The Mythical Lincoln

[DaShi]

You guys are still going on about this. President's Day is over. Save some for next year.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If Sherman's behavior was "legal", why ask if he violated the law?

You were the one calling him a war criminal. I was merely asking the basis for that assertion.

Edit: I forgot to add that the German's did recognize the Geneva Convention. They just neglected to actually follow it themselves.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC in the 1860s the US government had two major sources of income: tarriffs and the sale of Federal lands. You're claiming that Lincoln was going to raise tarriffs. I've got to ask why? Was he going to increase some aspect of Federal spending? Which?

When you say that slavery was dieing out in the west, was this not because new states were allowed to choose whether to permit slavery or not? The new states in the west were choosing to ban slavery because they were being settled by a majority from non-slave states. Of course we're all aware that pro-slavery interests took some extereme measures in an attempt to rectify that situation. If you looked back at southern newspapers in the late 1850s you'd find numerous examples where southern editors actually took exception to the use of Federal troops to protect innocent settlers from pro-slavery thugs.

[Ramo]

IIRC in the 1860s the US government had two major sources of income: tarriffs and the sale of Federal lands. You're claiming that Lincoln was going to raise tarriffs. I've got to ask why?

Primarily, to give domestic industry a crutch. And raising tariffs was actually one of the first thing on Lincoln's agenda; a new tarriff law, the Morrell tarriff, was passed in 1861.

Was he going to increase some aspect of Federal spending? Which

He did substancially increase, for instance, corporate welfare.

When you say that slavery was dieing out in the west, was this not because new states were allowed to choose whether to permit slavery or not? The new states in the west were choosing to ban slavery because they were being settled by a majority from non-slave states.

To paraphrase Webster, geography (God?) determined that the Western territories were going to be free.

If the new territories could support slavery, why is it that the same thing that happened in Kansas, didn't happen in California?

[Dr Strangelove]

Boy, you guys certainly don't know your US history!

The question of the dissemination of slavery to new territories and states was undoubtedly the paramount question facing the US government in the first half of the 19th century. There were repeated sectarian conflicts in Congress over this question. The fact is that Southerners were unhappy that ANY state had been allowed to ban slavery from it's territory. That's how dedicated they were to "state's rights". I'll provide a link to a speech by J. Preston, one of South Carolina's most prominent secessionists, decrying the "unconstitutional" actions of these northerners below. Prior to the Civil War new states were generally allowed into the Union in pairs, one slavery and one free. The annexation of northern Mexico in 1848 and the subsequent gold rush made that difficult. The majority of peoples moving west were coming from free states simply because New York and Boston were closer to Europe. Immigrants from Ireland, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia entered the US via the North and went directly west.

Slavery didn't become an issue in California because the Mexicans abolished slavery in the 1820s. California was settled rapidly thanks to the gold rush. My guess is that most of the 49s weren't slaveholders, and that any who had been probably sold theirs before moving west.

Was Lincoln not an abolitionist at heart? Here's a quotation from ol' honest Abe in a letter to a southerner: "You think that slavery is right and ought to be expanded; while we think that slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

Other clues to the real reason the south suceded include:
The Alabama legislature passed a resolution prior to the 1860 election mandating the conveneing of a convention to consider sucession should their be elected to the presidency "a Black republican".

As I mentioned above John Preston, one of the key players behind South Carolina's act of succession, listed in a speech to the Virginia Assembly prior to Virginia's succession the reason's for South Carolina's succession. He cited the protracted conflict over the extension of slavery into new territories as the first reason. He then went further to proclaim the banning of slavery by eight northern states as being an "unconstitutional" limitation of personal rights. Then he proclaims the admission of 5 western states as free of slavery to have been an "invasion" of southern territory. Evidently the secessionists were willing to allow only the 5 original free states the "constitutional" right to ban slavery within their borders. (In 1861 there were 15 slave states and 18 slave states.)

Links? http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/quotes.html.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/preston.html.

http://memebers.aol.com/jfepperson/AL-appoint.html.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reason.html#SouthCarolina

Another thing about those wonderfully wronged southerners: In his inaugeration speech good ol' Jeff Davis, waxing expansively abotu the future of his new country, proclaimed his intention to see to it that the new nation would eventually get the room for growth it had been denied, specifically by moving south into Mexico. Evidently the thought that ex-slves had the gall to throw off their former masters struck him as just plain wrong, and worthy of righteous punishment.

States Rights? Yeah right!

[Ramo]

The annexation of northern Mexico in 1848 and the subsequent gold rush made that difficult. The majority of peoples moving west were coming from free states simply because New York and Boston were closer to Europe. Immigrants from Ireland, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia entered the US via the North and went directly west.

You're missing my point. Why didn't pro-slaveryites make the same effort in California that they did in Kansas prior to the Civil War?

Was Lincoln not an abolitionist at heart? Here's a quotation from ol' honest Abe in a letter to a southerner: "You think that slavery is right and ought to be expanded; while we think that slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

Other clues to the real reason the south suceded include:
The Alabama legislature passed a resolution prior to the 1860 election mandating the conveneing of a convention to consider sucession should their be elected to the presidency "a Black republican".

The Western territories were decidedly pro-Union. The question whether there would be slavery in the territories becomes totally moot after secession.

States Rights? Yeah right!

I referred to tarriffs, not states' rights. The Southerners selectively used states rights just as much as the Northerners.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're missing my point. Why didn't pro-slaveryites make the same effort in California that they did in Kansas prior to the Civil War?

The Compromise of 1850 pacified them wrt the status of California.

[Ramo]

I'm arguing the assertion that the South seceded because of the likelyhood of freedom in the Western territories. If they were pacified on the question of California (and, presumably, the rest of the West), why would they secede on those grounds?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
(and, presumably, the rest of the West),

You presume too much. The status of slavery in the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah was still an open issue before the start of the Civil War according to Clay's compromise.

[Ramo]

Exactly. According to the compromise, popular sovereignty would determine the fates of these states. If the South was pacified by the compromise, why would they secede on these issues?

My point was why did they accept turning California free in the first place?

The same argument, BTW, could be applied to the rest of the West.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


You're missing my point. Why didn't pro-slaveryites make the same effort in California that they did in Kansas prior to the Civil War?



The Western territories were decidedly pro-Union. The question whether there would be slavery in the territories becomes totally moot after secession.



I referred to tarriffs, not states' rights. The Southerners selectively used states rights just as much as the Northerners.

As an answer your question, there weren't a sufficient number of slave owners in California at the time when California asked to join the Union. The trek across the continent was too long and expensive to haul slaves across, particularily when you were going to pan for gold when you got to the other side. In Kansas about 30% of the population supported slavery, enough to make a formidable force, but not enough to contest a referrendum.

As I said earlier in the first half of the 19th century Congress made every effort to ensure that for every free state enrolled into the Union, a slave state was also admitted. This compromise couldn't hold forever, as the further west the Union extended, the greater preponderance of non-slave holders were settling the area. As I said, immigrants headed for open territories tended to enter the the US via northern ports.

The reason that the south didn't bolt when California was admitted to the Union in the 1850s was the Missouri Compromise, an agreement that territories south of 36' 30" would be open to slave holders. This agreement temporarily placated southern opinion. The peace didn't last long, since as these territories became eligible for statehood it became apparent that most would become free states. The US government could hold the territories open to slavers so long as they were still Federal land. Once the territories became states however, the Missouri Compromise no longer had an effect, since the state had the authority to abolish slavery within its borders. When Kansas became eligible for statehood pro-slavery representatives at the statehood convention used a filibuster to prevent the convention from adopting a state constitution that would leave the question of slavery in the state open to a popular vote. They allowed only two versions of the constitution to be put up for a referrendum, one that guarenteed persons already owning slaves the right to keep them, the other version would have made the state a full slve state, but allowed a referrendum to strike it down. In the end the convention adopted the later, and the people of Kansas struck it down as expected.

The links I included in my previous post display the texts of speeches made at various state conventions on secession in 1860 and 1861. While tariffs were mentioned as one cause of the southern states' dissatisfaction, in every document where they are mentioned it seems that they are included as a reason mostly as an afterthought, and were only a small contributing factor in the decision to sucede. In each speech and letter there is a preoccupation with the perception that the spread of anti-slavery sentiment was a threat to the southern way of life.

One more thing. A couple of posts ago I stated that one-sixth to one-fifth of southern households owned slaves. Apparently I was wrong- it was one-third!

[Dr Strangelove]

Ramo- In brief, the Missouri Compromise was established precisely to allow California admission into the Union.

Up to 1850 the number of free states equaled the number of slave states. This gave the south parity with the north in the Senate. By 1861 the ratio was 18 to 15. Southerners then felt clearly outnumbered, even though their faction would still have been able to block any Constitutional admendemt interfering with their right to own slaves. Face it, paranoia ran rampant through the South in those days. Perhaps it was fueled by guilt.

[orange]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ramo- In brief, the Missouri Compromise was established precisely to allow California admission into the Union.

You mean comp. of 1850 right?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by orange


You mean comp. of 1850 right?

Yup, the same year that California was admitted into the Union. See above.

[GePap]

Thank you Strangelove

Well, thanks to Strangelove for making such an authoritative and elloquent argument vs. the forces of Southern revisionism and for providing Primary documentation to back him up. I wonder if any of Abe's opponents will be able to come up with their own Primary documentation to make a worthwhile counter-argument. Otherwise, we might be done here.