reb or yank

[nohorse]

Fishman:

Let’s clear up a few things:

Read some of the other posts regarding slavery and consider, like I mentioned before, that the institution of slavery was “American”. It didn’t originate in the South and was in existence BEFORE the Confederacy was organized.  The majority of the slave ports were in northern states and slavery flourished for years in the United States under the ‘Stars and Stripes’ not the “Stars and Bars”.  It is convenient to ignore the facts that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and that U.S. Grant had slaves, among others of prominence in our history.  And that slavery was common place in the original 13 colonies.  Also remember many prominent citizens of the South did not favor or promote slavery. Consider Robert E. Lee’s statement in 1856 five years before Sumpter was fired upon [He without question is a Southern icon]: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former.....Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!"

As you mention regarding slavery, agriculture and “WORK DAMN IT!!": One of the major causes for the war was the exorbitant and unfair tax that congress levied on  agricultural products transported from the South.  The North depended on these products and because they could not grow them and also share in the profits they levied taxes.  Since this tax meant so much financial gain - the northern states encouraged the importation of slaves and the utilization of these persons in the agricultural South to produce the materials they needed and funnel more Southern dollars into the national economy. As you implied, the agricultural regions required manpower to produce the quantities of cotton, sugar, tobacco and other products being transported north. To many of the northern profiteers it was simple economics at the expense of cheap forced labor.

This doesn’t mean that northern states also didn’t continue to own and use slaves because they did. However years of these practices resulted in a higher population of slaves in the Southern states and that is one of the reasons people associate slaves with the South.  Please consider that when the emancipation proclamation was made it did not free slaves owned in states of the union, loyalist Border States or those territories occupied by union forces.  These people legally retained the institution of slavery under the banner of the “Stars and Stripes” because they feared freeing them [As Abraham Lincoln stated on more than one occaison] and they required the cheap labor. How many men can you conscript and still maintain the factories and supplies for the northern war machine?

As for your Gettysburg guide question “If the South had won...would their still be slavery?"; I hope you didn’t have to pay them for their services.

Regarding your statement: ”And you're telling me you wished the Confederates won? Just to make the South feel supremace?”   I have never told anyone that I wished the South had won.  I have told people that history should accurately and correctly relate the facts.  And I have stated that our Southron heritage is worthy of preservation just like the ancestry and heritage of any other ethnic group and should retain equal standing in the history books as well as our communities. I also have never stated anything about Southerners feeling “supremace” - whatever that is.  So in these regards please do not place all Southrons into your stereotype.

As for your statement “how can you think it right to imprison people against their own free will and enslave them to incredulous chores?” I suggest you look in your own backyard and take a little time to actually research the facts rather than relying upon popular beliefs, misconceptions and myths to formulate your point of view.

[JPSaxMan]

No Horse

I believe you might be thinking of the "indentured servants" the northerns used up to the time before the Civil War. And even so...when the Civil War broke out slavery was one of the issues. South wanted it; north didn't. Period. That wasn't the only reason for the war I'm sure. But that didn't help any. And no, the tour was free.  :-D  But you didn't mention if you agreed or disagreed on that point. And about the whole South supremacy thing...I didn't say you personally. I've read through out this thread and have drawn that conclusion. If the South had won, they would have been able to turn around and say, "HA HA...we beat you now we get to keep our slaves and get to keep the Confederate States of America". And you think that would have helped this country? Well then...I'll relax and wait for the masses.  

[nohorse]

Fishman:

“I believe you might be thinking of the "indentured servants" the northerns used up to the time before the Civil War”

No, we are not talking about indentured servants where agents, as well as private recruiters, impressed persons into service with promises of land and other benefits for several years of servitude. That is a completely different issue. In 1619, the first 20 Africans were brought to the colonies aboard a Dutch ship bound for Jamestown, Virginia.  In 1641, the colony of Massachusetts officially legalized slavery. The slaves that belonged to Thomas Jefferson were slaves. The slaves that belonged to Julia Dent Grant were slaves. The slaves that belonged to President Monroe were indeed slaves. They were not indentured servants.  Like I said before – slavery was an “American” institution and was not limited simply to the Southern states and the Confederacy.

“when the Civil War broke out slavery was one of the issues”

I agree that slavery was an issue and as I have said before, although slavery and abolition were political issues of the time, and justifiably so, keep in mind that the emancipation proclamation was not enacted until after secession had occurred and until that declaration was made the ownership of slaves was legal and practiced in the Southern and many of the loyalist states as well. Then again, President Abraham Lincoln only declared free those slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed very few people. It did not apply to slaves in border-states fighting on the Union side [35 percent of the Border States population were slaves according to the 1860 census and contrary to popular myth - they were not freed by the US Government]; nor did it affect slaves in Southern areas already under Union control. I also find it most difficult to believe that the portion of the wealthy “American” aristocracy that did retain slaves, regardless of how racially motivated their intentions might have been, could force their desires upon the general populace to such an extent that it would result in open rebellion. The point being, regardless of what many prefer to believe today, slavery was not the deciding cause for the rebellion and I personally do not believe it was the reason my ancestors enlisted, and I also do not believe that they suffered simply to preserve a “white south”. Similarly, I do not believe that the North fought to preserve a “black north” which is what the statement “white south” would imply.

“South wanted it; north didn't. Period”

We will have to agree to disagree on this point.  Please research this more and come back.

“If the South had won, they would have been able to turn around and say, "HA HA...we beat you now we get to keep our slaves and get to keep the Confederate States of America". And you think that would have helped this country? Well then...I'll relax and wait for the masses.”

The South had already decided the slaves had to go. They could not get formal recognition from France and England while holding slaves and that is one reason why Lincoln was also forced to execute the emancipation proclamation which was also greatly misunderstood by their European allies.  Understand that the northern slave holdings were causing much distress in foreign relations and world opinion and the north also was at risk of losing European support. The South as well as the north was also considering freeing the slaves and using them as troops but unfortunately the South was already too far gone to support this financially and materially when the issue was finally seriously considered.  

Although there was considerable discrimination toward the black troops as you are aware the north did accomplish this and many of them served with great valor.  They too should be recognized and honored for their service.

“And you think that would have helped this country? Well then...I'll relax and wait for the masses.”

By all means assure that you have a comfortable chair to wait in.  And note that I never said that I believed that the continuance of slavery would have benefited the country.  Quite to the contrary if you read some of my other posts you will note that I too do not believe or support that institution.  As I stated before both sides had already recognized that slavery must come to an end, as such they realized the institution would not help the country.

“And no, the tour was free. But you didn't mention if you agreed or disagreed on that point.”

I wasn’t there and as such I do not know the context from which this tour guide’s question was posed. As such I have no basis to form an opinion.

[l.cutler]

Just a note on Grant's slave ownership,  Grant's wife and inlaws were slave owners.  Grant's father in law gave him a slave who Grant freed after a few months.  Even though Grant was in dire financial straits as usual, and could have gotten $1200 for his slave he did not feel it was right to sell a human being.  That was the extent of Grant's slave ownership.

[nohorse]

You are correct sir, I should have elaborated more. No disrespect to President Grant or his family was intended.

[ironfoot]

The tax/tariff issues existed before secession. It was when a northerner with anti-slavery credentials (as established by the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Lincoln's Coopers Union speech) was elected President that the South seceded. The South seceded in an effort to preserve slavery. Lincoln and Grant both said the cause of the war was slavery.

Here is the last verse of the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

Doesn't sound like the North was fighting to preserve tariffs, does it?

[nohorse]

"The tax/tariff issues existed before secession.”  Yes the tariff definitely existed before session. Why would the South continue to pay the tariff after they seceded?

“It was when a northerner with anti-slavery credentials (as established by the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Lincoln's Coopers Union speech) was elected President that the South seceded.”  As I stated before – both sides had already decided that slavery had to go.  Also, I never said that slavery wasn’t an issue – I simply made the point that it was not the only issue.

“The South seceded in an effort to preserve slavery.” Again, that was not the only issue.

“ Lincoln and Grant both said the cause of the war was slavery. "  They are free to form their own opinions.   Then again, Grant was largely unsuccessful in civilian life. He failed at farming and in the real estate business. The opening of Civil War hostilities found him working as a clerk in the family leather goods store, run by his two brothers in Galena, Illinois. He began his second military career organizing and mustering in recruits…. He did have a few brilliant moments during the war…then he served two terms as president, during which there were many scandals in his administration, especially relating to the Whiskey Tax and the appointment of Indian agents. Despite his efforts to promote peace with the Indians, the Custer massacre occurred during his tenure as President.  After he was denied re-nomination in 1880, he became involved in a number of unsuccessful business ventures. The worst of these involved the brokerage firm of Grant and Ward. His partner, Ferdinand Ward stole millions of dollars from the stockholders, bankrupting the firm and the Grant family with it. He died penniless depending upon the funds from his memoirs to secure his family…..like I said, he was free to voice his opinion. Regarding Lincoln and slavery - When Lincoln served in the Illinois legislature (1834-1842), Illinois was not as free a state. The constitution of Illinois technically prohibited slavery, but this was done with the understanding that it was necessary to get Illinois admitted as a state. The state constitution did not completely eliminate slavery. It went as far as it could to retain slavery and still permit Illinois to be admitted as a state. In fact, Illinois had a series of black codes, laws segregating races and taking rights away from blacks. To survive in the political arena, Lincoln had to consider the needs and wants of slave holders.  When Lincoln announced his candidacy for state representative for his second term, he stated that he favored "admitting all whites the right of suffrage." Possibly Lincoln took this stand against blacks voting because one of his legislative colleagues, William Carpenter, was criticized for suggesting that free blacks should be permitted to vote. For the first time, and not the last, Lincoln conformed his view on slavery to fit the public opinion.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates that you refer to Lincoln affirmed that Congress had no constitutional authority to abolish slavery in the South. In one debate he asserted bluntly that "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black man."  Lincoln shifted in the closing debates toward attacks on slavery as "a moral, social, and political evil." He argued that Douglas's view on slavery as merely an eccentric and rather unsavory Southern custom would dull the nation's conscience and promote the legalization of slavery everywhere. In doing this, Lincoln compromised his own position by rejecting both abolition and equality for blacks; at the same time he gained public support in the North. Once again, he shifted his views to conform to public opinion. He reminds me of an 1850’s – 1860’s version of John Kerry.  He ended slavery and deserves credit and recognition that goes with that accomplishment. But the record of his change of view is clear. When Abraham Lincoln was in office, he was anti-slavery. When he was up for reelection, he, like many politicians, followed public opinion. Siding with the abolitionists would have been political suicide for Lincoln. The Great Emancipator was like some politicians; he campaigned to please the public…like Grant, he is also entitled to his opinion.

“Here is the last verse of the Battle Hymn of the Republic:
 
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

Doesn't sound like the North was fighting to preserve tariffs, does it?

 It sounds like ardent abolitionist Julia Ward Stowe to me, and I agree with the lyrics in that I also do not believe that God intended for people to be slaves. It is a good song.

Again….I do not support slavery in any form but remember when you start pointing fingers at the South, slavery existed under the United States flag for much longer than it did under the Stars and Bars.  As I stated before it was not just a Southern institution it was in fact an American institution and was in place and the practice was accepted long before the acts of secession were ratified.

[ironfoot]

Yes Lincoln and Grant were free to form their own opinions, as was Lee whom you cite. But Lee never said the war was not about slavery. Lincoln and Grant said it was about slavery. Their opinions are part of the historical record.

South Carolina was the first state to secede. You can find South Carolina's reasons for secession here:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

The primary concern was about preserving slavery. The South had not accepted that slavery was on the way out. The south was trying to extend slavery into the territories. Lincoln was trying to prevent that. So the South seceded.

You can argue Lincoln's anti-slavery credentials, but they were obvious to the seceding South Carolina legislature, which stated in its Declaration:

"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

[nohorse]

OK

[nohorse]

Oh and a couple of minor points:

"Yes Lincoln and Grant were free to form their own opinions, as was Lee whom you cite. But Lee never said the war was not about slavery. Lincoln and Grant said it was about slavery. Their opinions are part of the historical record. "

And Lee's comments are not part of the historical record? I do not recall reading Lee's opinions regarding the actual cause of the war. Do you have a reference?

"South Carolina was the first state to secede. You can find South Carolina's reasons for secession here:"

Mississippi mentions it in their articles of secession too,  so?


"The primary concern was about preserving slavery. The South had not accepted that slavery was on the way out. The south was trying to extend slavery into the territories. Lincoln was trying to prevent that. So the South seceded. "

We can agree to disagree.

You can argue Lincoln's anti-slavery credentials, but they were obvious to the seceding South Carolina legislature, which stated in its Declaration:

"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

All I said as Lincoln was wishy washy on the issue, I gave him credit for the emancipation proclamation. Is that arguing his anti-slavery credentials?  Again, I never said that slavery wasn't an issue.  All I said was there was more to the issue than just slavery....

[ironfoot]

nohorse:

You said:

"All I said was there was more to the issue than just slavery...."

But you also said:

"As I stated before – both sides had already decided that slavery had to go."

The Declaration of Causes of Secession make it clear that the South had not decided slavery must go. The South was trying to preserve slavery where it existed, and expand it into the territories.

You also said:

["The tax/tariff issues existed before secession.” Yes the tariff definitely existed before session. Why would the South continue to pay the tariff after they seceded?]

The point is that tax/tariff issues existed before the Lincoln administration and did not cause secession. When proslavery, southernerns were president, the South did not secede. When anti-slavery, northern president Lincoln was elected, the South seceded.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Please research this more and come back.

;-)

[nohorse]

"All I said was there was more to the issue than just slavery...."

But you also said:

"As I stated before – both sides had already decided that slavery had to go." :

Yes I did. I still believe that both sides realized that the issue of slavery had to be resolved. There was a lot of political huzzah at the secession conventions that reflected popular sentiment at the time and provided a platform to achieve the ultimate goal of secession. I also believe that slavery had such an impact on the politics of the time that had the South opted to eliminate it at the beginning of the war it would have silenced the ’fire eaters’ and radically changed the political climate, but as we both know, they took another course that would also lead them to war.  Perhaps that was their desire?  

The Declaration of Causes of Secession make it clear that the South had not decided slavery must go. The South was trying to preserve slavery where it existed, and expand it into the territories:

I still believe that slavery was an American institution and the North could also have abolished it years before it became a central political issue of the 1860's.  Both sides have a lot to regret in these regards.

You also said:

["The tax/tariff issues existed before secession.” Yes the tariff definitely existed before session. Why would the South continue to pay the tariff after they seceded?]

The point is that tax/tariff issues existed before the Lincoln administration and did not cause secession. When proslavery, southernerns were president, the South did not secede. When anti-slavery, northern president Lincoln was elected, the South seceded.

What I said was: “One of the major causes for the war was the exorbitant and unfair tax”. Sheeez, read what I said. I didn’t say it was THE cause for the secession.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I know.

 Please research this more and come back:

I don’t think it matters we both have our opinions.  Thanks for clarifying yours…Let's concentrate on a more important current issue such as Civil War Historical preservation.

[williamlayton]

Ironhorse/Nohorse
Good debate from both, well done by both and I have enjoyed. Also, just as a side, fine temperament shown by both, and that adds to the pleasure.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Errr, well scuse me Mr Ironfoot, sir. I'm apologizin.
Blessings

[nohorse]

williamlayton: Thanks for the kind words....

[PaleRyder]

Hello all. I'm new. For one thing, the term 'civil war' is incorrect.  A Civil War is when two groups fight for control of the same government, which was not the case. Also, War Between the States is not correct. The individual states were not fighting each other, two nations were.
I think the only proper term for the conflict is The War For Southern Independence.
A lot of folks don't know that blacks owned slaves, that many blacks fought for the South, the main illegal slave traders were Northerners from New England, and that there were slaves in the North that Lincoln did not free with his Proclamation. Or perhaps people don't know that Lincoln did not want to end slavery, and he favored shipping all of the blacks back to Africa.
Black soldiers in the Confederate army were treated better and more like equals than their Northern counterparts.
Also, less than 6% of the Southern population owned slaves, and slavery was on its way to dying regardless of the Northern invasion. The North invaded to prevent the South from becoming its own nation because the North wanted to control the revenue from the South's economies. It was invasion mostly over money, pure and simple.
I grew up and live in the North, but want to re-settle down south somewhere, and let my music talk for me. And my music is mostly Lynyrd Skynyrd, Outlaws, Blackfoot, etc.
I'm American, but I guess I'm more Southern than anything.

[nohorse]

“Hello all. I'm new. For one thing, the term 'civil war' is incorrect. A Civil War is when two groups fight for control of the same government, which was not the case. Also, War Between the States is not correct. The individual states were not fighting each other, two nations were.
I think the only proper term for the conflict is The War For Southern Independence. “

The War for Southern Independence is an adequate term.  I agree that once what became the Confederacy seceded it became a conflict between nations.  I believe that some of the misnomers like “Civil War” stem from the fact that many northerners and others that did not secede refused to recognize the Confederacy’s legitimate standing as a sovereign nation.

"A lot of folks don't know that blacks owned slaves, that many blacks fought for the South, the main illegal slave traders were Northerners from New England, and that there were slaves in the North that Lincoln did not free with his Proclamation. Or perhaps people don't know that Lincoln did not want to end slavery, and he favored shipping all of the blacks back to Africa. "


I believe Lincoln supported the slavery issue because he had to. As you state he did not favor equality between the races and Lincoln commented:

“My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible."

Also:

“Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feeling will not admit of this….”

Lincoln also wrote "As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except Negroes'.” Seven years before the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

Then again regarding the South and slavery Lincoln stated: "There is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."

That's all I have time for right now.....I am sure you'll get  more comments from others.....

[PaleRyder]

I've always understood Lincoln had no thoughts whatsoever about freeing the slaves until the war began. And at that point, like has just been mentioned he only favored freeing them to ship them to Africa. However, there were slaves in some of the North when the Proclamation was issued, and it was not directed at them, nor did Lincoln make any attempt to actually free the Northern slaves.

Did not the South fire the first shots though, at Ft Sumter? I'm uncertain how it can be labelled a war of Northern Aggression if the South shot first.

[nohorse]

“I've always understood Lincoln had no thoughts whatsoever about freeing the slaves until the war began. And at that point, like has just been mentioned he only favored freeing them to ship them to Africa. However, there were slaves in some of the North when the Proclamation was issued, and it was not directed at them, nor did Lincoln make any attempt to actually free the Northern slaves. “

Regarding the emancipation proclamation – Yes, it did not free slaves owned in states of the union, loyalist Border States or those territories occupied by union forces. These people legally retained the institution of slavery under the banner of the “Stars and Stripes”.  The emancipation proclamation didn’t actually carry a lot of weight as it didn’t do anything for slaves outside of the Confederacy and it had no legal binding on the Confederacy because as you mentioned before, the Confederacy was no longer part of the United States. It had seceded and formed its own sovereign nation. As such it was up to the Confederacy at that time to decide how to reconcile the slave issue.

”Did not the South fire the first shots though, at Ft Sumter?”

Actually one of the Citadel shore batteries fired upon the Federal ship “Star of the West” as it carried troops to re-enforce Ft. Sumpter in January 1861. In March, P.G.T. Beauregard took command of the Charleston Confederate forces.  When Lincoln took office he again attempted to re-enforce Ft. Sumpter along with a supply ship and several ships of war. The Confederate government asked Beauregard to fire on the fort and prevent it from being re-enforced.  Being a Southern gentleman he offered Col. Anderson the opportunity to surrender the fort first.  After that offer was declined Edmond Ruffin fired the first shot around 4:10 am on April 12, 1861.  Regardless the result is the same – The Confederacy fired the first shots.

“I'm uncertain how it can be labelled a war of Northern Aggression if the South shot first.”

I suppose that depends upon your individual perspective.  Considering that the South fired the opening shots to prevent the north from re-enforcing a Fort that was on their property; after the South had extended an offer for the garrison to surrender… I can see where some may construe that the north’s decision to declare war was an aggressive response.  In addition the manner in which the war was later conducted with scorched earth policies, retributions against civilians which were deemed traitors and rebels and reconstruction – it appears that the north took quite an aggressive stance.

[PaleRyder]

No argument there. It certainly should be labelled a war for independence. Why was it ok for the original colonies to forcefully declare independence, or for the US government today to endorse countries like Lithuania for declaring independence, and not allow the  Southern states to do the same?
We can see from the way the US gov't treated the Native Americans, something the history books don't even attempt to cover up, how it shouldn't be surprising they'd treat the South similarly.

[JBMauser]

According to a biography of lincoln from his early years before national politics, Lincoln had very strong feelings against slavery.  All else is politics which sometimes requires one to be more clever than your opponent.  As for the first question of this thread I thought it somewhat annoying.  If anyone does not consider themselves an american I have no comment.  even then they were all americans the forces that ripped the country assunder had little to do with the common man at first.  They were all americans.  It was only as the interests pulled the country assunder did men have to choose or be forced to a side or die at the hand of a neighbor.  There was regional and state pride and distrust and contempt of others.  Kind of like blue states and red states.  Still we are all americans, but many don't agree with that.  JB

[ironfoot]

Lincoln was against slavery. He argued against it many times.  Lincoln's anti-slavery stance was well understood by the southern states, and they complained of it bitterly. To argue 140 years later that Lincoln was not anti-slavery enough ignores the political reality of his times. If you would have told the South Carolina legislature that Lincoln was not anti-slavery, the legislators would have thought you were insane.

Here is a quote from Lincoln in his Coopers Union speech:

"Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively."

Here is a link to the whole speech:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

It was when Lincoln was elected that the South seceded, not before.
The southern legislatures said said they were seceding because of Lincoln's ant-slavery platform. (A link to their Declarations of Causes of Secession is posted above.)

The South may have complained of tariffs and taxes before Lincoln, but they did not secede while there were pro-slavery Southerners holding the presidency. It was when anti-slavery Lincoln was elected that the secession began. Lincoln then took efforts to preserve the Union, over which he had been elected president.

[PaleRyder]

From an independence stance alone, I'd support the Southern states' rights to secede.

The slavery issue isn't something I can't possibly know.
Living in today's world I am 100% against anyone being enslaved as all humans are equal. Had I lived in that period? I have no idea. I did not live during that period. Slavery was accepted, and whites in general, even those who were against slavery, thought themselves superior to other races. If I had lived then I can have no idea today what my opinions would have been.
I can only speak from hindsight.

[ironfoot]

"Living in today's world I am 100% against anyone being enslaved as all humans are equal. Had I lived in that period? I have no idea. I did not live during that period. Slavery was accepted, and whites in general, even those who were against slavery, thought themselves superior to other races. If I had lived then I can have no idea today what my opinions would have been.
I can only speak from hindsight."

I agree. So would Lincoln. Here is a Lincoln quote from the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

"Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters."

[El Confederado]

Here we go again ,well, here are some other things that should be put up that the beloved Mr Lincoln said.


Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:

"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 -- 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 from 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, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


or how about this one--


Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press:

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this."

This being said lets be honest, thet man and his war were evil,unconstitutional and just plain misleading.

[JBMauser]

El Confederado, I have read your posted quotes and do not get your point.  No one of that time black or white thought the black race would ever be equal socially or politically to the whites.  If you recall only white males could vote, own property etc.  Even a hero to me, T.R. felt that the black race needed another few hundred years of social development to be equal to whites but he did not feel they were to be slaves to the white race.  Free black men could own property even slaves but a women vote?  Do not confuse freedom with equality for your purpose.  The anti slavery movement had to do with freedom not political or social equality.  The sentiment to free the blacks had as much to do with the wrongness of it against the white race as it did the simple recognition in the dignity of a black man and a woman to be free human beings.  The struggle for equality comes later if you recall.  As for the underlying point.  I am still reading and trying to get a sense as to the passion that held for one nation.  It still seems to me that the rift could have been permitted and the North and South separate in agreement.  JB

[El Confederado]

JB,
What I was trying to point out was the Mr Lincoln was not some great hero of equality as some here claim, but a doulble talkin Clinton that had his own reasons for fighting the war.If one reads the Confederate Constitution, it made it clear that within a generation that slavery would be dead, so I think that says volumes for the future of " freedom" of the colored slaves, it also means that the war was not needed and that the Union fought it under false pretence, because as we all know that have read the Constitution, the south acted legaly under their right granted as States.

[nohorse]

Well, just to keep the discussion somewhat balanced consider that Southern attitudes towards slaves were changing radically by 1865.  As I stated before and as El Confederado mentions, the South eventually recognized that slavery could not remain.    

As far as equality goes…blacks were still segregated and delegated support tasks under the ‘star and stripes’ through World War II.  Were there some exceptions? Yes, but for the most part, as we know, the ranks were segregated.  Thus, freedom from the slavery of the South did not guarantee any specific rights to the freed blacks and blacks would generally remain second class citizens for decades.  Well, I stray from my original subject...

However just to lend a different perspective since we have heard Mr. Lincoln’s, here’s a few quotes from Jefferson Davis that sheds some light on the South’s changing attitude towards slavery:

"As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter--give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself. If we are correct in this assumption it only remains to show how this great national sacrifice is, in all human probabilities, to change the current of success and sweep the invader from our country,"


"Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free...…Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom."

Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

And what of the northern troops regard for the ‘freed’ blacks in area they occupied:

The "freedpeople throughout the Union-occupied South often toiled harder and longer under Federal officers and soldiers than they had under slave owners and overseers--and received inferior food, clothing, and shelter to boot."--"Free At Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom, and the Civil War", 1992 edited    by Ira Berlin, & others.
Mrs. Louisa Jane Barker, the wife of the Chaplain of the 1st Mass. Heavy Artillery writes in 1864 regarding a Federal contraband camp near Ft. Albany, in northern Virginia:

The camp, referred to as a "village" by Mrs. Barker was ordered to be cleared out by order of Gen. Augur.  "This order was executed so literally that even a dying child was ordered out of his house---The grandmother who had taken care of it since its mothers death begged leave to stay until the child died, but she was refused."

"The men who were absent at work, came home at night to find empty houses, and their families gone, they knew not whither!--Some of them came to Lieut. Shepard to enquire for their lost wives and children---In tears and indignation they protested against a tyranny worse than their past experiences of slavery---

One man said, 'I am going back to my old master---I never saw hard time till since I called myself a freeman.'  "

Lewis C. Lockwood, a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts also reflects on the  abuse by the Union Army that was committed on a widespread extent. In a letter dated Jan 29, 1862 he writes:

"Contrabandism at Fortress Monroe is but another name for one of the worst forms of practical oppression--government slavery.  Old Pharaoh slavery was government slavery and Uncle Sam's slavery is a counterpart..."

"Masters who are owners or who have been brought up with their slaves [have an interest in them]; but what do government officers generally care how they treat these poor waifs, who have been cast upon their heartless protection..."

"But most of the slaves are compelled to work for government for a miserable pittance.  Up to town months ago they had worked for nothing but quarters and rations.  Since that time they have been partially supplied with clothing--costing on an average $4 per man. And in many instances they have received one or two dollars a month cash for the past town months..."  "Yet, under the direction of Quarter Master Tallmadge, Sergeant Smith has lately reduced the rations, given out, in Camp Hamilton, to the families of these laborers and to the disabled, from 500 to 60. And some of the men, not willing to see if their families suffer, have withdrawn from government service.  And the Sergeant has been putting them in the Guard-house, whipping and forcing them back into the government gang.  In some instances these slaves have been knocked down senseless with shovels and clubs."

"But I have just begun to trace the long catalogue of enormities, committed in the name of the Union, freedom and justice under the Stars and Stripes. Yours with great respect, Lewis C. Lockwood"

The reality of the era [and future] was not that illustrated by the Maine troops in the fictionalized accounting described in  'Killer Angels' and the political whims of Lincoln the other abolitionists.

[ironfoot]

Here is a speech Jefferson Davis gave in the senate in 1850:

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/davis13feb1850.html

He is complaining that the North is trying to restrict expansion of slavery in to the territories. Coincidentally he was picked by the south to be the president of the Confederacy.

Regarding Lincoln, he was anti-slavery. (That was obvious to the southern legislatures which complained of it bitterly.) He was trying to stop slaverys expansion into the territories.

Here is a Lincoln quote from the 7th Lincoln-Douglas debate:


"We have no power as citizens of the free States or in our federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the General Government, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the Government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the States. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it while in the Territorial condition."

You can read the Lincoln-Douglas debates here:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/debates.htm

Lincoln knew he could not end slavery abruptly where it currently existed because it existed there "legally". (In similar fashion anti-abortion presidents cannot unilaterally end abortion, they will have to do that by changing the composition of the Supreme Court, or through amending the Constitution.) He lived in a time when many, probably most, whites would not accept blacks as equals. He considered a plan that would allow blacks to be free and avoid violence. That planning process led to floating the idea of setting up a separate country for the blacks. That was a pretty humanitarian idea in an age when blacks were viewed as mere property.

[IntrepidWizard]

You got it Foot,the country was Liberia and you put it all together pretty well,for a guy with a walking impediment.