One thing not considered in the great debate was the resiliance of the soldiers, and their willingness to go through the motions, and actually win.
The Northern soldier actually proved to be more reliable when it came to fighting for his cause. The desertion rate for Northern soldiers was significantly less than those for Southern soldiers throughout the conflict (even at the North's darkest times). Even though heavily defeated in some battles (2nd Bull Run), they were quickly reorganized into an efficient fighting force. Also, casualty rates in battles were pretty even, with both sides fighting the other to a stalemate (wearing eachother out). There was a mix of good and poor generalship on both sides, and a lot of luck intermixed as well.
I guess you could say, if everything went perfectly for the South, then they could have won, but life isn't perfect.
It reminds me of the 'battle' betweein police and criminals. The police can afford to make mistakes, but once a criminal makes one mistake, game over. The Union could afford mistakes, the Confederacy couldn't.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
The South has a chance if I'm playing the North!
I'm playing against the AI in my first game, and I've made many newbie mistakes. Still, I hold most of the objectives, and my NM is now over 200. But I'm not quite sure where I'll get that last victory push from! It's late August 1864 and I'm desperately trying to take Atlanta and Mobile before the election.
I've had a great time with this game, and I've taken many screenshots. I'm looking forward to posting an epic AAR -- but not til I finish!
I'm playing against the AI in my first game, and I've made many newbie mistakes. Still, I hold most of the objectives, and my NM is now over 200. But I'm not quite sure where I'll get that last victory push from! It's late August 1864 and I'm desperately trying to take Atlanta and Mobile before the election.
I've had a great time with this game, and I've taken many screenshots. I'm looking forward to posting an epic AAR -- but not til I finish!
Funny, I feel the same way.Spruce wrote:what if - what if - what if
if the south had "refrained" from bombing the pile of bricks/rock called fort Sumter and instead had played it politically and made sure that all the slave states would have been "turned down by the Union" instead of "reject the Union" - the impact of the war would have been totally different =
- CSA has more manpower,
- CSA has more credit internationally,
- CSA has more chances to win - guarding the Missouri and Ohio would have been much more difficult for the Union to penetrate deep south,
as a European guy, I take a litte distance and think that the very "definition" of a confederate goverment signed it's own doom. A few hotheads might have squandered the chance for victory and dragged all these states into a fight against a centralised goverment where one guy that played it cool was able to defeat the Southern hotheads.
I think the South should have formed a "transitional" goverment - based on the principles of - still - a federalist goverment to allow the victory against the North. Only with the North defeated, a confederal goverment should be formed.
That's why I've always been convinced that this war was not about civil rights (slavery debate) against state rights - it was an economical and political showdown between the new "industrial" class in the North and the "old planters" in the south. The former being quite protective in means of international trade, and the latter being very liberal towards trade. It was a struggle between 2 polarised powerhouses that had to defend their intrests (money and power).
The war was about slavery, particularly the ability of southern westward colonists to take their slaves with them into the West. If the U.S. was landlocked at Arkansas the war would have never happened, even with slavery; The slave issue would had met with an eventual political and social conclusion.
If the conflict was at all based on economic and social differences that was primarily limited to Virgina and North Carolina. Where a significant amount of the population didn't own slaves and remained above poverty. There seriously shouldn't be any debate that slavery was the overwhelming primary cause for all the deep south states and South Caroilna, Tennessee. North Carolina for the most part didn't want to join the confederacy and it wasn't until she found herself surrounded by cessesation that she left the union herself (and ironically gave more manpower to the CSA than any other state). As one N.C. State senator opposing cessation stated para. "We must ultimatly go with those whom we geographically share land". One of the most interesting Civil War books to read is Titled "Silk Flags and Cold Steel: A History of North Carolina in the Civil War". It is pretty clear to me from studying North Carolina history that if Virgina had not ceceeded N.C. would not have either. If Lincoln had played it smarter, not hotheaded and anxious to raise troops and immediatly march them down to South Carolina, he might have been able to sway Virgina to stay in the Union, North Carolina would have soon followed and its quite possible that a political resolution could have brought the Deep Southern States back into the Union and continued slavery for another 40-50 years. IMHO Lincoln wanted the war, wanted to end slavery, and pushed to move troops into South Carolina forcing Virgina's hand to ceceed.
The notion that the War had some higher ideals (not neccesarily moral) than continuing the institution of slavery is born in the mind of modern Southern historians who don't differentiate the deep south from the mid-atlantic states and Northern historians who continually downplay the role of the abolishionist movement and the religiosity of Lincoln.There is absolutly no question that the primary underlying cause for the war was the continuance of the institution of slavery in the south and was started by rich southerners (Primarily those of the Deep South who felt threatened that their source of wealth was being diminished by the inability to farm more land out West using slaves and their ultimate fear of trade restrictions coming as the next step.
There should also be no question as to the rise of the abolishionist movement in the North which can be likened to the modern day relgious right anti-abortion movement in both its zeal and its political capability. This was a massive religious movement which had a great deal of influence and pretty much placed Lincoln in power. The divide between the Northern Christians and the Southern Christians had at its basis the theological difference of whether the Bible supported slavery.
Economic Difference - Use of slaves or lower class for cheap labor
Cultural Difference - The dispute over whether the Bible supported Slavery
Take slavery out of the equation and those differences are not severe enough for people to start shooting at one another on a grand scale.
Granted this is a personal opinion and no amount of intellectual debate has or will ever sway my opinion that the historical discussions that promote the idea that slavery wasn't the chief reason for the war are fundamentally flawed. Economic and cultural differences absolutly played a role but if the institution of slavery had never existed the war would have never happened.
No argument from me. The war was started because of slavery. Any discussion of economics in antebellum america must include the slavery issue. I do not think the Northern populace fought against slavery though, at least not at first. They fought against treason/preserving the union, and that appears to be the view supported by most historians today. The south did fight for slavery though. Jeff Davis said so himself in numerous speeches in '61, as did other politicians at the time. It was only after the war when they "revised" their position. Again the average soldier in the south might have had a different view of why they fought.
It is a mistake to equate the mentality of the North with that of Sumner. He was a radical for his time. Most people in that era, North and South, were deeply racist, including most of the Generals that fought on both sides.
It is a mistake to equate the mentality of the North with that of Sumner. He was a radical for his time. Most people in that era, North and South, were deeply racist, including most of the Generals that fought on both sides.
Crimguy wrote:No argument from me. The war was started because of slavery. Any discussion of economics in antebellum america must include the slavery issue. I do not think the Northern populace fought against slavery though, at least not at first. They fought against treason/preserving the union, and that appears to be the view supported by most historians today. The south did fight for slavery though. Jeff Davis said so himself in numerous speeches in '61, as did other politicians at the time. It was only after the war when they "revised" their position. Again the average soldier in the south might have had a different view of why they fought.
It is a mistake to equate the mentality of the North with that of Sumner. He was a radical for his time. Most people in that era, North and South, were deeply racist, including most of the Generals that fought on both sides.
I think some in the North absolutly fought because of religious differences regarding the matter of whether owning slaves was supported by the bible, doesn't mean though that they weren't racist. I think alot of people examing the civil war make the mistake that the people of that era equivocated slavery and "freeing the blacks", which is a fundamental fallacy. Slavery in and of itself, regardless of the cultural group who was allowed to be treated as a slave, was the problem and the root cause of the social, cultural, and economic differences. In other words, to those in the north a black might very well have been viewed as a "sub-human" but even the use of "sub-humans" as slaves was viewed as wrong.
I think others fought because they viewed slavery as wrong simply because they were the working lower class and didn't think it was right to treat the lower classes as slaves, again doesn't mean they weren't racist. In some ways people have a tendency to attribute the upper classes as the main point of tension in class warfare of the period and neglect the fact that the lower class of the north was itself fighting to preserve its status. They understood full well that moving slavery out west was a threat to their socio-economic position in the North.
As to why an individual man on either side took up arms I am sure both sides had the majority share of soldiers whose first reason for fighting had nothing to do with economics, culture or slavery. Many men went to fight as a matter of pride/honor, for their individual state, and as a matter of preserving the union or a real feeling that they deserved independance from the federal govrnment.
(there is also towards the bottom Lincolns first inaugural address, note though he comments on slavery, the core of the speech was based up the union, and the fact that the union could not be sundered.)
I personally think most people fought for the Union, for the sake of the Union. Preservation of the Union itself was the higher ideal...slavery though a political issue was never, ever the recruiting slogan of the Union by and large. Further even President Lincoln was quite clear what the basis of the war was when he declared the following...
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
( you will note he very clearly refrains from making slavery the cause bella, it however may be inferred from the statement; "and to redress wrongs already long enough endured." assuming of course this is what he thought or rather meant to say ).
HARPER'S WEEKLY.
SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1861.
By the President of the United States:
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate,
and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
BY THE PRESIDENT.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
THE CIVIL WAR.
WAR is declared. President Lincoln's proclamation, which we publish above, is an absolute proclamation of war against the Gulf States. The die is now cast, and men must take their sides, and hold to them. No one who knows any thing of the Southern people supposes for a moment that, having gone so far as to bombard a United States fort and capture it, they will now succumb without a fight. No one who has seen the recent manifestations of popular sentiment in the North can doubt that the Northern blood is up, and that they will listen no more to talk of compromise, truce, or treaty, until they are fairly beaten.
Let us then forbear puling, and look the situation in the face. There are some among us still who whine about the evils of civil war. These are they who, with a burglar in their house, his hand on the throat of their wife or daughter, would quote texts on the loveliness of Christian forbearance and charity. Nobody —outside of lunatic asylums—doubts that civil war is an enormous calamity. On this point all are agreed. But as it has actually begun, and exists, what is the use of deprecating it ? What should we think of a doctor who, summoned to visit a half dying patient, should wring his hands hopelessly and bewail the malignancy of disease ?
The United States Government has called into the field 75,000 militiamen, who, added to the regular force, will swell the effective army to nearly 90,000 men. It is understood that further calls are to be made upon the States, to the extent of 200,000 more. The plan, as understood by military officers, is to form three camps : one at the Federal capital, consisting of 50,000 men, who will constitute an army of observation on the Border States, and will be commanded by Lieutenant-General Scott in person ; another of 75,000 men, which will be located in the vicinity of Cincinnati, with a view to an ultimate movement down the Mississippi; and a third, of over 100,000 men, which will be situated in the suburbs of New York. Rumor asserts that General Wool will command the New York army, and General Sumner the army on the Mississippi; but of these matters of course nothing is known. In the mean time, the navy will be occupied in closing the ports of the seceded States. It seems to be expected that by August next there will not be a port in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, which will not be hermetically sealed by United States ships of war.
This is the Government programme. On the other hand, the Seceders are gathering soldiers vigorously on their side. It is stated that at the siege of Sumter over 7000 men were engaged, and that, simultaneously, 5000 were on duty opposite Fort Pickens. Letters from Montgomery say that 32,000 additional men are being mustered for an attack on Washington. As the population of the eight seceded States, exclusive of negroes, is over 2,000,000, it should be possible for Mr. Davis to collect 100,000 able-bodied troops on one point. With such a force, secretly if not openly favored by the Border States, a very formidable movement might be made on Washington.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
Fellow-citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me 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 of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot 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.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.
While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
I personally think most people fought for the Union, for the sake of the Union. Preservation of the Union itself was the higher ideal...slavery though a political issue was never, ever the recruiting slogan of the Union by and large. Further even President Lincoln was quite clear what the basis of the war was when he declared the following...
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
( you will note he very clearly refrains from making slavery the cause bella, it however may be inferred from the statement; "and to redress wrongs already long enough endured." assuming of course this is what he thought or rather meant to say ).
HARPER'S WEEKLY.
SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1861.
By the President of the United States:
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law :
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate,
and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and, in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country; and I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
BY THE PRESIDENT.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
THE CIVIL WAR.
WAR is declared. President Lincoln's proclamation, which we publish above, is an absolute proclamation of war against the Gulf States. The die is now cast, and men must take their sides, and hold to them. No one who knows any thing of the Southern people supposes for a moment that, having gone so far as to bombard a United States fort and capture it, they will now succumb without a fight. No one who has seen the recent manifestations of popular sentiment in the North can doubt that the Northern blood is up, and that they will listen no more to talk of compromise, truce, or treaty, until they are fairly beaten.
Let us then forbear puling, and look the situation in the face. There are some among us still who whine about the evils of civil war. These are they who, with a burglar in their house, his hand on the throat of their wife or daughter, would quote texts on the loveliness of Christian forbearance and charity. Nobody —outside of lunatic asylums—doubts that civil war is an enormous calamity. On this point all are agreed. But as it has actually begun, and exists, what is the use of deprecating it ? What should we think of a doctor who, summoned to visit a half dying patient, should wring his hands hopelessly and bewail the malignancy of disease ?
The United States Government has called into the field 75,000 militiamen, who, added to the regular force, will swell the effective army to nearly 90,000 men. It is understood that further calls are to be made upon the States, to the extent of 200,000 more. The plan, as understood by military officers, is to form three camps : one at the Federal capital, consisting of 50,000 men, who will constitute an army of observation on the Border States, and will be commanded by Lieutenant-General Scott in person ; another of 75,000 men, which will be located in the vicinity of Cincinnati, with a view to an ultimate movement down the Mississippi; and a third, of over 100,000 men, which will be situated in the suburbs of New York. Rumor asserts that General Wool will command the New York army, and General Sumner the army on the Mississippi; but of these matters of course nothing is known. In the mean time, the navy will be occupied in closing the ports of the seceded States. It seems to be expected that by August next there will not be a port in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, which will not be hermetically sealed by United States ships of war.
This is the Government programme. On the other hand, the Seceders are gathering soldiers vigorously on their side. It is stated that at the siege of Sumter over 7000 men were engaged, and that, simultaneously, 5000 were on duty opposite Fort Pickens. Letters from Montgomery say that 32,000 additional men are being mustered for an attack on Washington. As the population of the eight seceded States, exclusive of negroes, is over 2,000,000, it should be possible for Mr. Davis to collect 100,000 able-bodied troops on one point. With such a force, secretly if not openly favored by the Border States, a very formidable movement might be made on Washington.
jam3 wrote:I think some in the North absolutly fought because of religious differences regarding the matter of whether owning slaves was supported by the bible, doesn't mean though that they weren't racist. I think alot of people examing the civil war make the mistake that the people of that era equivocated slavery and "freeing the blacks", which is a fundamental fallacy. Slavery in and of itself, regardless of the cultural group who was allowed to be treated as a slave, was the problem and the root cause of the social, cultural, and economic differences. In other words, to those in the north a black might very well have been viewed as a "sub-human" but even the use of "sub-humans" as slaves was viewed as wrong.
I think others fought because they viewed slavery as wrong simply because they were the working lower class and didn't think it was right to treat the lower classes as slaves, again doesn't mean they weren't racist. In some ways people have a tendency to attribute the upper classes as the main point of tension in class warfare of the period and neglect the fact that the lower class of the north was itself fighting to preserve its status. They understood full well that moving slavery out west was a threat to their socio-economic position in the North.
As to why an individual man on either side took up arms I am sure both sides had the majority share of soldiers whose first reason for fighting had nothing to do with economics, culture or slavery. Many men went to fight as a matter of pride/honor, for their individual state, and as a matter of preserving the union or a real feeling that they deserved independance from the federal govrnment.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
Fellow-citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me 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 of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot 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.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.
While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Douglas may have ultimatly lost the debates but he hit the nail on the head in regards to Lincoln in these remarks. Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd politician. But I think if you read enough it becomes evident that he was in fact an abolitionist, again not necessarily looking to "free the blacks" but seeking ultimatly to end slavery. I think the preservation of the union was a means to an end for Lincoln. Some Northerners ,namely abolishtionists, saw right through to the real message Lincoln was delivering, others took the preservation of the union message at face value. This is not to say that Lincoln didn't hold the preservation of the Union as a fundamental truth, I am sure he did, but I believe his Ultimate goal was abolition.
In some ways it is very similar to the abortion politics of modern times. For instance while I think Reagan and Bush SR. probably believed abortion was wrong personally I think their attempts to push it into law was more to satisfy their voting base. Bush JR. though I think is a true-believer and would do pretty much whatever he thinks he can get away with it to push the agenda. Lincoln after reading a good bit about him I see as a true believer in the abolitionist cause.
Just some excerpts from Lincoln-Douglas.
Lincoln (Speech in Peoria)
"This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the use I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us the chief material enabling us to judge correctly whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong--wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.
This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
Galesburg, IL: Day and Faxon (Newspaper)
"The Republicans think if this one chance slips from them, their hopes will be blasted. The Republican organization is unlike any others; all other parties have been National in character, and could avow their principles in all the States; such was the case with the Democratic party.
The Republican leaders make speeches which cannot be defended in any Southern State. What Republican can go into Kentucky and advocate his principles there? Republicans must leave their principles behind them when they cross the Ohio, or Mason's and Dixon's line. NO political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed in every section of the Union wherever the Constitution prevails.
We find that not only the Republican party are unable to proclaim their principles in Southern States; but cannot give them the same sense in all parts of the same state.
Friend Lincoln finds it difficult to express his sentiments alike in all parts of this State. In the extreme north he is as radical as Giddiness, while in the south he is an Old Line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and has nothing to do with negro citizenship and negro equality.
Lincoln has therefore defied me to prove that there is such a dissimilarity in his speeches. In his speech at Chicago, in July last, Lincoln said that if the Declaration of Independence when it spoke of all men being created equal, did not include the negro, let us take the statute book and tear it out. He (Lincoln) there took the ground that the Declaration included the black race as well as the white. [Cries of right, right. Good, good.] Lincoln men down in Coles and Tazewell don't think it right. You say good, and are going to vote for him on that ground, but I will show you what he said down in Egypt, where they don't hold that doctrine. In his speech at Charlestown Lincoln says:
"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, [applause]--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I as much as any other man a in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Douglas
"Now, how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. Lincoln? He is to be voted for in the south as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be voted for in the north as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, and says that we must "discard all quibbling about this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position." Down south he makes this "quibble" about this race and that race and the other race being inferior as the creed of his party, and declares that the negro can never be elevated to the position of the white man.
You find that his political meetings are called by different names in different counties in the State. Here they are called Republican meetings, but in old Tazewell, where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not address a Republican meeting, but "a grand rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell County is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs or Democrats, and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Abolition or Republican meeting there, he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt, and you will find that he and his party are operating under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down in Monroe County a few weeks ago addressing the people, I saw handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak in behalf of Lincoln, and what do you think the name of his party was there? Why, the "Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free Democracy of Monroe County, and the bill was signed "Many Free Democrats." The reason that Mr. Lincoln and his party adopted the name of "Free Democracy" down there was because Monroe County has always been an old-fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was necessary to make the people believe that they were Democrats, sympathized with them, and were fighting for Lincoln as Democrats.
Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has lived, and you find that the convention of his party which assembled to nominate candidates for the legislature, who are expected to vote for him if elected, dare not adopt the name of Republican, but assembled under the title of "All opposed to the Democracy." Thus you find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through even one half of the counties of this State, but that it changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter as it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south end of the State. I ask you, my friends, why cannot Republicans avow their principles alike everywhere? I would despise myself if I thought that I was procuring your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avowing one set of principles in one part of the State, and a different set in another part."
In some ways it is very similar to the abortion politics of modern times. For instance while I think Reagan and Bush SR. probably believed abortion was wrong personally I think their attempts to push it into law was more to satisfy their voting base. Bush JR. though I think is a true-believer and would do pretty much whatever he thinks he can get away with it to push the agenda. Lincoln after reading a good bit about him I see as a true believer in the abolitionist cause.
Just some excerpts from Lincoln-Douglas.
Lincoln (Speech in Peoria)
"This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the use I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have before us the chief material enabling us to judge correctly whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong--wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.
This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
Galesburg, IL: Day and Faxon (Newspaper)
"The Republicans think if this one chance slips from them, their hopes will be blasted. The Republican organization is unlike any others; all other parties have been National in character, and could avow their principles in all the States; such was the case with the Democratic party.
The Republican leaders make speeches which cannot be defended in any Southern State. What Republican can go into Kentucky and advocate his principles there? Republicans must leave their principles behind them when they cross the Ohio, or Mason's and Dixon's line. NO political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed in every section of the Union wherever the Constitution prevails.
We find that not only the Republican party are unable to proclaim their principles in Southern States; but cannot give them the same sense in all parts of the same state.
Friend Lincoln finds it difficult to express his sentiments alike in all parts of this State. In the extreme north he is as radical as Giddiness, while in the south he is an Old Line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and has nothing to do with negro citizenship and negro equality.
Lincoln has therefore defied me to prove that there is such a dissimilarity in his speeches. In his speech at Chicago, in July last, Lincoln said that if the Declaration of Independence when it spoke of all men being created equal, did not include the negro, let us take the statute book and tear it out. He (Lincoln) there took the ground that the Declaration included the black race as well as the white. [Cries of right, right. Good, good.] Lincoln men down in Coles and Tazewell don't think it right. You say good, and are going to vote for him on that ground, but I will show you what he said down in Egypt, where they don't hold that doctrine. In his speech at Charlestown Lincoln says:
"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, [applause]--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I as much as any other man a in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Douglas
"Now, how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. Lincoln? He is to be voted for in the south as a pro-slavery man, and he is to be voted for in the north as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, and says that we must "discard all quibbling about this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position." Down south he makes this "quibble" about this race and that race and the other race being inferior as the creed of his party, and declares that the negro can never be elevated to the position of the white man.
You find that his political meetings are called by different names in different counties in the State. Here they are called Republican meetings, but in old Tazewell, where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not address a Republican meeting, but "a grand rally of the Lincoln men." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell County is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs or Democrats, and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Abolition or Republican meeting there, he would not get many votes. Go down into Egypt, and you will find that he and his party are operating under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down in Monroe County a few weeks ago addressing the people, I saw handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak in behalf of Lincoln, and what do you think the name of his party was there? Why, the "Free Democracy." Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Jehu Baker were announced to address the Free Democracy of Monroe County, and the bill was signed "Many Free Democrats." The reason that Mr. Lincoln and his party adopted the name of "Free Democracy" down there was because Monroe County has always been an old-fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was necessary to make the people believe that they were Democrats, sympathized with them, and were fighting for Lincoln as Democrats.
Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has lived, and you find that the convention of his party which assembled to nominate candidates for the legislature, who are expected to vote for him if elected, dare not adopt the name of Republican, but assembled under the title of "All opposed to the Democracy." Thus you find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through even one half of the counties of this State, but that it changes its hues and becomes lighter and lighter as it travels from the extreme north, until it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south end of the State. I ask you, my friends, why cannot Republicans avow their principles alike everywhere? I would despise myself if I thought that I was procuring your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avowing one set of principles in one part of the State, and a different set in another part."
I agree with this competely. I believe in my heart that Lincoln was willing to set the premise that the Union was the core issue, however once the die was cast so to speak, he was also able to fufill his higher ambition(this based upon his personal beliefs related to slavery, not generally uniformly popular as a pretext for civil war in the north).
Had he approched the coming conflict in any other manner however, I also believe that there would have been tremendous political turmoil and what did come to pass may not have under those circumstances. This however is my opinion. However, irrespective of my opinion there is no question that Lincoln was a brilliant man.
Douglas may have ultimatly lost the debates but he hit the nail on the head in regards to Lincoln in these remarks. Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd politician. But I think if you read enough it becomes evident that he was in fact an abolitionist, again not necessarily looking to "free the blacks" but seeking ultimatly to end slavery. I think the preservation of the union was a means to an end for Lincoln. Some Northerners ,namely abolishtionists, saw right through to the real message Lincoln was delivering, others took the preservation of the union message at face value. This is not to say that Lincoln didn't hold the preservation of the Union as a fundamental truth, I am sure he did, but I believe his Ultimate goal was abolition.
Had he approched the coming conflict in any other manner however, I also believe that there would have been tremendous political turmoil and what did come to pass may not have under those circumstances. This however is my opinion. However, irrespective of my opinion there is no question that Lincoln was a brilliant man.
Douglas may have ultimatly lost the debates but he hit the nail on the head in regards to Lincoln in these remarks. Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd politician. But I think if you read enough it becomes evident that he was in fact an abolitionist, again not necessarily looking to "free the blacks" but seeking ultimatly to end slavery. I think the preservation of the union was a means to an end for Lincoln. Some Northerners ,namely abolishtionists, saw right through to the real message Lincoln was delivering, others took the preservation of the union message at face value. This is not to say that Lincoln didn't hold the preservation of the Union as a fundamental truth, I am sure he did, but I believe his Ultimate goal was abolition.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests