Posted byMessage
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4791 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


This isn't that hard.

The South knew that Lincoln would do everything within his legal power to combat slaver interests.

So the South seceded.

That was a big mistake, because they lost all their legal protections. Lincoln took advantage of his war powers to free the slaves controlled by the enemy. He didn't free all the slaves, of course, because he couldn't legally.

At any rate, the South wound up losing everything.






Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46226 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

At any rate, the South wound up losing everything.


If we had won, would the north have had open borders and the obligation to accept som of our Negroes?

Winning could have been a much worse outcome.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4791 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Secession was ultimately about the right for states to self-govern in the face of an ever growing federal government


This is laughable. The South seceded because they feared Lincoln would fight against slaver interests at every possible point--and more importantly feared that Lincoln would violate the law of the constitution to do so.

What's ironic is that in seceding, they lost all the constitutional protections they feared Lincoln would override in the first place.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4791 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


What I meant was, the interests that motivated secession wound up losing everything.

Who knows what would have happened had the South won? To be honest, a southern victory is somewhat inconceivable to me without European involvement.






Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46226 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

To be honest, a southern victory is somewhat inconceivable to me without European involvement.


I suppose that is hard to argue with, with the benefit of hindsight.

But European involvement was not inconceivable at the time.


BBTAIM, IMHO if the South had not fired on Sumpter, Lincoln would have had a very hard time raising an Army to invade the South. Abolition was not popular and the north was not going to fight for negro freedom much less equality, many were glad to see the south leave with their peculiar institution, and only the insult of firing on the Flag was enough to stir the excitement for a battle. Letting Sumpter be resupplied was not really a crucial military problem for the South.






Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4791 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Yes I agree...seems likely to me that Lincoln was goading them into war.

On the other hand, the Southerners had such a hard-on for a fight that I'm sure somewhere down the line war would've broken out.

Also, it's very conceivable to me that, had the South won, they would've sought reconciliation with the union on new terms even more favorable to their interests than the Constitution had been (hard to imagine as that is).






Back to top
Y.A. Tittle
Winthrop Fan
Member since Sep 2003
47830 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

If we had won, would the north have had open borders and the obligation to accept som of our Negroes? Winning could have been a much worse outcome.


More importantly, would Harvard of the South still be such an attractive fall back option to members of the tribe from the northeast?






Back to top
BTHog
Arkansas Fan
Member since Jul 2012
8335 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:


Secession was ultimately about the right for states to self-govern in the face of an ever growing federal government (


no it wasn't. That is of course how it is justified to the ignorant and uneducated who mainly fought the war , but in reality it was about slavery, or more specifically it was about old rich southern bastards who did not want to lose their power which they most certainly were going to if slavery were outlawed.

It was all about the balance of power within the South itself.







Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46226 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


People really were stupid back then, Rebs didn't know they were fighting to save slavery for old rich southern bastards and Yanks didn't know they were fighting for Negro equality.







Back to top
Bayou Sam
LSU Fan
Snake and Jake's Christmas Club
Member since Aug 2009
4791 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Not much has changed on that score. Though I think that to call the ignorance of the average soldier--or the average civilian for that matter--stupidity is pretty harsh.





Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46226 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


That was sarcasm.

I'm off the opinion people know why they fight, even if future generations don't. I also think the contemporary writings of the veterans provide the best evidence.






Back to top
NOLATide
Alabama Fan
New Orleans
Member since Jun 2007
2501 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.



quote:

Lincoln believed in the United States of America with no wiggle room. You were eithe rin or you were out and if you came in there was no way out in his mind

Which is why I described him as a tyrant
quote:

What does the Constitution say about secession?

What does the constitution say about a perpetual Union? What does our Declaration of Independence say about one people dissolving political bands which have connected them with another? Please refer to when the U.S. seceded from Britain.
quote:

Lincoln did cut corners, he didn't got by the book when it came to the law,


Here are some of those "cut corners" in the form of violations of the Constitution committed by Lincoln:

-Coercion in 1861. Article IV.
-Laws of Neutrality -- Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2 -- Violation of International Law.
-Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.
-War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clauses 11, 12.
-Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.
-West Virginia illegally made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.
-Freedom of Speech Denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.
-Blockading Parts of States that Were Held by the Federal Government to be Still in the Union.
-Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.
-Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3.
quote:

but it was the most serious crisis the union had ever faced

There really are no "but's" when dealing with liberty. When you make concessions for tyranny then you are damned. Read your Orwell.
quote:

and the end certainly justified the means

That's impossible to say with any certainty. This is your opinion because it's been spoon-fed a tale of goods. You can believe it. But make no mistake, in all likelihood you have less Liberty today as an end to those means.

Finally, does the statement resonate at all? Sound familiar?:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

- Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress



This post was edited on 11/21 at 11:26 pm


Back to top
goatmilker
New Orleans Saints Fan
2014 drunkin Bobby award winner!
Member since Feb 2009
13242 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Anyone who denies slavery was the root cause of secession and civil war are just in heavy denial and are in the midst of rationalizing how their ancestors could have fought and died in a war over something so cruel and so evil as the institution of slavery. Either that, or they are libertarian neo-Confederates who believe that, no matter the reason for their secession, the South had every right to do so.


Well said.

No slaves...no war. Some just refuse to see the truth.

It is well known that Lincoln and the northern troops fought to prevent the break up of the union. Some think this is breaking news after 150 years.
The South fought to preserve the enslavement of people for profit.
Civil wars never offer easy black and whites answers.
Save the union. Free the slaves. Power of the federal goverment all became parts of the war of rebellion.
If you want to cast blame look to South Carolina. I was born there. If there is one state that bears most of the blame for starting the conflict look to her.






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
13812 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


This thread is kind of silly.

For the OP, yes, Lincoln fought to preserve the Union - but that's not why the South fought. Adversaries fight for different reasons.

The South seceded over slavery, their secession documents make this clear. The North fought against secession to preserve the Union. The Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act both had to do with slavery. The South was seeing their representation in Congress diminsh as the North became more populous and they new they had to add more slave territory to maintain the power balance.

Why was the South so concerned about maintaining a power balance in Congress? In order to preserve their way of life, which was based in large part on slavery. The New England states had made it clear that they would abolish slavery if given the chance, indeed they almost seceded themselves at the 1789 convention over the issue. So at every chance they got, the worked to limit slavery.

That Lincoln could be elected represented the final shift of power to the northern states, and so at that point in time the South had a decision to make, secede or allow the northern states to abolish slavery.

So the South seceded over the issue of slavery, and the North fought to preserve the Union.

Why didn't any non-slave state vote for secession? Why didn't the western counties of Virginia vote for secession?






Back to top
TheDoc
LSU Fan
doc is no more
Member since Dec 2005
99296 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Here's a question:

If the south had not tried to secede, would the slaves have ever been freed?

I don't think they would have, at least not for some time.






Back to top
WildTchoupitoulas
Member since Jan 2010
13812 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

If the south had not tried to secede, would the slaves have ever been freed?

There are two factors here, the increasing control of Congress by northern abolitionists, and industrialization.


I'm not sure which factor would have been the driving force, but probably a combination of the two would've led to abolition eventually.

Remember, abolition was a growing movement across the globe throughout the 19th century - not just in the US.






Back to top
JB14
Ole Miss Fan
Sutpen's Hundred
Member since May 2012
254 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


While I agree (as would anyone who has read the various Declarations of Secession) that the Civil War was, in large part, fought over slavery, to claim that the common Confederate soldier fought to maintain a system of human bondage is at best, a criminal simplification of historical truth. Now, if you say they fought to uphold a social safety-net grounded in white supremacist ideology, that's a far superior claim with which I cannot really disagree.

What percentage of Confederate soldiers owned slaves? Not many. Southern yeomanry were dragged into a conflict by the planter class. To deny that a massive portion of men fought to defend home and hearth ("Pro Aris et Focis") is rather asinine.

See Confederate "Tax-In-Kind" and "20-Negro Rule" for the disproportionally damaging effects of the war on poor whites/non-slave-holders.




This post was edited on 11/22 at 10:41 am


Back to top
cssamerican
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2011
2209 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Lincoln fought the war for one reason.

He didn't want to be the President in history that allowed the country to fall apart, plain and simple.






Back to top
VOR
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
39424 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

But whether the civil War is "about" slavery is of course overly reductive, but yes, it was the primary issue. Want to know how we know this? Because the Southern secessionists told us so. They made no secret that the reason for secession was to preserve slavery and white supremacy. It was the over-arching debate in American politics for nearly 40 years. No one was being coy.


pretty much.






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
286668 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

If the south had not tried to secede, would the slaves have ever been freed?

of course






Back to top



Back to top