When have I disagreed with this? This all sounds right to me- although “the people” obviously does not include the slaves in these cases.
The South remembered the example of Haiti and it was often cited as why not a single inch of liberalization on the subject of slavery could ever be allowed.
Who defended the CSA? Is it really necessary in 2013 that slavery is a disgraceful evil? Many people believe what Lincoln did was admirable because slavery was ended during and after the Civil War. How can his actions be admirable when it wasn’t his goal to begin with. He viewed the collection of the tariff to be of utmost importance, threatening invasion if it was necessary to collect it in his inaugural address. He supported the Corwin amendment. Case closed.
Slavery was evil. Lincoln took steps to make it inviolable with the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln is God? Sorry I don’t see it.
Approval isn’t that significant. Your argument to me is like saying since the USDA inspects beef and regulates how it is produced, without the government we wouldn’t have hamburgers.
Government will always deal with armed bands (as a revolt is always going to be) roaming through the countryside, regardless of origin. But not all governments historically took a big hand in say, recapturing runaway slaves. That’s true in the Roman days, in Europe when it practiced slavery and serfdom, and in the antebellum South. Catching runaway slaves has always been something most governments of slave societies view as “well, the slave holder has the incentive to get that slave back, if we happen to run into it we’ll chain him up and send him back but we’re not going to work up a sweat looking for him.”
It’s unlikely most slaves in any unfree society had significant ideas about what the “next step” would be if they started a revolt or whatever. I doubt the fear of the legions is why all the Roman slaves didn’t revolt constantly. Unless they read history and understood Roman society pretty well they wouldn’t have a proper conception of it.
You’re bordering on Freemen on the Land territory here trying to make some big deal out of a small part of a Lincoln speech and use it to warp historical reality.
The overwhelming, undeniable in fact, weight of historical evidence shows that Lincoln’s desire to maintain the union was the single most important issue to him before, during, and after the Civil War. The idea that because of a passage in his speech that mentions collecting tariffs that was his primary motivation is mind boggling and is showing a poor view and understanding of history. You’re ignoring the forest while focusing on a single sapling.
You’re correct though that Lincoln was not at all motivated to end slavery as President. He wanted to prevent its spread, but did not view it as appropriate Federal prerogative to end slavery where it already existed. I don’t believe sans Civil War Lincoln ever would have moved to end slavery in the South.
However, as the war progressed his views on both blacks and slavery changed. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation he viewed it as a powerful tool against the South, as it would deny them their plantation labor anytime Union armies controlled territory in the South thousands of slaves would be emancipated. Any slaves near Union lines instantly had incentive to flee and good prospects for not getting caught. At the time he still held to his views that slaves once free post-war would need to eventually be shipped to Africa as there was no long term workable prospects for keeping them in the United States.
By the end of the War though he had truly moved past those views, and wanted them to eventually be integrated into American society. Many people afford Lincoln very little credit or give him much nuance, they point to his earlier comments about deporting slaves (very typical of the more enlightened whites of his time) and ignore the fact that clearly by 1865 his views had changed on the matter.
I do think it’s fair to say that even in his antebellum and frankly racist days, Lincoln wanted to prevent the spread of slavery so that it would (eventually) end. He didn’t want to invade South Carolina on an anti-slavery crusade, but he was against slavery and wanted to see it–somehow, some way–eliminated, and that was true for his entire political career. Even the Corwin Amendment would still have left the door open for preventing the spread of slavery to new places and for the eventual abolition of slavery by the several states (as slavery had already been abolished in one state after another, beginning during the Revolutionary Era and continuing on up into the 19th Century).
I’m curious. Who do you think ended slavery? Or are you perhaps under the belief that slavery still exist in the United States?
Remember what I suggested about checking your facts?
The Corwin Amendment was enacted by Congress on March 2, 1861 - while Buchanan was still President. Being as Lincoln wasn’t a member of Congress when it was enacted nor President yet, I don’t know what steps you imagine he took.
He did mention it in his inaugural address: “I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. 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. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
I don’t think “I haven’t seen it but I have no objection to it” counts as a statement of support.
Government approval is everything (hyperbolically speaking)- without it, slavery can’t exist on a significant scale. Never has, and never can.
I’m not sure you’re very well informed on this issue. There is widespread slavery today, illegal in almost every case.
Chattel slavery? Not without serious government approval and support.
Might it be more productive to simply list the ways the US/state/local governments were complicit in America’s “peculiar institution”? I’ll try, but my knowledge of American historic law is lacking (but pretty good for a foreigner).
The US government (being the highest power in the land) was ultimately responsible in creating, interpreting, and enforcing all laws governing the institution of slavery in America. So, it was the US law makers that first created the legal status of “slave” and if the US supreme court said you were a slave then, you were a slave.
Many tried to sue for freedom (including famous cases like United States v. The Amistad and Dred Scott v. Sandford). The (ultimately) only reason that millions people were enslaved in the US is because the federal government created laws enabling this to happen (not surprising because many of the US founders were slavers).
Conversely the only reason the slavery was stopped was because the US federal government abolished slavery (with the enforcement of the US army).
Which is not at all what I’m talking about (hence the qualifier “on a significant scale”). A slave society cannot exist without government approval and support- never has, and not possible.
You have misunderstood his point. Lincoln’s “goal to begin with” was the preservation of the Union, not the abolition of slavery.
It is true that Lincoln eventually took the steps necessary to abolish slavery in the U.S., but that was not his initial goal.
I don’t think that admiring Lincoln should be limited to his initial intentions, of course, and I think the preservation of the Union was Good Thing, but WillFarnaby’s point was that failing to seek abolition from the outset argues against admiration. :::shrug:::
How do you define society? There is widespread slavery in Africa such that it is very commonplace in some areas. In Mauritania there are many entire villages that are enslaved, have been all their lives, and there has been no significant rebellion or etc going on. Mauritania has not had legalized slavery since 1905, and there are estimated to be over 600,000 slaves in the country–out of a population of just over 3 million.
It would have been easy for America to have avoided the Civil War - it should just have stayed a loyal part of the British Empire.
The South would never have dared to rebel against the whole Empire, particularly without the example of the successful American revolution - for one, where would they have sold their cotton? They would have been in the same case as the sugar planters of the Carribian bits of the Empire - and had emancipation put to them, peacefully. 
In the parts of Mauritania that the national government (which is both weak and corrupt) actually wields some control, there is little slavery. In other parts, the local leaders/governments, often at odds with the weak and corrupt national government, approve of and support local slavery.
Essentially, it’s as if the US had declared slavery illegal in 1860 but did little or nothing about it- slavery still would have existed in the South, because of strong local and state government approval and support.
In all cases in history and the modern world, slavery on a significant scale does not exist unless whichever government (national, regional, or local) has the most control at a particular place approves of it and supports it.
Slavery can’t exist unless the “powers that be” support it.
However, in some places, the “powers that be” are the slave-owners themselves.
This isn’t surprising - at its base, slavery is the extraction of labour by force, and so of course it needs those who control the force to support it.
This is exactly my point- with the qualifier that slavery can’t exist on a large scale unless the “powers that be” support it.