Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Abraham Lincoln - Abraham Lincoln - The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Okay - as lifl2003 pointed out, as far as I can tell it seems to be a geographical thing. But here's another question. It has been pointed out that Lincoln did whatever was necessary to keep the United States united - some legal, some not so much. Does the dislike of Lincoln come from the way he went about things, or from the fact that he refused secession? Does anybody still believe that after 150 years, two world wars, and several "conflicts", that two separate countries would be a good thing?



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender -

All valid points. Some I agree with, some I don't, but that's neither here or there.

The only point I have to comment on is your assertion to TimK: "You might not: "Be interested in starting a fight," but that is the inevitable result of starting a thread like this. "

If that in fact is true, then there's no point in having a discussion board. If adults cannot discuss without argument, then I'm outta here. I'll moderate - I won't baby-sit.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Javal 1-

  Now we are getting into definitions of words. What I meant by a: "fight" was a clash of ideas. I have strong opinions and others here do as well. The differences of opinions can create a clash without anyone having to engage in namecalling and other polemics. Thus the discussion board can survive very well.

  I've been on the board for almost a year and a half, and while I might: "unload" on someone I strongly disagree with, I don't think that anyone can honestly accuse me of doing it in an uncivil manner.

Last edited on Thu Jun 19th, 2008 04:48 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 05:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: TimK
sorry, but Lincoln did not free one single slave....The 13th ammendment did that after he was dead.
Andrew Johnson never gets the the credit he deserves... ;)
The Emancipation Proclimation exempted all slaves in lands controlled by the Union. The other lands were controlled by the Confederacy, a seperate country
which is pretty much what the war was all about, yes?at that time and not bound by any piece of paper eminating from the US.But the CSA, and it's defenders, wanted to be protected by a similar piece of paper, namely the the Constitution of the United States...
The EP was issued for 2 reasons...first in the hopes that there would be a slave uprising in the Confederacy...it did not happen
2nd to counter the pressure being put on France and England to recognize the CSA. .. That worked!
there are a few more reasons than that,. In fact, your first reason is difficult to find backing for.  Of course, considering that about 250,000 former slaves were serving *against* the South by Appomattox, one could say that it *did* happen. Most southerners were so sure that a slave uprising would be a bloody calamity,  the idea that slaves would seek *legal* means to combat slavery was unfathomable...
Joe asks who of Lincoln's opponents in the 1860 election could have done a better job of preserving the union and prosecuting the war...

Well, if we are going to "what if" then would the war even have been fought if Lincoln had not been elected?
It would have been fought later...Of course the South started taking federal property long before Lincoln's inauguration...

IMO Lincoln's greatness is largely hindsight
Must be true - in their foresight, most politicians and rivals thought he was an awful choice ;)and a determination by the Radical Republicans to make him a Martyr and thus have a moral reason to do what they already planned to do which was to rape the south in what came to be called reconstruction.
 
Reconstruction was pretty mild until Johnson (who freed the slaves) overstepped *his* bounds. That is when the Radicals took over...
 
 
 
HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  Lincoln's purpose in prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. He himself said that freeing slaves where slavery existed was not his purpose- at least until 1863 when political considerations resulted in the EP.

  The people in the south in 1860 and 1861 should have been protected by the US Constitution. I would maintain that by not forbidding secession, the Constitution allowed it. As you say, that disagreement was why the war was fought.

  Your contention that: "250,000 former slaves served against the south" is not correct. There were maybe 200,000 total in USCT units. Perhaps half of them were former slaves.

UNITED STATES COLORED TROOPS

  Since Mr. Lincoln refused to accept secession, there was a war. It didn't matter what the southerners did after announcing secession. What happened with federal property before and including Ft. Sumter only served Mr. Lincoln's purpose of inflaming public opinion in the north to prosecute the war against the southern states. But since Mr. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union by any means, war would have happened even if the southerners never touched any federal property.

  Re: "President Johnson freeing the slaves," he really didn't. The ones in the south were at least legally freed by the EP. (Though most folks here in Texas didn't even know of it until June 19, 1865.). It was the 13th Amendment that freed the few slaves left in the north. As I recall, the last slaves to be freed were a few who were living in NJ on December 6, 1865.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama:

Please provide a credible reference for your statement that Lincoln arrested the Maryland Legislature.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Every board I've ever been on has whipped this horse over and over again. Always with the same unproven convictions that secession was legal; that Lincoln issued the EP hoping there would be a bloody slave rebellion; that Lincoln closed 300 newspapers and imprisoned 30,000 citizens; that Lincoln was as bad a racist as any southerner; yadayadayada.

It's always the same, so I suspect that there is, somewhere, a Confederate talking-points book. The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away. A few months later it pops up again.

It goes away quicker when evidence in the form of citations are requested.

ole



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David White-

  I don't think that Bama is maintaining that Mr. Lincoln PERSONALLY arrested members of the Maryland legislature, but his minions were authorized to do so, and did.

  Perhaps this source (e pluribus unum) has some credibility:

The Provost-Marshal And The Citizen

  Part of the way down, you can read: "Many members of the Maryland legislature were also arrested on and after September 20, 1861, and confined first in Ft. McHenry, then in Ft. Lafayette, and then finally in Ft. Warren, in order to forestall the passage of an act of secession. Some of these were soon released after taking an oath of allegiance, but several were confined for months."



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 06:44 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Every board I've ever been on has whipped this horse over and over again. Always with the same unproven convictions that secession was legal; that Lincoln issued the EP hoping there would be a bloody slave rebellion; that Lincoln closed 300 newspapers and imprisoned 30,000 citizens; that Lincoln was as bad a racist as any southerner; yadayadayada.

It's always the same, so I suspect that there is, somewhere, a Confederate talking-points book. The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away. A few months later it pops up again.

It goes away quicker when evidence in the form of citations are requested.

ole



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 07:01 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole-

  I have read over my Constitution many times and I can't find anything in the enumeration of the powers of the Federal Government that forbids states that voluntarily joined the Union to voluntarily withdraw from it. I myself have said that the issue is not mentioned at all. Therefore, there is no direct evidence to cite to you in either direction.

  My reason for believing that secession was legal is simply that the 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved for the States or the people.

  You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation, but you cannot cite any evidence that would prove to me that the Constitution forbids secession.

  What disturbs me is the apparent implication that since I believe that secession was legal that somehow I am a mindless puppet being manipulated by nefarious moderators of some: "Confederate Talking Points" website.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 07:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"The points get hashed over; each side fails to convince the other and the thread dies away."

Exactly right Ole. And the point of this thread was to get varied views on opinions of Lincoln. All had a chance to express those views. Where the trouble always begins is once those views are stated, the posters feel the need to defend them to the death, back and forth, and over and over. State your views on Lincoln and be done with it. If your post is concise and well thought-out, no follow-up is needed. And hard feelings never have a chance to develop.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Hank C-

  Lincoln's purpose in prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. He himself said that freeing slaves where slavery existed was not his purpose- at least until 1863 when political considerations resulted in the EP.
Correct, Political considerations drove the EP, along with the failure of the Confiscation acts. One of the greater considerations was that northern families were becoming disgusted with the death toll and the idea that slave property was still being protected. The idea that the purpose of the EP was to foment slave revolt is indefensible.

  The people in the south in 1860 and 1861 should have been protected by the US Constitution.
How were they unprotected? And if you leave it's protection how can you claim it's protecetion? The purpose of my roof is to keep the rain off me but if I go out in the yard and get wet, can I blame my roof?I would maintain that by not forbidding secession, the Constitution allowed it. As you say, that disagreement was why the war was fought.

  Your contention that: "250,000 former slaves served against the south" is not correct. There were maybe 200,000 total in USCT units. Perhaps half of them were former slaves.
That places a pretty large percentage (maybe 75%) of all free northern blacks in the army.  It is correct that some 200,000 served as official USCT; many others, perhaps more, served in non-combat roles as teamsters, laborers, cooks, etc...

UNITED STATES COLORED TROOPS

  Since Mr. Lincoln refused to accept secession, there was a war. It didn't matter what the southerners did after announcing secession. What happened with federal property before and including Ft. Sumter only served Mr. Lincoln's purpose of inflaming public opinion in the north to prosecute the war against the southern states.
the north was plenty mad over the siezure of arsenals, mints, custom houses and post offices before Lincoln was inaugarated. Lincoln issued a number of warnings and made moves to protect the south from itself...But since Mr. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union by any means, war would have happened even if the southerners never touched any federal property.strictly an opinion...
  Re: "President Johnson freeing the slaves," he really didn't. The ones in the south were at least legally freed by the EP. (Though most folks here in Texas didn't even know of it until June 19, 1865.). It was the 13th Amendment that freed the few slaves left in the north. As I recall, the last slaves to be freed were a few who were living in NJ on December 6, 1865.

 
correct... there were 4,000,000 slaves on December 6, 1860. After Lincoln's administration, on December 6, 1865 there were none...
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:26 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  It seems that we have come to a general agreement on most of the issues discussed. I would agree, for example, that many thousands of blacks served the Union in non-combat roles such as teamsters, laborers, and cooks. I would point out that many thousands of blacks served the CSA in identical roles. Using the same standards, many thousands of blacks served against the north, for one reason or another.

  The one issue that needs clarification is the Constitutional protection. What I maintained is that the southerners (The" Wayward Sisters") should have been allowed to voluntarily leave the Union. After that, no protection by the US Constitution would have been applicable.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD, little issue w/ what you posted.

As to what the CS did to its own people. Draconian draft/conscription, "for the duration" enlistments attached to 3 mos regiments, tithe, travel papers, suspension of Habeus Corpus on top of the general economic and logistical incompetence.

Neither side was what I would call angelic.

IMO any US citizen, especially a public servent, who makes efforts to kill US soldiers, give aid and comfort to those trying to kill them is guilty of treason. Just my opinion.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 08:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Johan-

  I completely agree that neither side was angelic. The US Constitution was no protection for anyone north or south during the war. Both sides were draconian as the southerners took more desperate measures because of waning fortunes and the northerners sought to end the thing.

  I also agree about US citizens. The salient question is whether or not the southerners were US citizens after they seceded. The official Union line was that they never left the Union (How they could announce an official blockade if that was the case is an interesting question). The southerners maintained that they were no longer US citizens.

  This difference of opinion is why there was a war. Considering how things were in 1865, there has been a lot of healing in less than 150 years.



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 09:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Hank C-

  It seems that we have come to a general agreement on most of the issues discussed. I would agree, for example, that many thousands of blacks served the Union in non-combat roles such as teamsters, laborers, and cooks. I would point out that many thousands of blacks served the CSA in identical roles. Using the same standards, many thousands of blacks served against the north, for one reason or another.
The standards were not *quite* the same. Very few in the south determined  their type or term of service. I know of no northern blacks in service that escaped south to serve the CSA but many southern blacks that went tthe other way...HankC



 Posted: Thu Jun 19th, 2008 09:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  When wars go badly, people on the side that is losing tend to want to escape from the unfavorable situation that they are in. Thus, as the war turned in the favor of the Union, more and more blacks ran away, and more and more Confederate soldiers deserted.



 Current time is 10:53 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3717 seconds (14% database + 86% PHP). 33 queries executed.