Slavery is often misrepresented as a cause to the ACW, when in reality, if you look at the political situation at the time, was more of a scapegoat that both sides used to motivate their people and, to a certain extent, argue their sides against one another.
I would like to see you do the same. No one likes hypocrites.....
I got my feathers ruffled because you posted under this link. So, yes, you've got a nice text book but what's wrong with Yale U? I'm started to feel like Frank and no one is reading comments any more, that's all.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
I admit, my last line was a bit of flaming :P But I don't see your beef with the rest of it. It's pretty much common knowledge that Lee made key mistakes at Gettysburg and that the battle was the turning point in the war
I'll help you guys out and give you some back story:
please listen because I have received an important request from a M O D E R A T O R.
Please, do not use the term The War of The Northern Aggression
Others have been complaining and this thread may go the way of the last one: To the black hole of threads... and simply disappear!
From now on, simply use this ACW, for American Civil War.
It is my sincere wish to only share information that I consider to be true, based on government records, Lee's letter-books, Lincoln's letters, Grant's letters and Confederate President Davis' letters.
Post me on my profile if I make you angry or, if you find anything offensive. Thank you for reading and complying because some of us have worked hard on our research.
saying slavery had "little effect" on the civil war is just as inaccurate. After all, both the confederate constitution and the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States mention slavery. For instance, the Texan Declaration says:
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind,
So here's a few quotes from Lincoln himself.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
On Negroes:
"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 which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much 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."
Drace, you have to account for the fact that Lincoln was a politician. During his election campaign, Lincoln was often branded as an extremist by his opponents. He used debate speeches such as this one to assure the public that he was moderate, and didn't want to uspet the status quo.
During his second term, however, you can see a change in his attitude. His last Public Address, in 1865, demonstrates this. Here, Lincoln applauded the state of Louisianna for taking his advice and creating a new constitution that abolished slavery, gave slaves the right to vote (kind of...), and allowed them to attend public school:
Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man.
Well the context of that was a letter not a public speech or debate. Douglas himself accused himself Lincoln of inconsistencies in his views on slavery and of just trying to appeal to the audience.
But he seems to have said that quite clearly, that his cause was not slavery but preserving the Union.
And his personal views on Negroes and slavery seem to be quite reactionary.
I don't know about your first quote, but your "On Negroes" quote was from Lincoln's debate with Douglas in 1858.
But he seems to have said that quite clearly, that his cause was not slavery but preserving the Union.
Yes, I agree completely with that. But when civil rights did not get in the way of his primary goal, he tended to promote equality. Well, maybe not equality, but at least improving the conditions of black people at the time.
What I see us debating, over and over again is the true definition of States' Rights.
So far, I'm in agreement, mostly, with what thisisnotalt
[/quote]
It was a war over states' rights that was started because both parties were mad at each other. It was a war where both sides used slavery as an important political scapegoat to justify the war.
It was a war of two whiny factions of the same country that split up because of states' rights. They used a big social issue at the time, slavery, as a propaganda device.
says and what Aknerd
On the other hand, saying slavery had "little effect" on the civil war is just as inaccurate. After all, both the confederate constitution and the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States mention slavery. For instance, the Texan Declaration says:
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind,[quote]
says regarding the topic of slavery as both an economic issue and a propaganda tool for enraging each other to continue fighting.
Try to bear in mind that all American generals, officers and soldiers had once fought together and in regards to most officers and generals were either West Point or Annapolis educated together. It was a very hard decision for these men to separate except when it came to the issue of protecting their families and homes.
You're absolutely right that the Union had the lion-share of the weapons, ammo, forts, navy
I think the intelligence of engineers such as RE Lee should be studied though. Just think of what he accomplished before he was selected by Davis to lead the Army of Northern Virginia. His earth works are still in place along NC coast-line, like Fort Fisher and the smaller, lesser known fort across the Cape Fear River at Brunswick Town. Still there, a century and a half later after all of the storms and hurricanes is incredible to me. Now Fort Caswell, on Oak Island is still maintained by the coast guard but to my knowledge is still closed to visitors which is a shame. I would really like to see that fort fully restored because it was also used in WWII.
So, back to States' Rights. My stand is that I consider the very beginning of this conflict to be over taxes and the states wanting to separate themselves more from government abuses of power over them. And Drace, you made the comment that we aren't using direct quotes. I'm working on restoring mine that was lost from the other thread. For now, I'll share a few: Lee's
"definition of a Gentleman",
chronology of secession debate/southern states,
"The Right of Secession"by,Gene H.Kiser,Jr.
(info taken from "Memoirs of R.E.Lee", by, A.L.Long, Blue and Grey Press 1983)
