Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[Boris Godunov]

Come on, DF, you know better history than that. Lincoln first planned to issue the Proclamation in the summer of 1862, and had mentioned it to Sumner in 1861. It was Seward who convinced Lincoln not to issue it until after a Union victory, lest it be seen as a "las shriek of defeat." While not necessarily as noble, it was certainly the right thing to do, as it made the Proclamation actually meaningful. What good would it have done to issue it while in the middle of a losing war, and have it just chalked up as a gasp of desperation?

That doesn't in anyway besmirch Lincoln's intent with issuing it, just because he did it in a politically savvy way.

Oh, and as for Lee:

He didn't push for the slaves to be allowed to fight for the CSA (note, not freed out of hand: freed only if they fought and lived) until March of 1865. Looks like he requested it out of desperation, since the South was a big time loser by this point. So much for his noble intentions there. Now who's distorting history?

[Ramo]

Regardless how freeing the slaves was in Lincolns favor strategically, he still did it.

Abolitionist sentiment among the public freed slaves (hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition for abolition in '62), not Lincoln. He only decided he wanted to stay in power, so agreed to their wishes. Lincoln really was a brilliant politician.

[David Floyd]

Come on, DF, you know better history than that. Lincoln first planned to issue the Proclamation in the summer of 1862, and had mentioned it to Sumner in 1861. It was Seward who convinced Lincoln not to issue it until after a Union victory, lest it be seen as a "las shriek of defeat." While not necessarily as noble, it was certainly the right thing to do, as it made the Proclamation actually meaningful. What good would it have done to issue it while in the middle of a losing war, and have it just chalked up as a gasp of desperation?

That doesn't in anyway besmirch Lincoln's intent with issuing it, just because he did it in a politically savvy way.

True, but that only goes to back up my position that the Emancipation Proclamation was political. As Imran pointed out, not only did it not effect slaves in the USA, but it was not issued until a politically opportune time.

It was really meaningless to begin with, seeing as how the former US states of Virginia, Tennesse, etc., had already seceded and were no longer part of the US nor bound by federal law or Constitutional restrictions.

[Ramo]

That doesn't in anyway besmirch Lincoln's intent with issuing it,

His intent was to prevent foreign intervention, and originally an inducement to bring the rebels back into the fold...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He certainly advocated full civil rights for blacks by the end of his life.

HA! Then why didn't he try to push it through?! Congress was ready and willing to do so. Hell, it had to drag Johnson, who was implimenting Lincoln's appeasement plan to the letter, kicking and screaming to get the 14th and 15th Amendments passed.

If Lincoln really believed in full civil rights for blacks, like say Thaddeus Stevens did, then he would have actually done something about it instead of things like the Emancipation Proclimation which basically did nothing (they freed slaves in places where the US had no control). Why didn't he make an Emancipation Proclimation freeing the slaves in the US at the same time as he did the other? Congress would surely have backed him up (seeing as they were much more radical than he was on that issue).

Oh come on. Perhaps because he had the tenuous nature of the border slave states to deal with? He was in the middle of a war, for pete's sake. He couldn't afford to drive the border states into the South's arms, especially given the location of DC. And do you honestly think that Lincoln, being the smart fellow he was, didn't know full well that by issuing the Proclamation for the CSA, it would inevitably lead to the abolition of the border states after the war? He issued the proclamation with full intentions slavery would be abolished in full after the war, since he himself believed the nation could not endure divided between slave and free states. Issuing the Proclamation was indeed the de facto end of slavery in the U.S.

And your speculation he wouldn't support those ammendments is just that...speculation.

[Boris Godunov]

So no matter what the man may believe, if he acts with any degree of political savvy in instituting something, he must invariably be evil and doing so purely for political reasons? That's about the saddest bunch of cynicism I've ever heard.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh, and you're also forgetting that the primary reason Lincoln only issued the Proclamation to the CSA was that he believed the President didn't have the authority to abolish slavery in the Union, but did have the authority to do so as commander-in-chief in hostile territory as an emergency measure. His writings on the Proclamation support that. He also very much was in favor of the 13th ammendment, which abolished all slavery (and did so according to the method he felt was legal).

[Ramo]

Well, let's see what happens when it isn't in his political interest to free blacks.

For instance, he didn't support abolition in DC when the vote came. Nor did he oppose the Fugitive Slave Act. And he counter-manded Fremont's orders when he tried to emancipate slaves in Missouri. And he allowed Halleck to forbid slaves to enter his army lines. Etc., etc.

[David Floyd]

BG, if he truly believed an Emancipation Proclamation was the right thing to do, he should have done it without regard for politics.

What you're saying is that right and wrong should be subject to politics. I don't buy that theory at all, and I believe acting contrary to your beliefs in the name of political expediency is wrong.

But again, it was nothing more than a political ploy anyway, because he had to have known - or should of, if he read the Constitution instead of blindly trying to force people into a country who didn't want to be there - it didn't mean anything - one cannot dictate internal policy to sovereign nations, and one cannot issue arbitrary edicts to the citizens of foreign countries, which is what Lincoln in effect was trying to do.

[Ramo]

and you're also forgetting that the primary reason Lincoln only issued the Proclamation to the CSA was that he believed the President didn't have the authority to abolish slavery in the Union

That's silly. Lincoln never cared about the constraints of his authority. I can think of few Presidents who respected the constraints of their office less than Lincoln.

[David Floyd]

but did have the authority to do so as commander-in-chief in hostile territory as an emergency measure.

No he didn't. Even if one assumes that the CSA was NOT sovereign, Lincoln still could not act in that way without Congress at the bare minimum (and personally, I don't think the federal government had any way to act at all, at least Constitutionally).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
BG, if he truly believed an Emancipation Proclamation was the right thing to do, he should have done it without regard for politics.

Oh please. So he should have issued when he knew it would be a political dead act that would carry no weight whatsoever with anybody? Come on. Even you, I wager, make calculated moves on when to act on what you know to be right and when to wait for the best time to do so in the name of maximizing effectiveness.

Lincoln had the foresight to see he had to be right in his timing of the issue. I hardly see that as something to condemn him over. And, he supported a constitutional ammendment to abolish slavery. He just didn't feel he had the authority to abolish it on his own in the Union. You may quibble with the constitutionality of it, but that hardly speaks to his intentions, if he really believed that, which his writings support.

What you're saying is that right and wrong should be subject to politics. I don't buy that theory at all, and I believe acting contrary to your beliefs in the name of political expediency is wrong.

If he really believed the President couldn't abolish slavery, and it could only be done so via Constitutional Ammendment, but that his powers as C-in-C gave him the authority to do so in the CSA, then he wasn't acting contrary to his beliefs. Once again, you can debate the legal aspects, but I don't think you can really say you know his intentions.

But again, it was nothing more than a political ploy anyway, because he had to have known - or should of, if he read the Constitution instead of blindly trying to force people into a country who didn't want to be there

How many slaves wanted to be a part of the CSA? And not all Southerners wanted to secede, David. In fact, the CSA had huge problems with pro-Unionist uprisings they had to quell. It was not as united on secession as you pretend.

- it didn't mean anything - one cannot dictate internal policy to sovereign nations, and one cannot issue arbitrary edicts to the citizens of foreign countries, which is what Lincoln in effect was trying to do.

And again, Lincoln earnestly did not believe the South was a sovereign nation with a right to secede. You may disagree, but I don't think you can question his earnest belief of this.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Whoever "started" the war involves minor legal semantics. Its irrelevant. It takes two sides to execute the war.

That sounds like the nonsense my teachers used in elementary school. It only takes ONE side to start at war and its not minor legal semantics.

Irrelevent distinction. I meant slavery as a general term, not referring to the special case of blacks in t he US. How bout forced labor? Is that a better term?

Still an intentionaly loaded term when conscription allready covers it quite well. Forced labor is not the same as slavery and intentional use of loaded and deceptive words is not conducive to a reasoned discussion.

Yep.

I am so sorry for you. Perhaps when you learn better as you see that people really do have both self-interest and common interests and some are just rapacious.

Not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. Anarchists like the Catalonians during the Spanish revolution or the Zapatistas during the Mexican revolution, the Paris Communards, etc., were all brought down through overwhelming external force, not internal politics.

Those weren't nations or governments. Nor where they viable economic systems. Anarchy simply isn't going to work in the real world.

Thank you for that graphic example of a brain dead responce. I couldn't have put it better myself.

That's silly. It's the responsibility of the sides that were wrong, in this case, both sides.

When one side starts the shooting that is the side that must bear the responsiblity of the results of the actions. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with Lincoln holding the Union together. He did campaign at least partly on that issue. Balkanization of the US would likely not have been good in the long run.

[Boris Godunov]

I will leave y'all for bed with a favorite quote of mine, from the Washington Times, no less:

"Reading Lincoln-bashers is like reading Palestinian books on Israeli history..."

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about Calhoun's threat of nullification over the 1832 tariff? The Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 (NorthEastern states opposed to the war)?

Neither of those actualy have anything to do with states rights. Both are clearly rights given to the Federal government alone. I would have to say the any reference to states rights was purest hyperbole.

And after the Civil War: speed limits, liquor laws, right to vote for women were done in MANY states before the Federal government did it in the 20s. All are examples of states' rights. It is THE greatest issue in the history of the United States.

Hardly. Slavery was the greatest issue in US history sine the Revolution itself. They are examples of states doing things they have the right to do. Not people spouting off about states rights.