Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian > Abraham Lincoln > Lincoln tyrant or savior of the Union


 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Lincoln tyrant or savior of the Union  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Feb 29th, 2012 06:48 pm
  PM Quote Reply
81st Post
Gettysburger
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 19th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Hank, I'm in agreement with you.

Lee's campaign to invade the north took place where Marylanders in the western area were generally more Unionist than Confederate in their sympathies.

It's a well known fact, the eastern shore and eastern counties were more southern in their culture and economies than the western parts of Maryland.

I think the numbers show more Maryland men joined the Union army than the CSA during the war.

I believe in 1863, when a maryland farmboy saw or smelled the AoNVA marching north, if he had a notion to join up, after seeing the condition of Lee's army, he probably figured he was better off down on the farm.

doc
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 29th, 2012 08:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
82nd Post
Hellcat
Person


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 692
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Hmmm, that sounds like a certain set of counties in another state.

Certainly is something I'm not certain I've heard of. Or if I have I've either ignored or forgotten.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 29th, 2012 09:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
83rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
some fine studies show that Maryland, though a slave state, had been losing slaves and slaveholders for years.
 

 

to expand a bit more, and I do not remember many details: in the mid to late 1850s, eastern shore slave masters introduced to legislation to enslave *all* Maryland blacks.

 

They were concerned over the increasing number of freed slaves, the decreasing number of slaveholders and the impact of both on the value and security of the enslaved population. fewer slave holders meant less value when selling the chattel and more free blacks were a 'bad influence' on the enslaved.

 

the law would have multiple effects, the obvious one being to eliminate all free blacks and their influence on the enslaved population.

 

another effect would be to increase the number of slaveholders. the re-enslaved would be sold to the highest bidder, many of whom would be previously non-slave-holders. this would prop up the value of slaves.

 

It was mostly Baltimore and its legislators that defeated the bill. They appreciated the skill set and commerce that the free black population brought to the city and state…

 
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2012 11:43 am
  PM Quote Reply
84th Post
Gettysburger
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 19th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Hellcat wrote: Hmmm, that sounds like a certain set of counties in another state.

Certainly is something I'm not certain I've heard of. Or if I have I've either ignored or forgotten.


Hellcat, a large area of the mountainous places in the south had Union sympathies.

The western counties of Virginia seceded from Virgina in June 1861 for that reason.

From the mountain areas of western Maryland and western Virginia down to the Appalachians in Georgia, the mountain people were much less 'southern' in comparison to the peoples in the valleys and piedmont regions of the same states.

I am not saying this was exactly the way it was everywhere in all the states. But everything from lifestyles to climate and economy were different in the mountain ares than in the rest of the Southern states. So those folks had less in common with the Confederacy than the other areas of the southland.

Finally, the Confederates that thought about waging a guerrilla war against the Union after Appomattox realized the mountain areas where they would need to hide out wouldn't offer them much safety or security for the same reasons.

Doc
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

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

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

 Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2012 02:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
87th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Savez wrote: HankC wrote:
 


It was mostly Baltimore and its legislators that defeated the bill. They appreciated the skill set and commerce that the free black population brought to the city and state…

 
That seems odd considering Baltimore was a hotbed of secession.
 
not sure i get the connection...
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2012 02:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
88th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 843
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Savez-

  Mr. Lincoln's paramount goal was the preservation of the Union. I believe that in his mind this objective overrode any concern for what the fallout might be. (Loss of civil liberties, massive loss of life, etc.)

  Mr. Lincoln believed that he had to assume emergency powers in order to prevent the government from coming apart at the seams. In his mind, he was the one person who was in a position to take the actions necessary to prevent the collapse of the nation. In this situation, observing legal niceties was not a high priority. He was quite willing to do anything that he thought was necessary to preserve the Union. I don't think it mattered to him that millions of people no longer wished to be his fellow citizens.

  I've said a number of times that it is difficult for me in the 21st Century to fully understand the mindsets of 19th Century men. One reason often given by northerners for their determination to preserve the Union was that if the country split up, it would somehow mean that the world's great democratic experiment had failed, and that men couldn't govern themselves properly in a nation of laws. (To me, the idea that the U.S. was somehow representative of all of mankind was a pretentious view to take.)

  The northerners had the option of letting the southerners go in peace. But they preferred a war to accepting secession. (Perhaps they feared that the northern states would fragment themselves in the future).

  To me, the idea that you can prove that you are a nation of laws by disregarding your own laws and conducting a war that kills hundreds of thousands does not seem consistent. The idea of how forcing the unwilling to remain a part of a democracy (Or in the case of the U.S. more properly described as a : "Representative republic") at the point of a bayonet proves its viability still eludes me.

 

Last edited on Thu Mar 1st, 2012 03:25 pm by Texas Defender
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2012 07:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
89th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 that's the big question, yes? why doesn't a nation let any separatist movement go?

I suppose it may be that the nation as a whole purchased the individual parts with treasure, toil and blood...
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

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

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

 Posted: Thu Mar 1st, 2012 08:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
92nd Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 147
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Texas Defender wrote: Savez-

  Mr. Lincoln's paramount goal was the preservation of the Union. I believe that in his mind this objective overrode any concern for what the fallout might be. (Loss of civil liberties, massive loss of life, etc.)

  Mr. Lincoln believed that he had to assume emergency powers in order to prevent the government from coming apart at the seams. In his mind, he was the one person who was in a position to take the actions necessary to prevent the collapse of the nation. In this situation, observing legal niceties was not a high priority. He was quite willing to do anything that he thought was necessary to preserve the Union. I don't think it mattered to him that millions of people no longer wished to be his fellow citizens.

  I've said a number of times that it is difficult for me in the 21st Century to fully understand the mindsets of 19th Century men. One reason often given by northerners for their determination to preserve the Union was that if the country split up, it would somehow mean that the world's great democratic experiment had failed, and that men couldn't govern themselves properly in a nation of laws. (To me, the idea that the U.S. was somehow representative of all of mankind was a pretentious view to take.)

  The northerners had the option of letting the southerners go in peace. But they preferred a war to accepting secession. (Perhaps they feared that the northern states would fragment themselves in the future).

  To me, the idea that you can prove that you are a nation of laws by disregarding your own laws and conducting a war that kills hundreds of thousands does not seem consistent. The idea of how forcing the unwilling to remain a part of a democracy (Or in the case of the U.S. more properly described as a : "Representative republic") at the point of a bayonet proves its viability still eludes me.

 

Great post TD! My thoughts exactly. :D
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2012 12:16 am
  PM Quote Reply
93rd Post
Hellcat
Person


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 692
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Gettysburger wrote: Hellcat wrote: Hmmm, that sounds like a certain set of counties in another state.

Certainly is something I'm not certain I've heard of. Or if I have I've either ignored or forgotten.


Hellcat, a large area of the mountainous places in the south had Union sympathies.

The western counties of Virginia seceded from Virgina in June 1861 for that reason.

From the mountain areas of western Maryland and western Virginia down to the Appalachians in Georgia, the mountain people were much less 'southern' in comparison to the peoples in the valleys and piedmont regions of the same states.

I am not saying this was exactly the way it was everywhere in all the states. But everything from lifestyles to climate and economy were different in the mountain ares than in the rest of the Southern states. So those folks had less in common with the Confederacy than the other areas of the southland.

Finally, the Confederates that thought about waging a guerrilla war against the Union after Appomattox realized the mountain areas where they would need to hide out wouldn't offer them much safety or security for the same reasons.

Doc

I know there were Federal sypathizers in the Confederate states, Gettysburger. There were even Federal units organized in these areas. What I was saying I didn't know or had ignored/forgotten was that the western half of Maryland was more like the western counties of Virginia.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 2nd, 2012 06:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
94th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Savez wrote: HankC wrote: Savez wrote: HankC wrote:
 


It was mostly Baltimore and its legislators that defeated the bill. They appreciated the skill set and commerce that the free black population brought to the city and state…

 
That seems odd considering Baltimore was a hotbed of secession.
 
not sure i get the connection...

Well, are you saying the same people that enjoyed the skill set and commerce of the free black population were the same ones that wanted to secede from the Union?

in Baltimore the free black population outnumbered the enslaved 25,000 to 2500.

The eastern shore proposal was that free blacks could leave the state, volunteer to be enslaved to the master of their choice or be conscripted by the state and sold at auction.

The Baltimoreans voted the logic of dimes and dollars.

not sure what you are saying about what I am saying??? Everything I have said is in black and white in the thread...
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

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

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

 Posted: Tue Mar 6th, 2012 06:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
97th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 513
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Savez wrote: HankC wrote:



in Baltimore the free black population outnumbered the enslaved 25,000 to 2500.

The eastern shore proposal was that free blacks could leave the state, volunteer to be enslaved to the master of their choice or be conscripted by the state and sold at auction.

The Baltimoreans voted the logic of dimes and dollars.

not sure what you are saying about what I am saying??? Everything I have said is in black and white in the thread...

In a way I was being sarcastic. The prevailing sentiment among historians is that non-slaveholding whites fought for the Confederacy because they were afraid of losing their "whiteness". They were afraid of racial mixing and black equality. I've always said this was hogwash. As racist as they were it wouldn't matter if the black were slave or free they would have still seen themselves as superior to the black man. And as far as intermarriage goes the white women seemed to be even more racist than the white men. So I've never put much stock in that theory. Your post about Baltimore to me is proof of this. Baltimore was a hotbed of secession yet they were willing to live with a large population of free blacks because of the money and the skills they brought to the table. The feelings toward slavery and free blacks differed from region to region throughtout the South even within the states as seen by your post. So the idea of a solid south in the defense of slavery to me is hogwash. There were other reasons that brought the Confederacy together against the Union. Many just don't want to see it. They are blinded by the slavery issue.

For good or bad, the south was  (and to a large extent still is) a very paternalistic society. The well-to-do had the means and the power to steer the course of their choice. The large majority followed their lead. A minority of a minority drove wedge issues into, first, the democratic party, then the south and finally the country.

 

Upper-class white women, especially those with many slaves, had great spite for slavery – not of the men but of the women with whom their husbands and sons dallied and who bore their children. Racial mixing was not brought on by black-white marriages. It’s amusing that the south is typically called the ‘gray’ ;)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 10:10 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5     
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian > Abraham Lincoln > Lincoln tyrant or savior of the Union Top

Lead Theme By: Di @ UltraBB
UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2970 seconds (16% database + 84% PHP). 59 queries executed.