Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?'

[Bigun]

Not that I've read. It was a major issued pushed in every church pulpit and newspaper. It was the centerpiece of the Lincoln/Douglas debate. If you look at political cartoons of the time or read sermons, they were definitely aware of exactly this and felt they were personally doing God's work. They were not ignorant at all of what they were fighting for, it was made a spiritual fight for them.

A few examples of political cartoons of the time.



This phrase and symbolism "Am I not a man and a brother" was commonly used and plastered all over the North leaving no doubt what people were fighting for.



Here is one example of many sermons you can still find copies of.. abolition was preached weekly.
http://antislavery.eserver.org/religious/millersermon/millersermon.pdf

There was even a big boom in hymns in churches written at the time with an abolition theme.
https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200197383



...and on the opposite side, anti-abolition cartoons painted those against slavery as doing the Devil's work. For example:



To the people of the time, slavery was the central issue and a spiritual battle and you can see proof of this from their newspapers, hymns, and sermons.

Yep! There was plenty of anti slavery sentiment around back then but I was talking about Union soldiers specifically.  Of course there were some fiercely antislavery men in the union army as well but the vast majority were simply not interested in dying to end slavery.

Beyond that,  the issue of the War of Northern Aggression hinges on the Constitution and whether or not a state can leave the union in the same manner it joined the union.  I see not a word in the Constitution which would bar them from doing so and until someone shows me the specific language there that does my views will not change.

[r9etb]

Beyond that,  the issue of the War of Northern Aggression hinges on the Constitution and whether or not a state can leave the union in the same manner it joined the union.  I see not a word in the Constitution which would bar them from doing so and until someone shows me the specific language there that does my views will not change.

Well, they don't appear in the Constitution except as mentions of rebellion (Article I Section 9) and "Treason against the United States, [which] shall consist only in levying War against them...."

So, aside from those, you mean....

You neo-confeds are pathetic.

[INVAR]

Written by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe in 1862 I would expect such to reflect the writers personal politics more than be an accurate reflection of the overall motivation of the Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic

It was a song that idolized the Union Army as a sword of vengeance.

The tune is from a camp-meeting song with a “Glory Hallelujah” refrain by William Steffe, written about 1856. This tune was in turn used for what became the Union marching song, “John Brown’s Body,” the first verse of which begins by repeating three times: “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave,” and ends with: “His soul goes marching on!” Other lines read: “They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!” and “Now, three rousing cheers for the Union.”

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It is no more a Christian hymn than “White Christmas.”

Like many who lived during the nineteenth century, Howe was very familiar with the Bible. Consequently, the language and imagery of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” are largely biblical. The problem, however, is that Howe applied the judgment of the “day of the Lord” to the destruction of the Southern armies by the North.

[INVAR]

The question facing Lincoln was not what to do about slavery, but rather, what to do about secession.  While it may or may not have been part of his reasoning, the fact is that a successful and even uncontested secession would have led to war between Free and Slave states regardless.

In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, Abraham Lincoln explained:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

[skeeter]

Every account I have read leads me to believe that if someone had told Union soldiers that they were fighting to free slaves they would have all went home that very day.

Thats no more true than claiming the average southerner took up arms to protect the institution of slavery.

[r9etb]

In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, Abraham Lincoln explained:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Point of context: that was written to Greely after Lincoln had already signed significant anti-slavery legislation and, more to the point, had already written a preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.

As to Lincoln's views about abolition of slavery -- he was for it.  But he believed that his primary job as president was to preserve the Union using all weapons available to him, and to deal with slavery after the existential issue had been resolved.

In his role as Commander in Chief, he clearly had the authority to issue a proclamation freeing the slaves in lands under US military control.  It was an obvious tactic.

[Bigun]

In an August 22, 1862, letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, Abraham Lincoln explained:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Here's a bit more of that story:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

 Abraham Lincoln, 1847

[r9etb]

It was a song that idolized the Union Army as a sword of vengeance.

Just to point out: anything coming from the odious Lew Rockwell is to be avoided. 

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is religious war propaganda. It is no more a Christian hymn than “White Christmas.”

Be that as it may, it speaks to a sentiment that was widespread in the North.  That was my point in referring to it.

[Bigun]

Thats no more true than claiming the average southerner took up arms to protect the institution of slavery.

I agree with you! The average southerner took up arms because the Union army was invading their country!

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Just to point out: anything coming from the odious Lew Rockwell is to be avoided. 

Have never heard anything against him in conservative circles can you enlighten me?

[r9etb]

Here's a bit more of that story:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

 Abraham Lincoln, 1847

So it's a love-hate thing for you -- ending for you in hate, because when confronted with the actual fact of rebellion, as opposed to the hypothetical version, Mr. Lincoln squashed the rebellion.

[INVAR]

Here's a bit more of that story:
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

 Abraham Lincoln, 1847

Obviously he no longer held that belief and those sentiments seven years later, even though they are codified in the Declaration.

Lincoln then decided that raising an army to invade a sovereign state and force them by gunpoint back into the union was the answer to the notion of forming a new government that suits them better.

All experience has shown that men will suffer evil while evils are sufferable than right themselves and abolish the forms to which they have grown accustomed.

[INVAR]

Just to point out: anything coming from the odious Lew Rockwell is to be avoided. 

Ahhh yes... attack the messenger rather than the substance of what is presented.    How typical.

[r9etb]

Have never heard anything against him in conservative circles can you enlighten me?

On this particular topic, Lew Rockwell and his pal Tom DiLorenzo are prone to ... um.... taking liberties (i.e., lying through their posteriors) ... with the facts about Mr. Lincoln.  They're the source of a great deal of the neo-confed tripe on this and other threads, such as how slavery played no serious role in secession.

More generally, Rockwell comes across as interesting, to a point ... until you suddenly realize that he's nuts, not unlike how one suddenly realizes that Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are nuts.  It leads him to say some pretty ridiculous things.

[skeeter]

I agree with you! The average southerner took up arms because the Union army was invading their country!

Right. And although its true not all northern soldiers were enamored with the concept of freeing the slaves the idea did generally provide the moral impetus and a worthy cause for the average guy north of the Mason Dixon line to go risking his life in a bloody & miserable war.

[r9etb]

Ahhh yes... attack the messenger rather than the substance of what is presented.    How typical.

The guy's got a record.  No point in wasting any more time on him.

[geronl]

Well, they don't appear in the Constitution except as mentions of rebellion (Article I Section 9) and "Treason against the United States, [which] shall consist only in levying War against them...."

So, aside from those, you mean....

You neo-confeds are pathetic.

Secession itself is not levying war nor is it treason against the US.

[Bigun]

Obviously he no longer held that belief and those sentiments seven years later, even though they are codified in the Declaration.

Lincoln then decided that raising an army to invade a sovereign state and force them by gunpoint back into the union was the answer to the notion of forming a new government that suits them better.

All experience has shown that men will suffer evil while evils are sufferable than right themselves and abolish the forms to which they have grown accustomed.

His benefactors, who benefited greatly from "internal improvements"  (Read corporate welfare) had disabused him of that notion by then.

[DiogenesLamp]

But to put things in perspective, you've essentially listed the entirety of the South's industrial capacity. 

You are ignoring the consequence of removing 250 Million dollars in export Trade from New York and bringing it to the South.   Much of the economic activity of New York was the consequence of that Southern Trade being handled by that City.   


With lower import tariffs,  and a removal of the ban regarding foreign ships carrying good between ports,   the South was poised to reap massively larger profits than they were accustomed to at that point.   

Europe wasn't buying much that the North produced at that time.   Only 25% of the total export value came from the North.   The South was producing 3/4ths of the Trade,  and the reasons a lot of Northern Industries were doing well was because of the protectionist policies of the Federal government. 


Once the South took that extra capital and invested it in Industries,  it would cut right into the markets of existing Northern Industries.    The Northern businessmen were desperately afraid of what would happen to their industries if the South  engaged in free trade.   


Newspaper accounts of the time  thought it quite worrisome.  I would hunt you up a few,  but I don't feel like looking for them right now. 

[DiogenesLamp]

You have a grand future in writing alternative histories.  You just need to work on grammar, logic, and readability....

Grammar Nazis usually avoid the salient point.   In fact,  they often Nazi the grammar precisely because it allows them to avoid the salient point.   


4 Million Southern citizens were contributing 75% of the Union's cost of governance.   20 Million Northerners were only paying 25% of the cost of governance.   

Of course the South wanted out from under it,  and of course the Northerners wanted them to continue paying it. 

[r9etb]

Secession itself is not levying war nor is it treason against the US.

Firing on Fr. Sumpter was levying war, and those who fought against the Union were either in rebellion, or committing treason.  Sorta by definition. 

The hotheads of South Carolina provided a pretext for war, and the raising of armies by the other secessionist states was certainly a provocation for it.

As for the "constitutionality" of secession .... well, in essence it was a big "never mind, we don't actually mean it any more even if we did at the start."  In forming its "more perfect Union," the Constitution either had actual meaning and authority, or it did not.  By seceding, the Southern states denied that the Constitution had any overarching authority -- a pretty indefensible case, when you get down to it.

All that said, whether or not "states' rights" was a cause worth fighting for, the proximate cause for the South's secession -- maintenance of slavery -- was cowardly, greedy, and inhumane.  The Southern soldiers were gallant and brave, but in the end -- and no matter what their personal reasons -- they were fighting to preserve a barbarous institution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yep! There was plenty of anti slavery sentiment around back then but I was talking about Union soldiers specifically.  Of course there were some fiercely antislavery men in the union army as well but the vast majority were simply not interested in dying to end slavery.

Beyond that,  the issue of the War of Northern Aggression hinges on the Constitution and whether or not a state can leave the union in the same manner it joined the union.  I see not a word in the Constitution which would bar them from doing so and until someone shows me the specific language there that does my views will not change.

The Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.   Do you think they had so quickly forgotten the right of independence which they articulated in that document?   

Why put a word in the Constitution when it could only contradict what had already been written in the Declaration?   

In 1787,  it was a given that a state could leave the American Union in the same manner as the Colonies left the British Union.   (Union of the Crowns,  AKA United Kingdom.)   

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, they don't appear in the Constitution except as mentions of rebellion (Article I Section 9) and "Treason against the United States, [which] shall consist only in levying War against them...."

So, aside from those, you mean....

You neo-confeds are pathetic.

Lincoln was the Rebel.    The American founding document articulates the right to leave ,  to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.  "

This was America's foundation.  Lincoln fought that.   The Southern states were in agreement with it.

 

[geronl]

Firing on Fr. Sumpter was levying war, and those who fought against the Union were either in rebellion, or committing treason.  Sorta by definition. 

I said that Secession itself is neither an act of war nor of treason. The fact is that the Union would never have allowed the south to secede peacefully.

[DiogenesLamp]

So it's a love-hate thing for you -- ending for you in hate, because when confronted with the actual fact of rebellion, as opposed to the hypothetical version, Mr. Lincoln squashed the rebellion.

Weren't the Texans rebelling against Mexico?  That is the event to which Lincoln is referring to in that speech.   


Lincoln was in favor of Texans gaining their independence from Mexico.   He was just against Texans gaining their independence from Him. 


I guess his support of this "Sacred Right"  is a bit subjective.