MidCityBear said:MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it once and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
Best Presidents in US history.Redbrickbear said:MidCityBear said:MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it once and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
Washington was the best American president and it's not even close….
Lincoln is not even in the same category.
And while a political genius…he stated a war that got 600,000+ people killed because he did not want to let the Southern State become independent.
The USA of course was founded on secession and independence from centralized power.
I would not say he was a particularly good President consider the mass bloodshed and destruction during his administration.
Frank Galvin said:And southerners needed a system to profit from enslaved labor. Again, the South started the war because they knew their economic interests were threatened. As a bonus they did not want to confront their abject and indefensible cruelty.Redbrickbear said:Lincoln need the Southern tax revenue....so did the Northern political and economic elite.Frank Galvin said:We had avoided the scenario you paint for 40 years but you are certain that Lincoln would have started a war because you just know. The whole thing about firing on federal troops is just an oncovneneint fact that changes nothing?Redbrickbear said:Realitybites said:
I wonder how history would have read had the Confederacy simply blockaded Fort Sumter.
But these are all questions for the history books.
Lincoln and the North were determined to keep the South (for geo-strategic reasons and for tax revenue reasons) so it would NOT have made much difference.
If the South had not fired on Sumter it would have certainly undermined the whole "the South started the war" narrative.
But most people who think the North was justified in that war don't really care about Sumter (no one of course even died in the shelling of the Fort)
Had there never been a Ft. Sumter incident at all Lincoln still would have called up 75,000 volunteers to compel the Deep South States back into the Union.
The Upland South States would have then still seceded because of that call for soldiers and the war would have taken place.
And people today would still be defending Lincolns actions by saying that secession was unlawful (something that is debatable) and that he was justified in using force to bring them back into the Union.
The Union also felt they needed control of the Mississippi river and that New Orleans could NOT be allowed to be in the hands of a new foreign nation.
"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."
~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861
[Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col. Baldwin (VA): Yes, Sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?] Abraham Lincoln , April 4th, 1861
"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman
[General Scott gave Lincoln the options he saw available to the new administration. He outlined four reasonable scenarios. His first was what Seward had envisioned since shortly after Lincoln's victory. The Republican Party could embrace the Crittenden Compromise or the Peace Convention proposals and become the great Union Party. This would halt the secession process and prompt return of some seceded states. If this option was rejected, Scott saw the remaining slave states making their way to the Confederacy, leaving Washington literally besieged. Second, the government could collect custom duties on the high seas, or by act of Congress close the ports in the seceded states and blockade them. Third, the United States could wage war against the seceded states, a conflict Scott said would last two to three years and require an army of three hundred thousand men. It would result in horrendous casualties and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Union could prevail, Scott believed, but in addition to the cost in blood and treasure, victory would leave an angry, devastated part of the country, which would necessitate an expensive occupying garrison for decades. Finally, tell the seceded states, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" In his letter, General Scott never made an explicit recommendation, but neither did he hide his opinion. The first option was clearly his choice, as it was surely Seward's. Just as Abraham Lincoln was confronting his own dilemma with Fort Sumter, the Confederate commissioners began arriving in Washington. Among his first acts as president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis had appointed a delegation to go to Washington "for establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States." (M & PC, 1:55-56; Cooper, We Have the War Upon Us, 220-221)]
Yes, both sides had economic interests at stake. But only one side sought to protect a system that was cruel and immoral. And no matter what you believe would have happened, the thing that did happen was the South fired first.
KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Popping in because the question is interesting, my worst 5 Presidents areKaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Oldbear83 said:Popping in because the question is interesting, my worst 5 Presidents areKaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
5. LBJ - stole multiple Senator elections, installed the 'Great Society' which wasted Trillions of taxpayer dollars while making things worse for the poor, turned the Vietnam conflict from a small conflict to an endless and unwinnable meat grinder to kill draftees and turned the US Military into a corporate boondoggle factory
4.Biden - abandoned Middle East presence, spent Trillions on pet projects which helped only cronies, took bribes from multiple foreign powers, pursued blatantly racist policies
3. Obama - oversaw nationalization of Healthcare, deliberately weakened US Defense, weaponized the IRS and DOJ against political enemies
2. Buchanan - saw the Civil War coming, didn't do much of anything to prevent it
1. Wilson - introduced the Income Tax and the Sedition Act, hosted the KKK at the White House
Redbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:History is complex and not simplistic as you state that somehow slveey was not a major aim. Abolitionist, and seeing what slavery was the original sin of United StatesRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:So? Slavery was endedRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about moralityThee University said:It was not a Civil War.Waco1947 said:
Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.
Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.
I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself
In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.
"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"
True, as a consequence of a war.
Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.
The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves
You should follow that advise and stop trying to make history a simplistic morality tale
"North good" vs "South bad" is about as simplistic as it gets…straw man
MidCityBear said:KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.
FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.
Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.
5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.
5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.
Redbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:So? Slavery was endedRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about moralityThee University said:It was not a Civil War.Waco1947 said:
Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.
Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.
I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself
In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.
"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"
True, as a consequence of a war.
Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.
The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.
Waco1947 said:Redbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:So? Slavery was endedRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about moralityThee University said:It was not a Civil War.Waco1947 said:
Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.
Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.
I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself
In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.
"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"
True, as a consequence of a war.
Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.
The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.
Frank Galvin said:MidCityBear said:KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.
FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.
Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.
5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.
5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.
Tyler should be on every bad list.
Based on results....absolutely.Redbrickbear said:Frank Galvin said:MidCityBear said:KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.
FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.
Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.
5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.
5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.
Tyler should be on every bad list.
And Polk should be near the top of every good list
Waco1947 said:Redbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:So? Slavery was endedRedbrickbear said:Waco1947 said:your response is nothing, nothing to do with what I said about moralityThee University said:It was not a Civil War.Waco1947 said:
Morality of slavery trumps new nationhood hence a civil war.
Civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government.
I can assure you that neither side in 1861 was concerned much with the morality is slavery itself
In fact the entire concept of abolitionism was weaker in the north than most realize.
"The Liberty party, Foner states, most drew in abolitionists from the other political groups. However, after the failure of Liberty party to gain widespread electoral support, most abolitionists moved on to the Republican party, attempting to bring their anti-slavery ideology with them"
Not as a major aim of Northern society or the Northern war effort.
The war was fought to keep the Southern States in the Union/deny them their political independence…not to free slaves Every article of secession by southern states called for slavery. Again, you speak out of ignorance. Were you raised in the south? I was and I was not told the truth about the Civil War.
Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
It's an interesting story, but your link even states that most historians agree it was the South firing on Ft Sumter that were the first shots of the war.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West
https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html
Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter
and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.
[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861
[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]
"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes
[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]
Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West
https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html
Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter
and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.
[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861
[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]
"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes
[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]
Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.
Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.
I've always gotten a kick out of mental midgets that end their pitiful comments with "end of story".MidCityBear said:
The South started the Civil War. Over Slavery. Period. End of story.
My ancestors on both sides were either in Texas or the Deep South at the time of the Civil War. The men of age were Confederate Soldiers. At least one was severely wounded in battle.
I am thankful to my ancestors that I am alive. But I do not honor them if I glorify or justify or even minimize that which they were a part of. I do not honor them by falling for or promoting the same lies that conned them. I honor them by living in my time informed by their mistakes and working towards something better. I hope my descendants will honor me in the same way - not repeating my mistakes but learning from them.
There is much to admire about Washington. I bet he'd tell us Lincoln was the better man and present as well.
I don't disagree that Lincoln was a racist by today's standards that wanted to send blacks back to Africa, this is well documented.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Oldbear83 said:KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
2. Buchanan - saw the Civil War coming, didn't do much of anything to prevent it
Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.
.
Actually Polk rates highly among historians.KaiBear said:Based on results....absolutely.Redbrickbear said:Frank Galvin said:MidCityBear said:KaiBear said:LOL Your jr high history teacher is proud of you. Meanwhile......I'm curious who are your 5 worst presidents in US history...and why. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' picks.MidCityBear said:
Lincoln was a flawed human being and should not be deified. But he was the greatest president this nation has ever had and number two is not even close. He was capable of growth, even as president. Where he was in 1861 regarding the issue of slavery is not where he was in early April 1865. He had a much deeper understanding of the evil of slavery and the necessity of abolishing it and for all.
This country is on a rapid and dangerous march towards authoritarianism and bad history, no matter how sincerely believed, is one of the components that's helping us get there.
BTW; no war is 'started' by anyone 'period'. In almost every case there is plenty of blame to go around.
Jr. High, eh? Actually, the history teachers I had then did like me.
FWIW, I didn't say a person started the war. I said the "South." What leads to war is indeed often complex and certainly always involves multiple players over a period of time. But it is not a mystery that, in the case of the U.S. Civil War, one side started it and was motivated by a singular issue even if there were other grievances they held.
Five worst presidents? I have one singular best (Lincoln) one singular worst (who I will not mention). Beyond those two, I would place them more in categories than a straight ranking.
5 really bad: Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon. Nixon was skilled but his flaws did him in.
5 really good: Washington, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, Truman. Of these, Jefferson was particularly flawed as a human being but, in contrast to Nixon, able to bracket them sufficiently to succeed as president.
Tyler should be on every bad list.
And Polk should be near the top of every good list
However Polk was southern, quiet. withdrawn, and small of stature.
And US historians prefer their heroes to be cut from a different cloth .
Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West
https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html
Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter
and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.
[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861
[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]
"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes
[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]
Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.
Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.
If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.
Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands
But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important
[April 4th, 1861…Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col Baldwin (VA): Yes, sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?]
"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861
Waco1947 said:Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West
https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html
Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter
and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.
[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861
[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]
"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes
[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]
Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.
Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.
If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.
Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands
But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important
[April 4th, 1861…Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col Baldwin (VA): Yes, sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?]
"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861
Waco1947 said:Why are you defending a racist south who wanted slavery?Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
1. Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?
1. Some argue it was actually the firing on the Star of the West
https://blog.genealogybank.com/attack-upon-star-of-the-west-actual-first-shot-of-the-civil-war.html
Needless to say no one was killed in the artillery firing at Ft Sumter
and Lincoln and his administration were happy that this turn of events came about.
[I advised] "I wanted no money, I desired no office, and wished for no troops, but If Mr. Lincoln was wise, and wished to confer a benefit on his country, he would evacuate Ft. Pickens & Sumter, recall all Federal troops from TX..." -Sam Houston 9/12/1861
[Lincoln was also getting pressure from the Radical Republicans, especially governors, that he needed to adopt a strong policy and go to war, if necessary, over Fort Sumter. Typical of the reaction of the Radical Republicans was a letter dated March 27, 1861, from J.H. Jordon to Secretary of Treasury Chase, which undoubtedly was discussed with the cabinet members along with many other letters and newspaper editorials on this subject. This letter read as follows: "In the name of God! Why not hold the Fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can . . . to bring about. Let them attack the Fort, if they willit will then be them that commence the war." [Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," p. 272]
"Here are a series of states...who think their peculiar institution requires a separate govt. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you & me...Abraham Lincoln has no right to a single solider at Ft. Sumter"-Wendell Phillips, Abolitionist 4/9/1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
"To hold Fort Sumter was to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy."-Rhodes
[Davis argued that the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of self-defense: "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors in the conflict which ensued is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun. To have awaited further strengthening of their position by land and naval forces, with hostile purpose now declared, for the sake of having them "fire the first gun" would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired. After the assault was made by the hostile descent of the fleet, the reduction of Fort Sumter was a measure of defense rendered absolutely and immediately necessary." (The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Peter Smith Edition, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971,]
Whether anyone was killed or not is wholly irrelevant.
Lincoln had the right to resupply his own base that South Carolina ceded to the United States in 1805. The fact that the South was goaded into firing the first shots of the war and it played into Lincoln's advantage also doesn't change the facts that if the Confederacy wanted to peacefully secede they could have chosen to simply not fire at a military fort that they did not own.
If you are arguing it was a tactical mistake....you are probably correct.
Many in Lincoln's administration were hoping to provoke some kind of aggression to galvanize North opinion for the war.
"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy…~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861
"I am glad we are defeated at Sumter. It will rouse the people. I can see no possible end to the war until the South is subjugated. I hope we will never stop short of complete subjugation."-James Garfield April, 1861
Shooting at the Fort (even though it killed ZERO soldiers) played right into their hands
But holding the Fort was only a means to an end....holding the tax revenue was what was important
[April 4th, 1861…Lincoln: Am I to let them go? Col Baldwin (VA): Yes, sir until they can be peaceably brough back. Lincoln: And open Charleston as a port of entry with their 10% tariff? What will become of my tariff?]
"There is a strange similarity in the position of affairs at the present day to that which the Colonies occupied. Lord North asserted the right to collect the revenue, and insisted on collecting it by force. He sent troops to Boston harbor and to Charleston... he quartered troops in those towns. The result was collision & out of that collision came the separation of the Colonies from GB. The same thing is being attempted today. Not the law, not the civil magistrate, but troops are relied upon now to execute the laws."
- Davis, 1/10/1861
Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war. Not to mention that there were deaths during the surrender ceremonies, and a confederate soldier blew himself up firing artillery.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.
.
But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone
I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.
But I doubt that was tenable long term.
Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"
That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union
Bestweekeverr said:Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.
.
But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone
I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.
But I doubt that was tenable long term.
Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"
That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union
The South started the war and lost, and nothing you are providing disputes that.
Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.
.
But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone
I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.
But I doubt that was tenable long term.
Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"
That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union
Again, South Carolina ceded away fort Sumter in 1805. That fort belonged to the Union and the Union can do with it what they please. Firing at said fort is a declaration of war, a rebellion against said owner of the fort.
There is no shot that you think that any other nation bombing us for 32 hours is not an act of war, you know you don't believe that.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Doesn't matter. It was an attack that started the war.Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:Redbrickbear said:Bestweekeverr said:
Two questions
2. Why did Abraham Lincoln fight so hard for the 13th Amendment?
He was still floating the idea that the Southern States could black the 13th amendment as late as the Hampton Roads peace conference
[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederates that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a simple war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union, they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress. Reportedly, Seward disagreed with Lincoln about the price; Lincoln responded that the North had been complicit in the slave trade.] Johnson, "Lincoln's Solution to the Problem of Peace Terms" (1968), pp. 582-583.
But I imagine part of his desire for a 13th amendment ending slavery was that he wanted to move forward with expelling the Black population from the USA...or at least have that option open
You have to free them to kick them out
[from Rutherford, "Truths of History." Lincoln was discussing with Gen. Ben Butler the fate of free negros. Ben Butler said:
"Why not send them to Panama to dig the Canal?"
Lincoln was delighted at the suggestion and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later Lincoln was assassinated]
Lincoln's program "called for compensated emancipation (at least in the loyal border states) assisted by federal funds, to be followed at length by deportation & colonization of the freed Negroes."-Prof Hofstadter
"He [Lincoln] had no particular liking for the negro ; in fact, he would have been glad to deport every negro from the limits of the United States, if he could have done it."-Prof Channing (Pulitzer Prize Winning Harvard Historian from MA)
I get that Lincoln gets over-deified as a paragon and liberator, and most people aren't familiar with his actual views, but he achieved his goals of preserving the union and ending slavery. IMO these were instrumental in America becoming a super power in the 20th century, as I would imagine a split Union/Confederacy moving forward would lead to more civil wars and foreign attacks. Do you think things would be better off if the Civil War never happened?
Yes, through mass murder and bloodshed.
But again....secession is not forbidden in the Constitution.
He preserved the Union by waging a war against people for exercising a right not forbidden to them.
I have no idea what would have happened if the war never took place.
Maybe the Southern States would have returned to the Union in time....maybe we would have 3 large English speaking nations in North America...instead of 2
We can ever know know because of that conflict
"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken
"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed -honestly believed- that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed -honestly believed- that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), The Gov. of Iowa said this as part of the dedication to the Iowa Monument at Vicksburg battlefield in 1906.
Lmao mass murder is when you retaliate when someone shoots at you.
.
But the shots at Sumter did not kill anyone
I suppose from a PR level the Southern States could have gone on letting Federal troops occupy Strategic forts in the South.
But I doubt that was tenable long term.
Regardless mass blood shed only began once Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern States "in rebellion"
That's also when he lost the support of Virginia and the upland Southern States who then also left the Union
The South started the war and lost, and nothing you are providing disputes that.
Not sure if lobbing some shells at a fort that did not kill any one is much of an act of war.
But in any case the CSA considered itself an independent nation and if you notice never once issued a formal declaration of war against the USA. It certainly considered USA military installations unacceptable
[Formal declarations of war are made by countries when at war with another sovereign nation. Neither side made any formal declaration of war in the Civil War. The Confederacy did not declare war on the U.S. - it did take control of federal property and demanded the evacuation of Fort Sumter. It made clear its intent to fight defensively - only to defend its sovereignty.
Following the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for volunteers to put down what he termed a rebellion. Lincoln carefully worked to avoid any action that could be interpreted as a recognition of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Had he asked Congress to declare war on the Confederacy such a declaration would have recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation]
But you still have not explained why Lincoln would not just recall the troops occupying the Fort home and let the Southern States become independent?
What right to Linclon have to make war on the Southern States and their people?