Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Denne tråd er blevet låst 
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
1 
Rapporter dette indlæg
CLOSE READING ASSIGNMENT
LINCOLN:
I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one
knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don’t
exist. I don’t know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my
oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could
take the rebels’ slaves from ‘em as property confiscated in war. That
might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their
slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don’t, never
have, I’m glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or
war contraband, does the trick… Why I caught at the opportunity.
Now here’s where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing
for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the
property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations.
But the South ain’t a nation, that’s why I can’t negotiate with
’em. So if in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I
the right to take the rebels’ property from ‘em, if I insist
they’re rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country?
And slipperier still: I maintain it ain’t our actual Southern states in
rebellion, but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of
which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in
force. That means, that since it’s states’ laws that determine whether
Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property – the Federal government
doesn’t have a say in that, least not yet – (a glance at Seward,
then- then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my
war powers allow me to confiscate ‘em as such. So I confiscated ‘em.
But if I’m a respecter of states’ laws, how then can I legally free
‘em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I’m cancelling states’
laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right
with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I’m hoping still.
(Tony Kushner, “Lincoln,” p. 26-7)
GUIDING QUESTIONS
After you have organized an outline or chart of Lincoln’s key arguments in this passage, try to answer the following questions:
1. In the context of the Civil War, what is the meaning of the following words or phrases: war powers, confiscation, contraband, and belligerent? Are there other words in the excerpt that need definition?
2. How does Lincoln describe the process which was leading him to conclude that only a constitutional amendment could truly end slavery in the United States?
3. Why was the problem of ending slavery during the Civil War so “slippery” as Lincoln describes it? Were the obstacles that Lincoln is describing here mainly political, legal or social?
SHORT WRITING ASSIGNMENT
The passage attributed to Lincoln in this script is not something he actually said, but has been imagined by the scriptwriter Tony Kushner to represent various arguments in favor of emancipation policy that President Lincoln and his supporters used during the course of the Civil War. Consider the following real quotations from Abraham Lincoln and compose a short informational essay that tries to explain how the script seems to be summarizing aspects of these historical statements:
Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Abraham Lincoln’s Special Message to Congress, July 4, 1861
“Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is to be the course of the Government towards the southern States after the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the Executive deems it proper to say, it will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the Constitution and the laws; and that he probably will have no different understanding of the powers and duties of the Federal Government relative to the rights of the States and the people, under the Constitution than that expressed in the inaugural address.”
Abraham Lincoln to James C. Conkling, August 26, 1863
“I think the constitution invests its Commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there–has there ever been–any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy?”
Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges, April 4, 1864
“I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.”
ANOTHER VIEW
From Matthew Pinsker, Director, House Divided Project:
Not every historian would accept the way Tony Kushner conveys Lincoln’s views. One of the biggest arguments concerns this question of “confiscating” slaves as property in order to free them. According to the script, Lincoln denies that slaves should ever be considered as property but admits that he “caught at the opportunity” in order to set in motion his emancipation policy. On the surface, this appears to be what he wrote to Conkling in 1863 (“The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property,”) but a careful reading of that document –especially in context– suggests that was not what he believed or what he actually did –but rather he was saying this was what even his political enemies had to concede if that was truly their belief (“The most that can be said…”).
What the script does not quite have the space to explain is that “confiscation” was a congressional policy, created in two separate laws (August 6, 1861 and July 17, 1862) that ultimately authorized the president to make rebel-owned slaves “forever free.” This was the real trigger for Lincoln’s initial emancipation decision in July 1862. However, congressional confiscation made a careful distinction between punishing rebels by confiscating their real property (such as their plantations) and by freeing their slaves. The confiscation law treated these enslaved people not as property but explicitly as “captives of war.” In other words, federal law never recognized the principle of property in man. Only states laws did that. This is a critical insight made clear in James Oakes’s book, Freedom National (2012) and which is documented here in this Emancipation Digital Classroom. This also helps explain why the Emancipation Proclamation refers to “persons held as slaves,” and does nothing to recognize them as property or to invoke asset forfeiture law in order to “seize” them. Instead, the proclamation calls their freedom “an act of justice,” and addresses them directly as people with natural rights. See this video from Matthew Pinsker for a more complete explanation of that point.
The script also appears to make a mistake by having Lincoln assert that the laws of the states in rebellion remained “in force.” This was never his view. In fact, almost all of the extraordinary presidential measures he embraced from the beginning of the war until its conclusion –whether it was calling forth the militias, suspending habeas corpus, emancipating slaves, or setting conditions for reconstruction– were done in the name of substituting executive action for laws that were clearly not in force. When President Lincoln invoked the international “laws of war” as Commander-in-Chief, he was able to do so to suppress a domestic rebellion. Some measures –such as setting foot a blockade– did suggest implicit recognition of Confederate sovereignty– but even as Lincoln was denying that sovereignty in public, he was never claiming to be bound by southern state laws during a time of armed rebellion. According to Lincoln, Confederate states were neither independent of nor controlled by the federal government during the Civil War. They were quite literally “in rebellion” and subject to the laws of war.
Well i got interested in what the overall EP effect on desertion and enlistments would have looked like.
This is what i have found, from Provost Marshal Generals office and USSC "Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers" By Benjamin Apthorp Gould
Till Dec 64 average monthly desertion was 3490, 6 months pre EO the average was 3480, 6 months post EP was 3149 and the 6 months from preliminary announced in 62 and take effect 6 months, it rose to 6761 a 53% increase in desertion rate in that 6 month times span.
Or another way to put that is the EP added the effects added 19,626 desertions over 6 months, to the average monthly desertion rate.
Average monthly enlistments for whole war, 50,354, for the same 6 months EP to announced and went into effect, a decline of 13% in enlistments.
Till July 1862: 54833
Till July 1863:43958
Till July 1864:53083
Till April 1865:47777
Or another why to express that is the EP declined white enlistments by 38376, had the EP not been issued, then another c120k free white would have had to be enlisted to achieve the same force level for ground forces.
Effects of EP on desertion and enlistment, reduced the military participation level by 58,002, which more than compensated by the enlistment of non black free and slave in the 178,000 USCT plus naval, otoh short term it created a problem, those lost white enlistments/deserters over 6 months were not matched by an equivalent number of black recruits in the same time frame.
"Myth of the Lost Cause" Gary contradicts nothing i have posted, he in actuality says much what i have posted, so the dullard is not myself. Thomas R. R. Cobb in the debates on state secession, put that the election of Lincoln would be, “sufficient ground for the dissolution of the Union.” and argued for that.
Here is Gary explaining your contradicting his understanding of what secessionist thought and said and much else, as your clearly unaware of what he writes and what he teaches.
https://virginiahistory.org/learn/historical-media/real-lost-cause-idea-union-memory-civil-war-gary-w-gallagher
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Was for slavery, you are all liars and monsters that say it wasn't, as a Southerner, I deny your lie's, and spit at your feet sir's for muddying the very real history of our forefathers. For shame.
HB, you post quotes out of context and without any timestamps nor proper attributions. For example, the Sherman quote was from pre-war. I challenge you to contrast his pre-war 1860 statements with those of Sherman in 1865 as the war is winding down.
Also, many people don't know the history of how the ACW even came to be. It was not a moral issue, it was a human rights issue. Here's a brief rundown of how things changed.
Pre-1800 founders knew the fledgling republic could not survive being plunged into a civil war so soon after narrowly winning a revolution. So they compromised and created the 20-year moratorium referenced in the Constitution in places like Article 1, Section 9 which defined it and Article 5 which set the end date at 1808. This compromise would dominate both the politics and way of life of America for the next 70+ years.
The Founders' fears of a British re-invasion were fully realized as the succession of states joining the Union post-ratification, were deciding whether to enter the Union as a slave state or a free state led to raucous debates and even violence in areas of the new country once the 20-year moratorium expired on January 1, 1808 and next up was the admittance of the state of Louisiana. The westward expansion of the United States was about to begin and that played a part along with the divided nature of American politics of the time. Thus, the War of 1812 began just 2 months after Louisiana was admitted to the Union.
Moving on, the 1820s-1840s were a time of constant conflict as the westward expansion crept further and the question of slave state vs free state became more and more divisive. Interrupted only briefly by the Mexican-American War which briefly drew both sides back together for a common cause.
Bleeding Kansas became a thing in the 1850s due to the extreme amounts of violence surrounding the issue and one can argue that the first shots of the Civil War were actually fired in the 1850s.
1860 election saw Lincoln, a pro-abolitionist, become president via the popular vote despite the fact that 10 slave states refused to carry him on the ballot. After he won, those states all began the process of seceding from the Union. Knowing that Lincoln would not only block the westward expansion of slavery, but ultimately get rid of slavery altogether.
Moving on to the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation, that infuriated the majority in the Republican party of that time. So much so that they told Lincoln he would not be allowed to run for reelection as a Republican, effectively kicking him out of the party. Thus, Lincoln formed an independent third-party called the Unity Party in 1864 and chose a Democrat as his running mate. The Republican party nominated pro-slavery candidate John C. Calhoun on their 1864 ticket. The Democrats nominated former general George McClellan as their candidate.
EDIT: Further context. The GOP in 1863 were tired of the fighting and wanted to compromise for peace. Either allowing the secession or readmitting the states and allowing slavery to continue. Lincoln rejected that and the Emancipation changed the nature of the war from preserving the Union to that of ending the issue of slavery while preserving the Union. That was non-negotiable to many in the GOP and led to Lincoln's exit from the Republican Party. In hindsight, Lincoln was right to stand his ground and face excommunication from his own party over the issue. It finally, mostly, but not completely, ended the issue once and for all. And America has been the better for it.
Now, speaking of wartime, no one in the Confederacy was a US citizen, There were no Democrats or Republicans in the Confederacy since, you have to be a US citizen to belong to either party. The main requirement to join the Confederacy was to renounce your US citizenship. Thus, this avoids the whole "Democrats did this, no Republicans did that..." silly arguments because the Democrats and Republicans were both on the same side and both were part of the Union.
As a veteran, that was my biggest issue in defining who was right vs who was wrong when I got older and came to realize that things like oaths and citizenship are not taken, nor thrown away, lightly. That there were people who were so intent on enslaving another people that they renounced their citizenship, their country and their way of life is just so alien to me as to be incomprehensible. So is the idea of, "Well, my home state joined the Confederacy, so I will too." Again, that's just incomprehensible to me. But then, I was raised to know right from wrong. And the military further instilled a sense of moral right vs wrong, ethics, etiquette, devotion, and loyalty.
I could have never done it. But still, I admit for fictional "What If" games, it can be entertaining to talk about. Just like any conflict or historical perspective. I just would never want something so horrific to ever come true. It would be like people wanting to turn the USA into Nazi Germany or something. And I'm not saying anyone does want that, I'm just saying it would have been as bad as that if it had happened and the South would have actually won. There's no debating it.
Here is another.
As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
the shame is all yours, to thick to notice the quotes actual meaning.
You have grown older, not grown up, and since you start with a childish insult i will treat you in the same manner as you like treat others.
No i did not, your just to uneducated and uniformed to understand context.
Btw Sherman refused to allow USCT to serve under him during the war https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/423 and explains why*. Slavery he wrote was "the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore." "All the congresses on earth can't make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man," Sherman 1860. "Two such races cannot live in harmony save as master and slave."1860 "I like ♥♥♥♥♥♥s well enough as ♥♥♥♥♥♥s, but when fools and idiots try and make ♥♥♥♥♥♥s better than ourselves, i have an opinion." Sherman 1864, or ""It is an insult to our Race to count them" as equivalent to white men in the draft quota" As his biographers wrote of him pre war and during the war and post war, John F. Marszalek puts it, Sherman "maintained the racial views of a Southern slaveholder."
*
'Is not a negro as good as a white man to stop a bullet!' Yes, and a sand-bag is better; but can a negro do our skirmishing and picket duty! Can they improvise roads, bridges, sorties, flank movements, &c., like the white man! I say no. Soldiers must and do many things without orders from their own sense, as in sentinels. Negroes are not equal to this. I have gone steadily, firmly, and confidently along, and I could not have done it with black troops, but with my old troops I have never felt a waver of doubt, and that very confidence begets success." Sherman
You dont know the history, others do, you for instance mis use the term human rights when the term was not around then, its not till 1948 the right of not to be enslaved becomes a recognised legal human right. your brief rundown is not bad history, its not a lot of actual history at all, its mostly your propaganda, full of made up claims, example you were only a citizen of a state you were born into, you rights extend to other states in the Union and are enumerated in the constitution. See State V Manual 1838 for SC ruling of state citizenship or McIlvaine vs. Coxe, in 1805, which held that, "on the 4th of October, 1776, the State of New Jersey was completely a Sovereign, Independent State, and had a right to compel the inhabitants of the State to become citizens thereof." Congress explained at the onset the WBTS, that it was not to interfere in any states domestic institution and would end as soon as the states returned to the union. During the WBTS the free states, without the CS states in congress, voted to not end slavery where they had the votes to end it in the union, US spent the first year not freeing any slaves but returning them to their owners, and removing Mil commanders who did free slaves.
Wilmot admitted, "I make no war upon the South, nor upon slavery in the South. I have no . . . Sympathy for the slave. I plead the cause . . . of white freemen. I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor."
Eight years later in 1854 future President Lincoln said: "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." Four years afterward in 1858 Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull said, "We, the Republican party, are the white man's party." That same year Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson said, "I do not believe in the equality of the African with the white race."
The year Lincoln was elected President in 1860 his future Secretary of State, William Seward, said, "The great fact is now fully realized that the African race here [in America] is a foreign element incapable of assimilation. . . " Frank Blair, whose brother became Lincoln's Postmaster General and chief advocate for re-provisioning Fort Sumter, told audiences that the "Republican Party is the white man's party and will keep the Territories for white men."
What Lincoln Believed: The Values of America's Greatest President author Michael Lind writes:
"For Lincoln . . . the movement against the extension of slavery was half of a program to create a white West, the other half of which consisted of state laws designed to keep blacks out of Northern and Western states. For example, the Indiana territorial legislature outlawed black court testimony in cases involving whites (1803), blacks in the militia (1807) and black voting (1810). In 1815 an annual tax was imposed on all black men. . . The nearby Illinois territory legislature passed a bill in 1813 requiring every incoming black . . . to leave. Failure to comply . . . [was punishable by] 39 lashes, repeated every fifteen days until the [black offender] left. Lincoln was well-aware of such Black Laws and voted for them repeatedly in Illinois because he felt they were necessary to prevent racial integration. . . "
"Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals"
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
"I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship"
-Abraham Lincoln
"I will to the very last stand by the law of this state[], which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."
-Abraham Lincoln
The Ohio supreme court Calvin v. Carter
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
Thacher v. Hawk Indiana supreme court
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind - walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony.
Crandall v. The State Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.
Pre war, Dickens and other Europeans all wrote about what they saw in America and commented on racism being worse in the North than the south.
Segregation did not exist in the slave states, it was a free state invention. New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all segregated black and white and denied free blacks the right to vote, ( no black could use the courts so no contract with them was able to be enforced by the black, as the black could not counter what the white man said in court) and taught blacks differently than whites, including their place in society, post WBTS the former slave states enacted jim crow laws, all initially taken from existing free states laws, including on how to educate blacks.
Made up revisionist claims, Lincoln was not an abolitionist when elected and its electoral votes not popular votes that win Presidential elections, you can become POTUS without the popular vote.
The context here is that you say Lincoln left the republican party over emancipation, ( not abolition) when he did not do so, you claim the Republican would accept peace and secession and they did not do so.
OMG, you clearly like to prattle on about topics you know nothing about, each individual was citizen of his state, born into or naturalized into, its to you state you swear your oath of allegiance to to hold mil rank or political office, to serve in federal office you re affirm that and then take another oath to the union, but your primary fealty is to you state and took precedence. Your state membership of the union meant you individual right extend to those other states, when it left, so did your rights, hence 1864 Davis expelled around 200,000 male citizens of non CS members citizens who were in it to avoid US conscription or become citizens of the CS state they were residents of and go onto the militia rolls and be conscripted into CS service.
Indeed, which was why to rejoin the Union you had to renounce your oath of loyalty to your state, give up you state citizenship, and take the newly minted iron clad oath to the federal Government instead and replace state citizenship with federal citizenship and get your passport from the federal government instead of your state, or you had no rights in the union and was in large part why the war went on as long as it did as it was widely held to be rather important then as well.
Its incomprehensible ( from you uniformed grasp of history) because it never happened as you think, outside your revisionist ideas, lastly Sherman resigned his post to go back to his State when LA seceded and was no longer in the Union, declining an offer to become a La citizen and stay in LA service. Just like French officers left NATO posts when France withdrew.
It was the only reason for the start of the war.
Quote:
Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[2][3]
Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is become the chief of the corner'—the real 'corner-stone'—in our new edifice.[1]
Alexander Stephens Vice President Confederate States
End Quote:
The war came about because Southern Plantations owners feared their would be more free states than slave states meaning that slavery would be abolished in a vote so it was about the spread of slavery not slavery itself.
Lincoln offered to keep slavery in place in 1861.
Most of what you know about the Confederacy is called the Lost Cause written after the events and most after Lee's death in 1870 because Lee was a moral truthful man and would never have endorsed the crap that was about to be written.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lac-8tTuyhs
No matter what you think of this guy he just tells you facts and backs up all his claims because i cant be arsed writing a whole page again every-time a lost causer starts spewing bile.
Fact free revisionism, your usual post content i might add.
Most of what you think you know is called fiction. You also lie when you claim to know what the poster knows, you also cant read what he wrote and repley to it but prefer to make up stuff and reply to your own made up stuff instead.
The Lost cause, was first coined, explained in print in his book of the same name, , by Pollard in 1866 who used lees correspondence, with permission, as supporting documentation. https://www.loc.gov/item/02011254/#:~:text=Pollard%2C%20E.%20A.%20(1867)%20The,struggle%20of%20the%20world's%20history. "Drawn from official sources, and approved by the most distinguished Confederate leaders."
He did not offer anything, he actually said he had no inclination or lawful authority to do anything about slavery. ""I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln 1861
Which is the same as lets keep the Status Quo or Keep Slavery in place.
It was about the spread of slavery even a die hard lost causer such as yourself has got to admit to that as long as more Free States joined the Union slavery would have been abolished eventually the writing was on the wall and Southern Planters knew it.
No its not, ( more of you usual reading impairment) its not an offer, as POTUS he explains he has no authority or inclination to do anything about slavery, he is not offering anything but explaining his intentions and authority, which is not how you described it, not does POTUS words support that its a conflict over abolition, its an admission the federal government has no authority in the matter, to be slave or not is a matter for the separate states. Congress resolved that to be the case also in 1861.
You also cant not be arsed to learn any history, but prefer to post uneducated fiction.
USSC had already ruled slavery was lawful over the entire domain of the union, thus ending the apartheid free states exclusion of Negros, USSC ruled congress could not limit it geographically so in fact as many more slave states coming in was just as possible as free states coming in. Slavery may indeed have died a natural death from the non political determined limit of its spread, we will never know.
What we do know is slavery was abolished only because the slave states chose to amend the constitution and end it, ( which shows threats to the existence in the far future to slavery was not the principle cause of why they resisted) while they were not in congress to oppose it, the free states could not even end it for the border states, so your what if is not supported by the actual votes of free states when they have the majority to end slavery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yylf6xUSQos
The answer to who, not where it was payed is to be found in the US Treasury* accounting, as used in books like https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/34/3/614/38995?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Van Deusen, Economic Bases of Disunion in South Carolina
"The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less."
The importance of the tarif is to be found in the seperate states conventions on it, but its nota breach of the compact to have a uniform federal tax have un equal effects on the states citizens, so you can be voting to secede over a legal breach, like slavery, while doing so because of the economic effects of the tariff.
John Cunningham, and others at the secession ordinances of SC On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North
"The legislation of this Union has impoverished them [the Southern States] by taxation and by a diversion of the proceeds of our labor and trade to enriching Northern Cities and States. These results are not only sufficient reasons why we would prosper better out of the union but are of themselves sufficient causes of our secession. Upon the mere score of commercial prosperity, we should insist upon disunion. Let Charleston be relieved from her present constrained vassalage in trade to the North, and be made a free port and my life on it, she will at once expand into a great and controlling city."
"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."
According to Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, "[T]he exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.... Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government." He stated that, as a result of unfair legislation, wealth flowed from the South to the North in "one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream." This economic tug-of-war had been going on between the North and South for decades and finally the sectional party which had openly avowed hostility to the South had gained control of both Congress and the White House. It should be remembered that throughout his political career, Lincoln had always identified himself as a disciple of Henry Clay in fiscal matters, and the whole country knew that upon his nomination, he had committed himself to a high tariff policy if elected President. This state of affairs sheds valuable light on why the Gulf States reacted to Lincoln's victory as they did. The complaints of the South were sometimes couched in terms of slavery and other times in terms of finances, but it is clear that self-preservation alone drove the Southern States out of the Union. In a statement issued on 25 December 1860, the South Carolina Convention summarized the South's complaint against the North as follows:
Discontent and contention have moved in the bosom of the Confederacy for the last thirty-five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn convention, to take into consideration the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But these hopes and expectations have proved to be void.
The one great evil, from which all the other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution. The Government is no longer the government of a Confederate Republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism. The Revolution of 1776 turned upon one great principle — self-government and self-taxation — the criterion of self-government.
The Southern States now stand in the same relation towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation, that our ancestors stood toward the people of Great Britain. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors, in the British Parliament, for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue — to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the people of the Northern States, but, after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended in the North.
Lincoln
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop."
And ill close with Lincoln but note not paying your tarif is not a a crime, when SC did it earlier POTUS was told to obtain a force act to compel SC to do so, or face impeachment by D Webster, Lincoln sent Seward to get a force act and it was denied by congress.
When it was suggested that the provisional Government at Montgomery be allowed to continue unmolested until the seceded States could be brought back peaceably, Lincoln replied, "And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten per cent tariff? What then, would become of my tariff?".
*Others used the treasury reports to explain the imbalance of the uniform tariff.
Garnet gives it thus: "The amount levied from customs since the foundation of the Government has been about 1047 millions of dollars ; and had these duties been paid in the ratio which the Constitution indicates as just and proper, the South would
have paid 442, and the North 605. But, as we shall see hereafter, the slave States have really paid 798 millions, and the free States only 249. Therefore the South has gained nothing by this stipulation in return for her loss of representation."
Hammond was another and used a different time period so had a different set of numbers his claim does have a basis in fact, in the 30-40, that was the case, total revenue was $107.5 million, with $90 millions coming from Southern states (he used Dl/Marlyand as southern states for this calculation), and the north paying $17.5. By 1860 expotrts from those same Southern states was $214 and North$47 million, in both instances in the therefore the southern contribution was 87% or so of tax and exports.
"The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandize exported, was $927,050,097.* Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the Free
States only $215,850,097."
$927,-050,097 The annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury
$711,200,000 The annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury
$215,850,097 The annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tariff-History-United-States/dp/1402197853 "The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes.
Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected. At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people
For you to say the Confederacy existed for one reason is dishonest.
If that were the case, The American South wouldnt have gone to war with the political Union in 1640 during the English Civil War.
The American South would not remain distinct from the political Union or the North even to this day if slavery were the sole reason for the South desiring to be politically independent in the same way it was economically (see the Tariff conflict), ethnically (most recent study on Anglo-Saxons demonstrates Southerners are ethnically Anglo-Norman while Northerners are primarily Ethnic Britons), and militarily independent (Southern militias were the vanguard for the freebooters and settlers).
It is far worse to keep an independent people in bondage than to keep slaves, slaves were POWs, their lives were over when they lost their tribal war, they were not a nation, not a people, they were random prisoners captured by malian nobles and sold to the English in exchange for money which they used to buy Dane Guns which they turned on their tribal enemies to get more slaves.
You are deranged if you think slavery, something common to the Romans, Ottomans, Spartans, Persians, etc. is some profound evil.
Furthermore, Sparta is what a slave society actually looks like. The South was not a slave society, Sparta was, Spartans, even their kings, were forbidden from holding wealth beyond a certain threshhold, the average Athenian citizen was wealthier than Spartan kings, the reason being the Spartans enforced their reliance on slavery in law, as their primary founding document, not protected the freedom to own slaves, but enforced slavery, you can not become a Spartiate if you are not a slave holder, that is what a slave society actually looks like.
Everyone loves Spartans except for those with an ethnic axe to grind, likewise everyone loves the Confederacy except for those with an ethnic axe to grind.