That’s an absurd statement to make. Worse? How could you possibly know that it would be worse? Worse than 500,000 people dying? Worse than destroying 60% of the southern economy? Think about how many people that is. 500,000. In the the 1860’s. That would be similar to our president today initiating a war that killed 4 MILLION american citizens. And they didn’t have nukes or bombs or anything back then! Hundreds of thousands of young americans killed by guns, cannons, and bayonets. Whatever happened to state’s rights? What is so inherently wrong with this? The Declaration of Independence was in fact a document of secession! We seceded from English control! And suddenly
Now, I may have exaggerated with the inventing the union out of whole cloth bit. However, saying that state sovereignty is morally indefensible is absurd. The Declaration of Independence was in fact a document of secession! We seceded from English control! And suddenly secession becomes immoral? How do you make that distinction? What made the southern secession immoral and the Declaration of Independence moral?
And in regard to constitutionality…Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, when they ratified the constitution, made clear that they did so with the condition that they could secede if they chose. Jefferson, Madison et al. all made statements defending the right of secession. For some more specific quotes:
From Democracy in America by Tocqueville:
“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.”
From the man himself, Abraham Lincoln, in 1848:
“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.”
I know this is not The BBQ Pit, but this has to be among the most ridiculous and plainly ignorant statements ever. I come from a long line of Southerners who were dirt poor and just tried to get along, to lump us in with Nazis and Soviets is stupendously wrong.
What Exit, if T.R. were alive and running today, I’d probably vote for him over anyone else yet mentioned as a prospect for 2008. But he wouldn’t even have had the chance to serve as President had not Washington been the absolutely indispensable man who helped the country win its independence, or served two capable and thoughtful terms, establishing the foundation of a long-lasting republic, before retiring to Mount Vernon.
Washington selected both Hamilton and Jefferson for his Cabinet, and managed their egos well before partisanship took hold; adroitly handled the country’s foreign policy, avoiding hostilities with either the French or the British; suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion and then pardoned its leaders; supported the Bill of Rights, the Judiciary Act and enabling legislation for the Northwest Territory (which limited the spread of slavery, something many antebellum Southerners forgot); signed the Jay Treaty; appointed the entire Supreme Court (even FDR didn’t do that!), and (as Jonathan Chance noted), he established a tradition of integrity, probity and public-mindedness that every President since has struggled to emulate.
WillMagic, I think you grossly overstate the case against Lincoln. Yes, he exercised sweeping powers, and I agree that the arrests of opposition journalists were a mistake (as was the suspension of habeas corpus in too many places and at too many times), but Lincoln thought - correctly - that stern measures were necessary to win the war. He goofed now and again, but most of what he did has since been acknowledged by the vast majority of historians as necessary to achieve victory. Lissa is right. Lincoln didn’t want a war, but he did want to preserve the Union. That was his paramount goal, and everything he did was with that in mind. I urge you to take a look at his First Inaugural, or read up on what happened before the Confederate forces in Charleston, S.C. harbor fired on Ft. Sumter in April 1861. Lincoln didn’t start the war, but he waged it to the utmost of his ability once it began.
ITR champion, slavery was actually abolished through passage of the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln strongly supported (although it was ratified eight months after his death). Andrew Johnson had nothing to do with it (and probably opposed it). Johnson had far less concern for black Americans than Lincoln - who, I concede, placed preservation of the Union over abolition as a national priority, while never disavowing his hope that “all men might be free.”
Well, clearly these measures were necessary to win the war…but the war wasn’t justified or necessary in the first place.
I don’t really care what Lincoln wanted, or what he said he wanted. I care about what he did. What he did was mass murder on a scale unparalleled in American history. What he did was violate civil liberties on a scale unparalleled in American history. These means do not justify the end of “preserving the union.” Sorry.
Man, I hear people constantly complaining about Bush…how Iraq is an unjust war, how he has desecrated civil liberties, etc., and yet they give Lincoln a free pass even though his violations were far more egregious.
Again, I really don’t care what Lincoln said. I don’t use that as a basis to judge a president. I care about what he did.
From The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo:
"Lincoln had been advised by his top military commander, General Winfield Scott, and most of his cabinet, to abandon Fort Sumter. The Confederate States of America would no more tolerate a Federal fort within their borders than the colonials would have tolerated a British fort in Boston or New York harbor, and to these advisers it wasn’t worth going to war over.
Lincoln promised over and over that he was not planning on reprovisioning Fort Sumter, which had almost run out of food, oil, and other porvisions. He lied. He sent a naval force ostensibly to reprovision the fort, accompanied by heavily armed battleships. The historian Bruce Catton explains how Lincoln maneuvered Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot:
‘* Lincoln had been plainly warned by [his military advisers] that a ship taking provisions to Fort Sumter would be fired on. Now he was sending the ship, with advance notice to the men who had the guns. He was sending war ships and soldiers as well…If there was going to be a war it would begin over a boat load of salt pork and cackers…Not for nothing did Captain Fox remark afterward that it seemed very important to Lincoln that South Carolina "should stand before the civilized world as having fired upon bread. *’"
This opinion was all over the place in the Northern newspapers (wonder why Lincoln imprisoned 15,000 of them?) Some examples (mentioned in The Real Lincoln, I should note,) first from the Providence Daily Post dated April 13, 1861:
“For three weeks the administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned…Mr Lincoln saw an opportunity without appearing in the character of the aggressor…”
From the Jersey City American Standard dated April 12, 1861:
“this unarmed vessell(sic)…is a mere decoy to draw the first fire form the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.”
DiLorenzo has little credibility as a serious historian, IMHO, but he sure hates Lincoln, WillMagic. He’s notorious for it.
Lincoln was determined to hold onto Federal property and installations in the South. He gave notice to the South Carolina governor that he intended to resupply Major Anderson and the troops in Ft. Sumter with an unarmed ship, the Star of the West. Confederate batteries drove it off, and later fired on Ft. Sumter. Yes, Lincoln wanted it clear that the Confederacy was firing the first shots - wouldn’t you, in his shoes?
Newspapers of the era were incredibly partisan, so I’m not surprised that you could find two that were critical of Lincoln. But to call Lincoln a "mass murder"er is just… bizarre. I suggested you read his speeches because they reveal his motivations - why he did what he did. It wasn’t out of bloodthirstiness.
Elendil’s Heir: How do you reconcile George Washington the Slave owner with being the greatest President? I can’t excuse him or Jefferson.
…I was arguing in another thread recently that Adams was at least the better man than Jefferson for his anti-slavery attitude and the belief in a strong central government with a very strong Navy. He had some drawbacks, but I respect him far more than Jefferson.
Anaamika: Hooray, I was thinking I stood alone. The man forced the US onto the world stage and tried to break the Isolationist streak of America. Even as an ex-President he pushed the country and Wilson hard to join the British side in WWI.
The Declaration of Independence was a document of revolution, not seccession. The American colonies claimed that they had an inherant right to overthrow the British government in America and set up their own. They had this right according to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
But that’s not what the seceeding states were claiming during the Civil War. Those states were claiming they had a legal right to secede, under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Revolution recognizes no law or moral code. Any group of people, whatever their cause, may revolt, and if they are strong enough, may prevail, and establish a government of their choosing, and the southern states had as much right to try as anyone. However, that doesn’t mean that the government was compelled to allow them to do so. Because, just as any group of people may revolt, any government may attempt to preserve itself and stop the rebellion.
So, if we are looking for moral answers, we can not find them in the act of rebellion itself, but instead in the purposes for which a people revolt, and against whom they revolt. And what does this example show us? It shows us that the government against which the people are revolting is a democratic republic which recognizes basic rights of its citizens. It is no tyranny or despotism.
And who are those who spark a revolution? It is the Slave Power, who, with the election of Lincoln, failing in its attempt to subvert the will of the people and put another servant, not of the people, but itself, into the White House, made up some nonsense about “states’ rights” to justify their rebellion. I call this nonsense, not because states’ rights are nonsense, but because it had no interest in the rights of the states until it was used as an excuse. Indeed, all of its actions, from the purchase of Louisiania, to the War of 1812, to the Fugitive Slave law, to the war with Mexico, to the Dred Scott decision itself, were affronts against states’ rights, and increased the power of the centeral government in the interest of slavery.
Well said, Captain Amazing. I would also note that the colonists had no representation in the British parliament, while the South was fully (indeed, due to the “three-fifths of all other persons” clause of the U.S. Constitution, disproportionately) represented in the national government which it tried to break up.
What Exit, I admit that slavery is a terrible blot on Washington’s legacy. He was a Virginia plantation-owning aristocrat, and they were all part of that dreadful institution. But I would also say (drawn from Wikipedia.org):
*As [Washington] progressed in life, he became increasingly uneasy with the “peculiar institution,” and historian Roger Bruns wrote, “As he grew older, he became increasingly aware that it was immoral and unjust.”
…After the Revolution, Washington told an English visitor, “I clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our [Federal] union by consolidating it on a common bond of principle.” The buying and selling of slaves, as if they were “cattle in the market”, especially outraged him. He wrote to his friend John Francis Mercer in 1786, “I never mean . . . to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.” Ten years later he wrote to Robert Morris, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the gradual abolition [of slavery].”
As President, Washington was mindful of the risk of splitting apart the young republic over the question of slavery. He did not advocate the abolition of slavery while in office, but did sign legislation enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory, writing to his good friend the Marquis de la Fayette that he considered it a wise measure. Lafayette urged him to free his slaves as an example to others… Washington did not free his slaves in his lifetime, but included a provision in his will to free the slaves upon the death of his wife, the only slaveowning Framer to do so. *
Washington also respected slave marriages and didn’t split up married couples and their children. He provided for the education of his slaves, and paid “pensions” for elderly slaves - all highly unusual among his peers.
Slavery is evil, IMHO, in all times and under all circumstances, but some sense of historical perspective is necessary when judging the actions of those in the past.
I do judge him as a man of his times and he is a far greater man than Jefferson who even in death freed few slaves and was around $100,000 in debt.
But leaders like John Adams fought to free the slaves earlier and only conceded at last to form the Union. He found slavery repugnant and the Adams’ treated Black Men as fully human and educated at least one who came into their employ as a Teen. Franklin was part of early movements to end slavery. These are truly great men without the taint of slavery. Many throughout the colonies were already starting movements to end slavery, North and South. There were also still Northerners guilty of profiting by the slave trade from the shipping of slaves. I cannot excuse George from his keeping of slaves, I will give him credit for being better than his slave owning peers.
It is too big of a negative to put him ahead of TR or Lincoln. I like Reagan for winning the Cold War but I strongly disliked his Environmental and Economics policies. I like FDR for building the infrastructure of the nation, but I don’t like how much power he had gathered to the executive branch and that he actually served more than 2 terms.
Lame. Lame lame lame. Feel free to show where he made errors, if you so choose. But just waving your hands and calling him not credible doesn’t hold any water at all. For years most economists felt Mises and Hayek were not credible and ridiculous. Guess what. The world was wrong and Mises and Hayek were right.
Of course, I would want it clear - IF MY GOAL WAS WAR. You said in a previous post that Lincoln didn’t start the war, that he simply responding to the South’s aggression, when really Lincoln was manipulating the South into firing the first shot. Lincoln knowingly forced the South’s hand. As such, the fact that the South shot first is no justification for Lincoln’s actions.
Well, I’m not writing a book. Those were only two of many quotes that DiLorenzo listed.
Shocking, yes, but perfectly justified IMO. The guy started an unnecessary war that killed 500,000 people. In 1860. If that’s not mass murder, what is?
Again, why do you place so much emphasis on what he said? Lincoln was a masterful politician. His speeches are going to present his actions in the best possible light, and rationalize them in the most eloquent ways. But he didnt’ even rationalize them in terms of ending slavery! He rationalized them in terms of “saving the union.” Why, praytell, was saving the union worth killing 500,000 people? Nobody has answered this satisfactorily. BrainGlutton came up with the ephemeral “it would have been worse otherwise” with no logical analysis that would take us to that conclusion. What was so important about “saving the union?”
*Saving the Union allowed the Country to go onto far greater prosperity and be ready to become the Arsenal of Peace to fight off the Nazi’s and the Communist. If not for Lincoln, where would the world be now? *
Ok that was fairly Jingoistic and out of WWII style support ads but seriously, the USA should be the beacon of hope to humanity. Not some country bordering an evil Slave holding state. How soon would the Confederacy have given up slavery on their own? What would the world be like socially and politically today if the Union was not preserved? Why did not the south give up earlier?
I do not like anything about Sherman’s March. Given the Industrial Might of the North, it is embarrassing that Lincoln failed to find a General smart enough to take advantage of it. The fact that you could buy your way out of the draft is repugnant. There is plenty to be dissatisfied with how Lincoln handled the Civil War, but I really think you go too far.
Of course they can try to do so. However if they initiate aggression then that government is in the wrong.
I disagree with this assertion. Peaceful separation is entirely moral, and stopping that separation at gunpoint is immoral. This follows from the basic philosophy of self-ownership.
Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. And Lincoln’s presidency was most definitely a tyranny of the majority. He won ZERO southern states, and then proceeded to enact tariffs gutting the south in favor of the north.
You did read the earlier post I made that thoroughly refuted the idea that Lincoln was against slavery? Slavery wasn’t an issue in the secession. If slavery was THE issue, then maybe the war could have been justified.
Ridiculous. As I mentioned in earlier posts the reasons were economic, with the northern states enforcing their tariffs on the southern states at gunpoint. State’s rights had EVERYTHING to do with the reasons behind secession.
I’m not arguing in favor of any of those actions. It’s interesting you mention the Fugitive Slave Law, which was PASSED by Lincoln, that was clearly legislation that was pro-slavery.
I agree with you that motivations matter, to some degree. The South’s motivations were far purer than the North’s…the north’s were enforcing unjust taxes upon the South, (hmm…this unjust taxes thing reminds me of the justification for another big American war…) and the South felt it was their right to form their government that served their interests and not the interests of the North.
Lincoln’s motivation was to “save the union,” to continue the domination and exploitation of the South in order to benefit the North.
I understand this is hard for all of you. We all have this image of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, the man who freed the slaves. Look deeper, however, and you find that his presidency was the most destructive in our history.
And this was the motivation behind the Civil War? In 1860? And the method of achieving this goal was a war killing 500,000 people?
Again, this was not Lincoln’s motivation in starting the war. If it was, maybe the war could have been justified. But Lincoln’s public (and private) statements are completely to the contrary.
Probably fairly quickly. Slavery managed to disappear almost completely by the end of the 19th century all over the world. Only here did we need a war to end it.
Well, the south would be far stronger economically. Atlanta, Charleston, and N.O. might be the major centers of commerce instead of New York/Boston. Taxes would probably be lower across the board all over the country, and we’d probably intervene in foreign affairs a lot less.
Maybe because they were fighting for their freedom, their right to self-government. That’s a pretty powerful motivation.
I think the fact that they drafted people is repugnant, personally. What is the difference between conscription and slavery, again?
Why exactly is it wrong? For a certainty, not every Southerner alive in 1861 was directly participating in the crimes of the South. Likewise, not every German in 1941 or every Russian in 1922 was directly involved with the crimes of those respective regimes. So to say that southerners shouldn’t be lumped together with the Nazis and Soviets is logically incoherent. The crimes of the South existed. Southerners were guilty just as the Nazis and the Soviets were guilty. Further, the number of people who suffered under slavery far exceeds the total number who suffered from the Holocaust or the Soviet massacres (or the two combined). And the crime of slavery is fundamnetally worse than mass murder. Putting someone in a gas chamber entails a lot less suffering than holding them as a slave for their entire life and then killing them once they’re no longer useful.
The dichotomy matters because the states that seceded were claming a legal right to secession that was dubious at best. The colonies in the American revolution were claiming a moral right to revolution…they weren’t claiming that their actions were legal under British law.
I don’t agree. A government has the right to put down rebellion, and that’s recognized in the Constitution in several places. For instance, in Article 1, section 8, the congress has the power to “[call] forth the militia to. . . suppress insurrections” Also, Article 3, section 3, defines treason, in part, as “levying war against [the United States]”
Clearly, we disagree on this point.
Part of the reason Lincoln won the presidency without winning any southern states was because the Southern Democrats refused to back Senator Douglas’s candidacy, feeling he was insufficiently proslavery, and nominated a second Democratic candidate. So, the Democrats were divided. And as for Lincoln’s tariffss being the cause of the secession, South Carolina seceeded in December of 1860, 3 months before Lincoln was sworn in as President. And as far as I can tell, all the states that seceded did secede before any tariffs were signed into law by the Lincoln administration. In fact, the last states to secede seceded in April of 1861, when Lincoln had less than a month as President.
I read it, but I didn’t think you were seriously trying to make that argument. Taking a few quotes out of context isn’t enough to prove that Lincoln wasn’t against slavery, and saying, as you just did, that “slavery wasn’t an issue in the secession” can’t be justified as an argument, when the states that seceded themselves said that it was an issue in their declarations of causes of secessions.
Take for instance, South Carolina:
or Georgia (bolding mine):
[quote=Georgia]
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, **anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. . . The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization. **
Or Mississippi:
Or Texas:
The reasons were exonomic in that slavery was economic. Tariffs were an issue, but not the primary issue.
There were two Fugitive Slave Laws passed, one in 1793 during the Washington Administration, and one in 1850, during the Fillmore administration. Lincoln never had anything to do with the passing of the Fugitive Slave law.
I’ve dealt with this above.
Lincoln’s motivation was to save the Union…he believed he had a moral duty to do it, but that doesn’t mean that he wanted one part of the country to benefit the other at his expense.
I’d certainly have to disagree with this, and I think a significant portion of the six million Jews slaughtered by the Nazis would as well. I think most of them would gladly have traded places with a slave in the south rather than slowly choke to death along side their children.
Not every slave was abused. Some owners prided themselves on keeping their slaves content, even if only out of the self-interested fact that miserable people produce less work. Really, lifestyle-wise, some ex-slaves had a worse existance after they were emancipated. Secondly, you’re discounting the extraordinary nature of human beings to adapt.
If you read about the lives of some slaves in the south, they’re not much different than a farmer’s life today. They worked during the daylight hours and then went home to their families. (Not all slave owners were willing to sell off slave family members-- some even tried to buy family members of their slaves from other owners if they had been split up by a previous owner.) Some were given holidays and Sundays off. They were well fed, housed, and given medical treatment when they were sick or injured.
In all the reading I have done about slaves in the south, I have never heard that it was common practice to kill slaves once they had aged out of usefulness.
There were abuses, rapes and tortures, but it wasn’t common every day practice. Just like today, some people are cruel while most are not. I’m certainly not defending slavery, because I find the concept morally abhorrent, but I dont think we should exaggerate its evils.