Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

Don't you ever tire of being right all the time?

How come the emancipator only freed the slaves in the south and waited until 1863 to do it, if it wasnt about slavery...the reason was mclellan was making a living getting his ass handed to him by bobby lee despite having a bigger army, more ammo, more supplies etc

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political master stroke designed to keep Britain from recognising the Confederacy (a permanently divided United States would otherwise have worked to England's advantage), it could not be passed with any credibility until after the major check of the Confederates at Antietam/Sharpsburg, even though the long chain of Union victories against Braxton Bragg continued unabated in the Western Theater.




The platform of the Republican Party circa. 1860... (Lincoln was their candidate).

http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

If you take the time to read the "causes of secession" linked earlier, you'll find that Lincoln's position on banning the spread of slavery to new states was precisely what pushed them over the edge, the certainty being that the Slave States (their own name for themselves BTW) would become even more of a minority.

Note that while Lincoln's own party was calling the slave trade "execrable traffic" as their official position, in the South they would soon get busy formulating a Constitution built upon chattel slavery as a "cornerstone" of their society (their own words, not mine).

In the Presidential Election of 1864, the Republican Party Platform was more explicit on the topic...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29621

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

Note that the Democrat Lincoln defeated in '64, George McClellan, was for a negotiated peace and compromise on the slavery issue.

Lincoln's masterwork was the Thirteenth Amendment, banning slavery in the whole United States, in very public progress before, and ratified after that '64 election.

So, if the war started over slavery in the South, and preservation of the Union in the North, Lincoln et al. damn sure made it about slavery too before the shooting was over.



Revisionist history? Where?

OTOH, cherry-picking facts as you do because you cannot agree with the sentiments of the actual people on the scene is also revisionism.

General Grant's wife owned slaves, Grant himself fought on Lincoln's side, including for Lincoln's position on slavery. General Lee IIRC had freed his own slaves, but chose to fight for a Constitution that was built upon slavery.

Actual reality is often like that.

Birdwatcher

More to the point, did the guy have the choice of NOT fighting?

What happened, in Texas, and all across the South, to those who chose to practice that dissent?

Birdwatcher

. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.

Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.

2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.

3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

4. Emancipation was a military policy.
As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.

In July 1862 the president presented his draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward urged him to wait until things were going better for the Union on the field of battle, or emancipation might look like the last gasp of a nation on the brink of defeat. Lincoln agreed and returned to edit the draft over the summer. On September 17 the bloody Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity he needed. He issued the preliminary proclamation to his cabinet on September 22, and it was published the following day. As a cheering crowd gathered at the White House, Lincoln addressed them from a balcony: “I can only trust in God I have made no mistake … It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment on it.”

5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.
Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[1] Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[2] Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress

36th CongressEdit
In the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[7] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[8] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[8] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[9]

On February 27, 1861, the House of Representatives considered the following text of a proposed constitutional amendment:[10]

No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.

Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121. The House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71.[10][11] On February 28, 1861, however, the House approved Corwin's version by a vote of 133 to 65.[12] The contentious debate in the House was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment's reach: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?"[8]

On March 2, 1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12.[13] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven slave states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment.[14] The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures and to be adopted "when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures".[15] Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful—just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment.

Out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it.[16] His signature on the Congressional joint resolution was unnecessary, as the Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), ruled that the President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[1][17]

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.

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[18] noting that Buchanan had approved it.[19]

The Corwin Amendment was the second proposed "Thirteenth Amendment" submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810.

The utter insanity of us re-fighting the war astounds me. Better to exploit the divide between the blacks and homosexuals. Foment division, chaos, and warfare between THEM not us!!!! Nice trap we let ourselves into. Pitting the enemy against himself is actually easy now that the SCOTUS made that decision. The "rainbow White House" has infuriated millions and we have a strategic opportunity to move on the enemy and causing their self destruction. We need unity of purpose and to stop acting like little snots who want to take their ball and go home.

I acknowledge slavery was an issue

What i,dont need is someone saying a particular state cant fly it at a confederate monument or that its offensive

Its a states rights issue not a fed govt issue

I also dont like that lincoln is glorified and now all confeserates are racist and slavery lovers

It is an unwritten rule that while WO1s can be wrong, on occasion and only if they are newly minted, CWOs in grades 2/3/4/5 are never wrong, it isn't allowed or acknowledged.

I think that Lincoln was the greatest POTUS because he preserved The Union. No other POTUS has faced a challenge that even came close to what Lincoln faced.

I don't think that all Southerners were then, or are today, racists. I don't think that all Northerners were then, or are today, not racists. I think that African-Americans are their own worst enemies, in that they make little, if any, social and economic progress despite being handed opportunity after opportunity after opportunity. In contrast, many Vietnamese who came to American in the early 1970s have become fully integrated into the American way of life. Despite being a small percentage of the population, they (as a group) put a disproportionate share of their children into highly selective colleges. Their passion for education, strong work ethic, and two parent homes are the foundation for their success.

THIS, then again we have absolute insane kooks here that are stuck in 1863 with such an insane hatred of "yankees" it borders, no it IS pathological. BTW, it's not you SAKO. Your posts are informative and well-reasoned. I've posted before, that in my belief the war WAS about state rights, but THE locus of THE RIGHT was slavery, and yes, a few states were prepared to give that up until Lincoln mobilized, but still, if you follow the MONEY (as always) it lay with the slave owners. Many here who yearned (and still do) for a Southern Victory, it's kind of hard to prove a negative, but I just don't know how a USA/CSA world would have looked like, but those here convinced that it would have been some sort of Utopia are in my view, mired in romance. Tough times we have now...

'Bout like the money in the North being tied to industrialists that couldn't stand to lose the Southern raw goods to export; thus, their backing of Lincoln.

But, hey, listen to Birdwatcher...he'll expound as to how every Southern fought for slavery or was pressed into service for the same (never mentioning the Germans and Irish pressed into service in the North against their will), despite family lineages and documentation (hint, family and individual diaries often held in museums or historical societies). He'll go chapter and verse about a history that any damned Brit (born and/or raised and educated) has no attachment to and little comprehension of. Why, it'd be like listening to Obama opine about American history and the Constitution, since he's a "scholar" of the same, at least as much so as a HS history teacher with a Brit background, right?

That war is over. History is being rewritten or deleted (I'm sure that will make life in HS history class easier), and all means to a gov't end.

What lies next; how, when, and why, are all that matter.

Here's part of the problem.



That doesn't appeal to people who are forever looking back.

I doubt there is any "unity of purpose" in this empire any longer. Therein lies the problem, and the solution.

Like I said, just follow the money. I'm not stupid Sean, I don't need to listen to BW. I've been pretty clear about the South's clear and inalienable right to do what they did. I've always supported their cause. I do firmly believe the war COULD and SHOULD have been easily avoided by Lincoln. My only point was and it really can't be proven, is the issue of two countries, western expansion (to name just one) and how that would have panned out.

I'm still enjoying Mint Juleps on the back porch, watching the dogs and shooting guns.

Right on...life ain't a game, and you don't lose 'til you quit.

That flag is just badass. Period.

Well never know if the secession wouldve been a success or not, what we do know is our federal govt now has entirey too much power

I need one of those right about now!!

My mint is waist high, 5' deep and 10' wide. I can't tell you how much Buffalo Trace that would take.

I'm not sure how the Civil War lasted as long as it did, knowing you could sit on a porch and drink Mint Juleps.

+1