the moderates and other significant issues.

He would not be a symbol of unity if he was not the one that destroyed it in the first place and the rights he gave were just a tool in his war against Slave Power rather then a goal from the begining.

[Primus Pilus]

Democracy is absolutely about majority rules and is completely democratic in both theory and practice. However, the United States is a Federal Republic so subjecting southern states to "majority rules" and impediment of states rights was absolutely an issue. The American civil war ended states rights as they were devised in the nations early formation and hence the reason that Lincoln is abhorred by most constitutionalists. However, Lincoln neither forced the southern states to secede by any acts of his presidency (since he had not been inaugurated) or even by his words.

 

Lincoln neither created the Republican party nor it's entire platform (though he certainly brought it to prominence). He won the party nomination for the presidency and was in fact anti-slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. Obviously, this sentiment was enough to concern the states rights advocates and the pro-slavery states, but his position in itself was not necessarily a transgression against these rights. In fact, there were many hard line abolitionists who pushed Lincoln to do more, largely to no avail.

 

Again, Lincoln had three choices: Allow the southern states to secede from the union, urge reconsolidation of the union by openly supporting states rights and the institution of slavery or force the southern states back into the union via war.

[Kosmo]

Democracy is absolutely about majority rules and is completely democratic in both theory and practice.

Not really. Modern political theories consider that some of the rights can not be abolished, even thru democratic means. The main function of democracy it's to ensure bloodless transition of power beetwen opposing parties and this can not happen if a party (and the social/economical interest he represents) risks destruction by the hands of the victorious group once the opponent has the power.

 

However, the United States is a Federal Republic so subjecting southern states to "majority rules" and impediment of states rights was absolutely an issue. The American civil war ended states rights as they were devised in the nations early formation and hence the reason that Lincoln is abhorred by most constitutionalists.

 

It seems to my that the purpose of the struggle was less slavery, but the fate of the southern political elite that could have been pushed aside by a republican northern majority that could use federal institutions against state ones.

 

However, Lincoln neither forced the southern states to secede by any acts of his presidency (since he had not been inaugurated) or even by his words.

 

Still, it was his election that triggered the seccesion.

 

Lincoln neither created the Republican party nor it's entire platform (though he certainly brought it to prominence). He won the party nomination for the presidency and was in fact anti-slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. Obviously, this sentiment was enough to concern the states rights advocates and the pro-slavery states, but his position in itself was not necessarily a transgression against these rights. In fact, there were many hard line abolitionists who pushed Lincoln to do more, largely to no avail.

 

He was the most reknown republican politician and had lots to do with the party platform, but he made no effort to propose something acceptable to the South. He did not even run a campaign in the South, because he was clearly unacceptable for them and he knew that. And he was aware of the risk of a seccesion. He also opposed the Crintendon compromise.

 

Again, Lincoln had three choices: Allow the southern states to secede from the union, urge reconsolidation of the union by openly supporting states rights and the institution of slavery or force the southern states back into the union via war.

 

I fully agree with you on this and I think he made the right choice.

[caldrail]

I see most people focus on slavery, but surely that was a side-issue back then? The americans of the day regarded afro-carribeans as second-class, even in the north they were segregated and continued to be until after WWII. The south was diverging from the union on economy and to some degree political self determination. Sure, there were people who thought slavery was terrible, but there were still plenty who wanted blacks slaving away for a pittance in order to make profit.

[Primus Pilus]

I see most people focus on slavery, but surely that was a side-issue back then? The americans of the day regarded afro-carribeans as second-class, even in the north they were segregated and continued to be until after WWII. The south was diverging from the union on economy and to some degree political self determination. Sure, there were people who thought slavery was terrible, but there were still plenty who wanted blacks slaving away for a pittance in order to make profit.

 

Much of the opposition to slavery in the north by the common person was likely based on idea of free worker's rights and not necessarily an opposition to the subjugation of people, but I honestly couldn't say what the overwhelming sentiment of the average joe was. Whether northern whites saw wanted to free African slaves in the south or viewed them as second class doesn't mean that abolitionism was not a large and real movement. If it wasn't such a big issue, the Republican party would not have been born, incorporated the Whigs, and won the election of 1860. The key component of states rights advocates, especially in the south, was the right to slavery. Without slavery, states rights would've likely been slowly eroded without a civil war.

 

The southern economy was an important component but it was an agricultural plantation economy dependent upon slavery and upon the single dominant cash crop of King Cotton. Due in part to the exhaustion of soil, the agricultural economy was also dependent upon expansion to western territories to find new lands to cultivate and to spread the profit potential of plantations. The large plantation owners needed to secure the propagation of slavery into these territories in order to maintain the status quo.

 

Understand that this over generalization precludes the vast majority of white farmers who were not plantation owners and maintained minimal if any slave population. However, the small family farm was not an emerging economic force and of course never would be. The average white farmer in the south who did not own slaves, or very few, still viewed themselves as superior to African slaves and feared that the abolition of slavery would create a massive wave that unsettled the socio-political standing. Despite being largely poor themselves, they likely held onto the hope that with hard work, a bit of luck and of course, the continuation of slavery, they too could end up like the wealthy plantation owners that made up about 1% of the population, but dominated economically and politically.

[Primus Pilus]

It seems to my that the purpose of the struggle was less slavery, but the fate of the southern political elite that could have been pushed aside by a republican northern majority that could use federal institutions against state ones.

 

Indeed, but as I suggested in my reply to Caldrail above, the plantation owners (and hence the aristocracy) were dependent upon slavery.

 

Still, it was his election that triggered the seccesion.

 

He was the most reknown republican politician and had lots to do with the party platform, but he made no effort to propose something acceptable to the South. He did not even run a campaign in the South, because he was clearly unacceptable for them and he knew that. And he was aware of the risk of a seccesion. He also opposed the Crintendon compromise.

 

True enough, there's no question that Lincoln could've done more to be conciliatory to the southern states, and yes it was ultimately his opposition that killed the attempt by Crittendon. It should also be noted though, that aside from Lincoln's well documented debates with Douglas, he did very little public speaking. Most of the campaigning in the election of 1860 was handled by local party workers and officials. While Lincoln clearly played a major role in his own platform, the Republican ideology overall (at least in the election cycle) was shaped by many and was also dependent upon local flavors.

 

Despite my personal view that Federal government should be limited and that states rights should have been, and still should be upheld, the notion of the allowing the propagation of slavery is so abhorrent that I simply find it personally difficult to disagree with Lincoln's actions (understanding the fact that his personal goal was not necessarily abolition).

[Julius Ratus]

Unfortunately for this country, everyone was jut too wound up and didn't forsee the consequences that the war would bring with it. I fully believe that the Civil War fundamentally changed America, and for the worse. I do not like the idea that the Federal govt can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants with We the People having very little real recource.

 

Alas, if only everyone would have taken a chill pill and settled down. If they had all waited a few decades for the steam tractor to come out, it would have killed slavery as fast as any Amendment. Who would want to keep, feed, house, and guard a slave, when a tractor does more work for less cost. Economics would have ended slavery sooner or later.

[Primus Pilus]

Alas, if only everyone would have taken a chill pill and settled down. If they had all waited a few decades for the steam tractor to come out, it would have killed slavery as fast as any Amendment. Who would want to keep, feed, house, and guard a slave, when a tractor does more work for less cost. Economics would have ended slavery sooner or later.

 

Sure, but could anyone guarantee when? If so, the argument itself may have been unnecessary... and of course, it's difficult to tell a person without freedom just to wait 20 years simply because they've never known freedom anyway and it will come eventually when practical for those that held ownership. Yes, slavery would've ended either peacefully by economic necessity, forcibly through revolt or war, but when? Perhaps Henry Ford's assembly line would've found slavery advantageous enough to continue the practice?

 

All what ifs of course, and still a violation of states rights in our strictest constitutional terms, but there are in fact some rights that I believe no state, nation or individual human should maintain.

 

Edit: By the by, I am by no means suggesting that the war, reconstruction and ultimate emancipation of slaves went as well as it could or should have, but it doesn't justify it's continued existence in my personal reasoning.