Why did Lincoln fight the South?
The popular understanding is that he wanted to liberate the slaves. Which is why he has always been held in such honor by so many. Especially blacks, naturally. Which is totally understandable.
It has been made clear, by historians, that personally, Lincoln found slavery a repugnant and evil institution, and was pleased to end it. Considering that slavery was a common and worldwide practice in the 19th century, he was certainly among the enlightened of his time.
However it has also been made clear by those same historians that emancipation of the slaves was a bi-product of his first concern, which was the "preservation of the Union."
But the only morally justifiable reason to fight the South was to end slavery.
Lincoln's priorites were totally fucked up. I submit that like too many Presidents, he was more concerned with his "legacy" than about what was constitutional or what was right—more worried that the United States should dissolve "on his watch", and he be forever remembered as the man who "lost" the Union.
The invasion and occupation of the South in order to insure the freedom of humans from bondage can be morally justified in the same way the invasion of Europe to insure the freedom of humans from Hitler's Nazism and the invasion of Viet Nam to insure the freedom of humans from the barbarism of Ho Chi Minh's hellish communism can be justified.
And, because allowing the South to secede would insure the perpetuation of the evil institution, I would argue it was necessary to defeat them, to force them to abandon slavery. Well done. Moral. Decent.
However, to forbid the South from seceding, just to preserve an historically voluntary Union which they no longer wished to be part of—to make the preservation of the Union an end in itself at the cost of, and total disregard of, the southern states' self-determination—with the emancipation of humans from slavery a sort of happy serendipitous opportunism, is all kinds of ugly, and tarnishes Lincoln's legacy.
He emancipated black people from one kind of slavery...by instituting another kind of slavery...that of the States to the Federal Government.
And instead of being sensitive to that reality, the first black "president" is working to institutionalize a more complete and brutal oppressive slavery of every American to the greedy and hungry power of the STATE.
And it's some really bad craziness.
The Gunslinger
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
7 months ago
Gunslinger, I share your hatred of slavery, but wouldn't it have been more moral for Lincoln and the United States government to have ended slavery in the North at some point during the War of Northern Agression? It never was. The famed emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the South, not the North.
ReplyDeleteWere the Irish immigrants in the North any better off? You know, the ones whose rent, food bill, and interest on credit was greater than their wages so that they had to keep working for the same company perpetually. Sound familiar?
Most southerners had no connection with slavery, only the plantation owners, the big business of the South. A purly economic conflict.
Of course, Lincoln, the original shill of big business doesn't sound as good as Lincoln the great emancipator.
The rich snots of the South seceed to keep their Shangri-la. The rich snots of the North fight to keep their wealth in the Union. It just needs a good sounding cry like "slavery" or "freedom" to get the cannon fodder worked up.
ReplyDeleteGee, this sounds familiar.
The war to end slavery was a Union myth. Lincoln marched south to end secession, not slavery.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Lincoln despised the institution, he had no intention of ending it by force of arms.
When South Carolina seceded, Lincoln, although warned by a SC delegation, reinforced Sumpter in Charleston harbor anyway. Confederate batteries fired on the Fort, knowing that a Union Fortification could not remain in Charleston harbor. He goaded them into starting this unnecessary war.
Instead of letting SC go their way, as was their Constitutional right, Lincoln began raising 75ooo union troops to put down the 'rebellion'. It was not to end slavery. Virginia, had no intention of leaving the Union until Lincoln decided to march those troops thru Virginia to attack their fellow countrymen. Virginians told Lincoln, no, your not. Lincoln said, yes, I am. And so, the entire nasty business started. If slavery was the reason the war started, then its kind of difficult to explain why Kentucky, Maryland, Deleware, and Missouri were not affected by Lincoln's emancipation proclaimation. Slavery remained in Union held territory throughout the war. It wasn't ended until the 13th admendment was passed in 1865.
Slavery would have ended in the South without war, much like it ended in South America. The industrial revolution and southerners opposition to it was making it obsolete. Slavery ended in Brazil in 1875. Slavery in the South was never popular, as the 1860 census showed that less than 20 percent of southerners were slave holders.
The people in the North were not morally pure, as slavery was tried and failed due to the short growing seasons and the trade union resistance to free labor.
The great irony of the war was the southern commander, Robert E. Lee freed slaves held by his family before the war, and U.S. Grant's family (his wifes family) held slaves throughout the war. No slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag, but many sailed out of Boston harbor to deliver their 'product' to the Americas. Much of the wealth of Boston was created by this nefarious trade. Much northern hypocrisy.
Screw Lincoln, who killed 650000 Americans for nothing. If SC had left the union, negotiation and time would have brought it back. This war caused poverty that is still pervasive to this day. I believe that was what you were getting to GS, and I agree.
All this makes it so much more of a tragedy, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI guess the only reason we're able to live with it is by putting lipstick on that pig.
I believe in States' right to secede. But certainly NOT at the sole discretion of the "aristocracy".
Poor Wilber...yes, thank you.
ReplyDelete