Old Abe told the south they could keep slavery. If they just come back

[Jitss617]

WHY DID THE SOUTH SECEDE?

Did the South secede and fight to preserve and extend slavery as the popular narrative proclaims? Challenge that narrative and defenders of the popular narrative get apoplectic. Most will immediately point to the secession documents, the Cornerstone Speech, or other documents related to the South’s concerns regarding slavery. Concurrently they ignore more fundamental concerns expressed, and also the historical situation when these documents were written. After all, it is much easier for the ideologically driven to draw conclusions from a superficial examination of the historical evidence.

If the South seceded to “protect and extend slavery,” certain questions must be answered:

1. In the antebellum period, no major political party ever proposed emancipation. Lincoln proclaimed many times leading up to his election that he had no intention of “touching slavery in the States where it already existed.” The deep South seceded anyway. He repeated this in his first inaugural, the upper South seceded anyway. Why? Most in the upper South believed that secession would mean the end of slavery, and given their geographical position, slavery was safer in the Union than out. Why did they secede when slavery was under no legitimate threat?

2. Lincoln lobbied for (even before inaugurated) and pushed through both houses of a Northern controlled Congress (with a super-majority) the Corwin Amendment which didn’t just proclaim slavery constitutional, but secured the institution with the ironclad promise that the Constitution could never be amended to allow the Federal gov’t to end slavery. The deep South which had already seceded turned down the bribe, and the upper South seceded anyway in spite of the offer of an ironclad protection for slavery. If preserving slavery was their cause, here was the perfect amendment to preserve it into perpetuity! Why then did they turn it down and secede? Certainly the South had reason to not trust the North to abide by the Constitution. A long history of Northern infidelity preceded the Corwin Amendment. And that is exactly why the South seceded. It wasn’t over slavery but rather the continuous breach of contract by the North of which slavery issues represented the most recent examples and legal reasons for secession.

3. Some claim protecting slavery necessarily involved extending slavery into the territories. Let’s think about that one. When the South seceded from the Union, it cut itself off from any legal claim to the territories (with the exception of a small section of the Southwest territories that asked to join the CSA). How then did secession in any way help serve the cause of extending slavery into the territories? It in fact did just the opposite.

4. An intentionally suppressed aspect of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is that it offered the South the right to keep slavery if it returned to the Union within the 100 days before the Proclamation went into effect. All the South had to do is quit fighting to keep slavery but they didn’t. Weren’t they fighting to keep slavery? Why didn’t they return to the Union and keep their slaves? Obviously they didn’t secede over slavery. Otherwise they would not have seceded and stay seceded with the offer to keep slavery on the table in the Emancipation Proclamation?

5. Perhaps most revealing about what motivated secession is found in an exchange that took place on July 12, 1862 between Lincoln and the border slave States that did not secede. He is admonishing the congressmen in those States for not supporting a resolution of a gradual compensated emancipation. In Lincoln’s mind, had these border slave States accepted his offer of compensated emancipation and given up Slavery, it would have ended the war because, “Let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that, in no event, will the states you represent ever join their proposed Confederacy, and they can not, much longer maintain the contest.” Here, as in the EP, he had turned to emancipation as a war measure. Then he adds, “But you can not divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states... – You and I know what the lever of their power is – Break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more forever –“ Lincoln was convinced that secession was about slavery, and that the “lever of power” used to rally the South around secession was slavery.

The loyal border slave States congressmen had rejected Lincoln’s offer by a 20 - 8 margin. On July 14, the 20 legislators wrote Lincoln a letter explaining why, none of which were a desire to keep slavery: 1- the resolution was rushed through congress without a social plan. 2- they felt the federal gov’t was exceeding its Constitutional bounds and infringing on States rights. 3- they questioned the Constitutionality of a law to appropriate the funds. 4- they were concerned about the financial debt. 5- they were concerned about the constitutionality of causing one section of States to make sacrifices that other loyal States were not having to make... It was an issue regarding the Constitutionally required equity of the States. This is why these pro-Union congressmen turned down Lincoln’s offer.

After covering these reasons for voting no, they took Lincoln to task as to why his plan would not have ended the war. They did not agree that slavery was the “lever of their power” around which the Confederacy did secede and fight. They pointed out that it was NOT SLAVERY, but NORTHERN INFIDELITY to the Constitution which generated a fear that the common gov’t would be wielded against the rights of the States:

“In both Houses of Congress we have heard doctrines subversive of the principles of the Constitution... To these causes, Mr. President, and not to our omission to vote for the resolution recommended by you, we solemnly believe we are to attribute the terrible earnestness of those in arms against the Government and the continuance of the war. Nor do we (permit us to say, Mr., President, with all respect for you) agree that the institution of Slavery is "the lever of their power," but we are of the opinion that "the lever of their power" is the apprehension that the powers of a common Government, created for common and equal protection to the interests of all, will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern States.”

That concern was “the lever of their power” by which the Southern States rallied around secession. These border slave State congressmen were still loyal to the Union, they had no reason to deceive Lincoln. But they were also keenly aware of why their sister slave States left the Union. If secession was about slavery, why did these loyal slave State legislators say it wasn’t?

6- But the story does not end there. On July 15, 1862 the 8 minority State legislators who had voted for the resolution of compensated emancipation also wrote to Lincoln. In their explanation of why they took a position to approve, there is an amazing revelation:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

This is not the only account of the seceded States revealing a willingness to surrender slavery for independence. This effort continued right up to January 1865 when one of the largest slave holders, Rep. Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, proposed and was sent to France and England by Jeff Davis to once again negotiate ending slavery in exchange for France and England’s help in securing INDEPENDENCE for the Confederacy. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to gain independence. You don’t surrender what you are fighting for to win the fight. If the South was willing to sacrifice slavery as this evidence reveals, how can slavery be the cause of secession?

The motive for secession was obviously not slavery. Slavery as the South often said was merely the occasion and not the cause of secession:

“Slavery was the mere occasion and not the object or end of this war. The South is
fighting for National independence and freedom from Yankee domination. The people are willing sacrifice all the slaves to the cause of freedom.” Richmond Inquirer, 1863

“Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting a decision. It has disappeared almost entirely from the political discussions of the day. No one mentions it in connection with our present complications. The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a Negro slave on American Soil…” The New York Times, April 9, 1861.

“The war has slanderously been called the slaveholders’ war; undertaken for slavery, and maintained and supported solely for the perpetuation of negro slavery. Our enemies have charged, and much of the world believes the charge, that we have sacrificed the best and noblest of our land, heartlessly and cruelly, to maintain the negro property of some three hundred thousand slaveholders. The unparalleled suffering of this war has been slanderously misrepresented as detailed upon the poor and rich of these States by the selfish slaveholder for the security of his ‘human chattels.’ The people of these States know the infamous falsity of these charges...” The Richmond Enquirer, 1863

“If, to save our liberties, we find it necessary to emancipate, we shall have, therefore, lost nothing, while we shall have gained the supreme issue – independence.” Richmond Sentinel, 1864

“We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence - and that, or extermination, we will have.” Jeff Davis, July 29, 1864.

Slavery represented the most recent Northern violation of the Constitution, and therefore was emphasized because it was the most recent legal justification for secession. Emphasizing slavery also made it difficult for Lincoln to convince a racist North to go to war. The ploy almost worked as members of his own cabinet were saying “just let the South go.” Slavery talk was also a way to gain support for secession from fire eater plantation owners who believed slavery was best protected in the Union. But slavery was not the cause of secession. Every action of the South after secession makes this clear. As do the words of congressmen in a position to know the true motive for secession.

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 20 congressmen saying slavery was not the cause of secession:
Image 10 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, July 14, 1862 (Response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 8 congressmen stating the South sought to end slavery to gain independence:
Image 1 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, July 15, 1862 (Minority response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

The Duncan Kenner mission link relating the 1864 mission of Kenner seeking to end slavery:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4232057

 

[whitehall]

I don't think Abe ever said that. He should have though. As a matter of fact Lincoln should have done everything short of kissing the asses of the radical Southern congressional representatives to preserve the Union. Maybe he had bad advisers but Lincoln seemed confused about the whole Civil War issue and when it commenced he treated it casually at first and predicted that it would be over in a couple of months. The ironic thing is that Lincoln is credited by "historians" for preserving the Union while it fell apart under his watch.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states where it already existed, but he drew the line at allowing slavery to extend into the territories. However, this was a phantom issue: there was no chance in hades that slavery was going to extend into the territories, and only a very tiny trickle of slaveholders had moved into territories where slavery was legal.

 

[whitehall]

Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states where it already existed, but he drew the line at allowing slavery to extend into the territories. However, this was a phantom issue: there was no chance in hades that slavery was going to extend into the territories, and only a very tiny trickle of slaveholders had moved into territories where slavery was legal.

Maybe if Lincoln delayed and lied and played political games rather than "drawing a line" the Union would have been preserved. Apparently Lincoln's problem was that he was a pompous fool and/or a coward who thought slick rhetoric would replace hard negotiations and solve political issues or he depended on criminally bad advice or both. Lincoln didn't preserve the Union, his negligence caused the Union to fall apart.

 

[Toro]

WHY DID THE SOUTH SECEDE?

Did the South secede and fight to preserve and extend slavery as the popular narrative proclaims? Challenge that narrative and defenders of the popular narrative get apoplectic. Most will immediately point to the secession documents, the Cornerstone Speech, or other documents related to the South’s concerns regarding slavery. Concurrently they ignore more fundamental concerns expressed, and also the historical situation when these documents were written. After all, it is much easier for the ideologically driven to draw conclusions from a superficial examination of the historical evidence.

If the South seceded to “protect and extend slavery,” certain questions must be answered:

1. In the antebellum period, no major political party ever proposed emancipation. Lincoln proclaimed many times leading up to his election that he had no intention of “touching slavery in the States where it already existed.” The deep South seceded anyway. He repeated this in his first inaugural, the upper South seceded anyway. Why? Most in the upper South believed that secession would mean the end of slavery, and given their geographical position, slavery was safer in the Union than out. Why did they secede when slavery was under no legitimate threat?

2. Lincoln lobbied for (even before inaugurated) and pushed through both houses of a Northern controlled Congress (with a super-majority) the Corwin Amendment which didn’t just proclaim slavery constitutional, but secured the institution with the ironclad promise that the Constitution could never be amended to allow the Federal gov’t to end slavery. The deep South which had already seceded turned down the bribe, and the upper South seceded anyway in spite of the offer of an ironclad protection for slavery. If preserving slavery was their cause, here was the perfect amendment to preserve it into perpetuity! Why then did they turn it down and secede? Certainly the South had reason to not trust the North to abide by the Constitution. A long history of Northern infidelity preceded the Corwin Amendment. And that is exactly why the South seceded. It wasn’t over slavery but rather the continuous breach of contract by the North of which slavery issues represented the most recent examples and legal reasons for secession.

3. Some claim protecting slavery necessarily involved extending slavery into the territories. Let’s think about that one. When the South seceded from the Union, it cut itself off from any legal claim to the territories (with the exception of a small section of the Southwest territories that asked to join the CSA). How then did secession in any way help serve the cause of extending slavery into the territories? It in fact did just the opposite.

4. An intentionally suppressed aspect of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is that it offered the South the right to keep slavery if it returned to the Union within the 100 days before the Proclamation went into effect. All the South had to do is quit fighting to keep slavery but they didn’t. Weren’t they fighting to keep slavery? Why didn’t they return to the Union and keep their slaves? Obviously they didn’t secede over slavery. Otherwise they would not have seceded and stay seceded with the offer to keep slavery on the table in the Emancipation Proclamation?

5. Perhaps most revealing about what motivated secession is found in an exchange that took place on July 12, 1862 between Lincoln and the border slave States that did not secede. He is admonishing the congressmen in those States for not supporting a resolution of a gradual compensated emancipation. In Lincoln’s mind, had these border slave States accepted his offer of compensated emancipation and given up Slavery, it would have ended the war because, “Let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that, in no event, will the states you represent ever join their proposed Confederacy, and they can not, much longer maintain the contest.” Here, as in the EP, he had turned to emancipation as a war measure. Then he adds, “But you can not divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states... – You and I know what the lever of their power is – Break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more forever –“ Lincoln was convinced that secession was about slavery, and that the “lever of power” used to rally the South around secession was slavery.

The loyal border slave States congressmen had rejected Lincoln’s offer by a 20 - 8 margin. On July 14, the 20 legislators wrote Lincoln a letter explaining why, none of which were a desire to keep slavery: 1- the resolution was rushed through congress without a social plan. 2- they felt the federal gov’t was exceeding its Constitutional bounds and infringing on States rights. 3- they questioned the Constitutionality of a law to appropriate the funds. 4- they were concerned about the financial debt. 5- they were concerned about the constitutionality of causing one section of States to make sacrifices that other loyal States were not having to make... It was an issue regarding the Constitutionally required equity of the States. This is why these pro-Union congressmen turned down Lincoln’s offer.

After covering these reasons for voting no, they took Lincoln to task as to why his plan would not have ended the war. They did not agree that slavery was the “lever of their power” around which the Confederacy did secede and fight. They pointed out that it was NOT SLAVERY, but NORTHERN INFIDELITY to the Constitution which generated a fear that the common gov’t would be wielded against the rights of the States:

“In both Houses of Congress we have heard doctrines subversive of the principles of the Constitution... To these causes, Mr. President, and not to our omission to vote for the resolution recommended by you, we solemnly believe we are to attribute the terrible earnestness of those in arms against the Government and the continuance of the war. Nor do we (permit us to say, Mr., President, with all respect for you) agree that the institution of Slavery is "the lever of their power," but we are of the opinion that "the lever of their power" is the apprehension that the powers of a common Government, created for common and equal protection to the interests of all, will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern States.”

That concern was “the lever of their power” by which the Southern States rallied around secession. These border slave State congressmen were still loyal to the Union, they had no reason to deceive Lincoln. But they were also keenly aware of why their sister slave States left the Union. If secession was about slavery, why did these loyal slave State legislators say it wasn’t?

6- But the story does not end there. On July 15, 1862 the 8 minority State legislators who had voted for the resolution of compensated emancipation also wrote to Lincoln. In their explanation of why they took a position to approve, there is an amazing revelation:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

This is not the only account of the seceded States revealing a willingness to surrender slavery for independence. This effort continued right up to January 1865 when one of the largest slave holders, Rep. Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, proposed and was sent to France and England by Jeff Davis to once again negotiate ending slavery in exchange for France and England’s help in securing INDEPENDENCE for the Confederacy. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to gain independence. You don’t surrender what you are fighting for to win the fight. If the South was willing to sacrifice slavery as this evidence reveals, how can slavery be the cause of secession?

The motive for secession was obviously not slavery. Slavery as the South often said was merely the occasion and not the cause of secession:

“Slavery was the mere occasion and not the object or end of this war. The South is
fighting for National independence and freedom from Yankee domination. The people are willing sacrifice all the slaves to the cause of freedom.” Richmond Inquirer, 1863

“Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting a decision. It has disappeared almost entirely from the political discussions of the day. No one mentions it in connection with our present complications. The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a Negro slave on American Soil…” The New York Times, April 9, 1861.

“The war has slanderously been called the slaveholders’ war; undertaken for slavery, and maintained and supported solely for the perpetuation of negro slavery. Our enemies have charged, and much of the world believes the charge, that we have sacrificed the best and noblest of our land, heartlessly and cruelly, to maintain the negro property of some three hundred thousand slaveholders. The unparalleled suffering of this war has been slanderously misrepresented as detailed upon the poor and rich of these States by the selfish slaveholder for the security of his ‘human chattels.’ The people of these States know the infamous falsity of these charges...” The Richmond Enquirer, 1863

“If, to save our liberties, we find it necessary to emancipate, we shall have, therefore, lost nothing, while we shall have gained the supreme issue – independence.” Richmond Sentinel, 1864

“We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence - and that, or extermination, we will have.” Jeff Davis, July 29, 1864.

Slavery represented the most recent Northern violation of the Constitution, and therefore was emphasized because it was the most recent legal justification for secession. Emphasizing slavery also made it difficult for Lincoln to convince a racist North to go to war. The ploy almost worked as members of his own cabinet were saying “just let the South go.” Slavery talk was also a way to gain support for secession from fire eater plantation owners who believed slavery was best protected in the Union. But slavery was not the cause of secession. Every action of the South after secession makes this clear. As do the words of congressmen in a position to know the true motive for secession.

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 20 congressmen saying slavery was not the cause of secession:
Image 10 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, July 14, 1862 (Response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 8 congressmen stating the South sought to end slavery to gain independence:
Image 1 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, July 15, 1862 (Minority response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

The Duncan Kenner mission link relating the 1864 mission of Kenner seeking to end slavery:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4232057

tl;dr

 

[Oddball]

Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states where it already existed, but he drew the line at allowing slavery to extend into the territories. However, this was a phantom issue: there was no chance in hades that slavery was going to extend into the territories, and only a very tiny trickle of slaveholders had moved into territories where slavery was legal.

Slavery was on its way out anyway....This was the dawn of the industrial revolution.

 

[Jitss617]

Abe wasn’t that great

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WHY DID THE SOUTH SECEDE?

Did the South secede and fight to preserve and extend slavery as the popular narrative proclaims? Challenge that narrative and defenders of the popular narrative get apoplectic. Most will immediately point to the secession documents, the Cornerstone Speech, or other documents related to the South’s concerns regarding slavery. Concurrently they ignore more fundamental concerns expressed, and also the historical situation when these documents were written. After all, it is much easier for the ideologically driven to draw conclusions from a superficial examination of the historical evidence.

If the South seceded to “protect and extend slavery,” certain questions must be answered:

1. In the antebellum period, no major political party ever proposed emancipation. Lincoln proclaimed many times leading up to his election that he had no intention of “touching slavery in the States where it already existed.” The deep South seceded anyway. He repeated this in his first inaugural, the upper South seceded anyway. Why? Most in the upper South believed that secession would mean the end of slavery, and given their geographical position, slavery was safer in the Union than out. Why did they secede when slavery was under no legitimate threat?

2. Lincoln lobbied for (even before inaugurated) and pushed through both houses of a Northern controlled Congress (with a super-majority) the Corwin Amendment which didn’t just proclaim slavery constitutional, but secured the institution with the ironclad promise that the Constitution could never be amended to allow the Federal gov’t to end slavery. The deep South which had already seceded turned down the bribe, and the upper South seceded anyway in spite of the offer of an ironclad protection for slavery. If preserving slavery was their cause, here was the perfect amendment to preserve it into perpetuity! Why then did they turn it down and secede? Certainly the South had reason to not trust the North to abide by the Constitution. A long history of Northern infidelity preceded the Corwin Amendment. And that is exactly why the South seceded. It wasn’t over slavery but rather the continuous breach of contract by the North of which slavery issues represented the most recent examples and legal reasons for secession.

3. Some claim protecting slavery necessarily involved extending slavery into the territories. Let’s think about that one. When the South seceded from the Union, it cut itself off from any legal claim to the territories (with the exception of a small section of the Southwest territories that asked to join the CSA). How then did secession in any way help serve the cause of extending slavery into the territories? It in fact did just the opposite.

4. An intentionally suppressed aspect of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is that it offered the South the right to keep slavery if it returned to the Union within the 100 days before the Proclamation went into effect. All the South had to do is quit fighting to keep slavery but they didn’t. Weren’t they fighting to keep slavery? Why didn’t they return to the Union and keep their slaves? Obviously they didn’t secede over slavery. Otherwise they would not have seceded and stay seceded with the offer to keep slavery on the table in the Emancipation Proclamation?

5. Perhaps most revealing about what motivated secession is found in an exchange that took place on July 12, 1862 between Lincoln and the border slave States that did not secede. He is admonishing the congressmen in those States for not supporting a resolution of a gradual compensated emancipation. In Lincoln’s mind, had these border slave States accepted his offer of compensated emancipation and given up Slavery, it would have ended the war because, “Let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that, in no event, will the states you represent ever join their proposed Confederacy, and they can not, much longer maintain the contest.” Here, as in the EP, he had turned to emancipation as a war measure. Then he adds, “But you can not divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states... – You and I know what the lever of their power is – Break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more forever –“ Lincoln was convinced that secession was about slavery, and that the “lever of power” used to rally the South around secession was slavery.

The loyal border slave States congressmen had rejected Lincoln’s offer by a 20 - 8 margin. On July 14, the 20 legislators wrote Lincoln a letter explaining why, none of which were a desire to keep slavery: 1- the resolution was rushed through congress without a social plan. 2- they felt the federal gov’t was exceeding its Constitutional bounds and infringing on States rights. 3- they questioned the Constitutionality of a law to appropriate the funds. 4- they were concerned about the financial debt. 5- they were concerned about the constitutionality of causing one section of States to make sacrifices that other loyal States were not having to make... It was an issue regarding the Constitutionally required equity of the States. This is why these pro-Union congressmen turned down Lincoln’s offer.

After covering these reasons for voting no, they took Lincoln to task as to why his plan would not have ended the war. They did not agree that slavery was the “lever of their power” around which the Confederacy did secede and fight. They pointed out that it was NOT SLAVERY, but NORTHERN INFIDELITY to the Constitution which generated a fear that the common gov’t would be wielded against the rights of the States:

“In both Houses of Congress we have heard doctrines subversive of the principles of the Constitution... To these causes, Mr. President, and not to our omission to vote for the resolution recommended by you, we solemnly believe we are to attribute the terrible earnestness of those in arms against the Government and the continuance of the war. Nor do we (permit us to say, Mr., President, with all respect for you) agree that the institution of Slavery is "the lever of their power," but we are of the opinion that "the lever of their power" is the apprehension that the powers of a common Government, created for common and equal protection to the interests of all, will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern States.”

That concern was “the lever of their power” by which the Southern States rallied around secession. These border slave State congressmen were still loyal to the Union, they had no reason to deceive Lincoln. But they were also keenly aware of why their sister slave States left the Union. If secession was about slavery, why did these loyal slave State legislators say it wasn’t?

6- But the story does not end there. On July 15, 1862 the 8 minority State legislators who had voted for the resolution of compensated emancipation also wrote to Lincoln. In their explanation of why they took a position to approve, there is an amazing revelation:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

This is not the only account of the seceded States revealing a willingness to surrender slavery for independence. This effort continued right up to January 1865 when one of the largest slave holders, Rep. Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, proposed and was sent to France and England by Jeff Davis to once again negotiate ending slavery in exchange for France and England’s help in securing INDEPENDENCE for the Confederacy. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to gain independence. You don’t surrender what you are fighting for to win the fight. If the South was willing to sacrifice slavery as this evidence reveals, how can slavery be the cause of secession?

The motive for secession was obviously not slavery. Slavery as the South often said was merely the occasion and not the cause of secession:

“Slavery was the mere occasion and not the object or end of this war. The South is
fighting for National independence and freedom from Yankee domination. The people are willing sacrifice all the slaves to the cause of freedom.” Richmond Inquirer, 1863

“Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting a decision. It has disappeared almost entirely from the political discussions of the day. No one mentions it in connection with our present complications. The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a Negro slave on American Soil…” The New York Times, April 9, 1861.

“The war has slanderously been called the slaveholders’ war; undertaken for slavery, and maintained and supported solely for the perpetuation of negro slavery. Our enemies have charged, and much of the world believes the charge, that we have sacrificed the best and noblest of our land, heartlessly and cruelly, to maintain the negro property of some three hundred thousand slaveholders. The unparalleled suffering of this war has been slanderously misrepresented as detailed upon the poor and rich of these States by the selfish slaveholder for the security of his ‘human chattels.’ The people of these States know the infamous falsity of these charges...” The Richmond Enquirer, 1863

“If, to save our liberties, we find it necessary to emancipate, we shall have, therefore, lost nothing, while we shall have gained the supreme issue – independence.” Richmond Sentinel, 1864

“We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence - and that, or extermination, we will have.” Jeff Davis, July 29, 1864.

Slavery represented the most recent Northern violation of the Constitution, and therefore was emphasized because it was the most recent legal justification for secession. Emphasizing slavery also made it difficult for Lincoln to convince a racist North to go to war. The ploy almost worked as members of his own cabinet were saying “just let the South go.” Slavery talk was also a way to gain support for secession from fire eater plantation owners who believed slavery was best protected in the Union. But slavery was not the cause of secession. Every action of the South after secession makes this clear. As do the words of congressmen in a position to know the true motive for secession.

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 20 congressmen saying slavery was not the cause of secession:
Image 10 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, July 14, 1862 (Response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 8 congressmen stating the South sought to end slavery to gain independence:
Image 1 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, July 15, 1862 (Minority response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

The Duncan Kenner mission link relating the 1864 mission of Kenner seeking to end slavery:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4232057

While that is an adorable, middle-school-writing level persuasive essay made by white supremacists for white supremacists, here are Lincoln's actual comments:

“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.”

 

[Meathead]

WHY DID THE SOUTH SECEDE?

Did the South secede and fight to preserve and extend slavery as the popular narrative proclaims? Challenge that narrative and defenders of the popular narrative get apoplectic. Most will immediately point to the secession documents, the Cornerstone Speech, or other documents related to the South’s concerns regarding slavery. Concurrently they ignore more fundamental concerns expressed, and also the historical situation when these documents were written. After all, it is much easier for the ideologically driven to draw conclusions from a superficial examination of the historical evidence.

If the South seceded to “protect and extend slavery,” certain questions must be answered:

1. In the antebellum period, no major political party ever proposed emancipation. Lincoln proclaimed many times leading up to his election that he had no intention of “touching slavery in the States where it already existed.” The deep South seceded anyway. He repeated this in his first inaugural, the upper South seceded anyway. Why? Most in the upper South believed that secession would mean the end of slavery, and given their geographical position, slavery was safer in the Union than out. Why did they secede when slavery was under no legitimate threat?

2. Lincoln lobbied for (even before inaugurated) and pushed through both houses of a Northern controlled Congress (with a super-majority) the Corwin Amendment which didn’t just proclaim slavery constitutional, but secured the institution with the ironclad promise that the Constitution could never be amended to allow the Federal gov’t to end slavery. The deep South which had already seceded turned down the bribe, and the upper South seceded anyway in spite of the offer of an ironclad protection for slavery. If preserving slavery was their cause, here was the perfect amendment to preserve it into perpetuity! Why then did they turn it down and secede? Certainly the South had reason to not trust the North to abide by the Constitution. A long history of Northern infidelity preceded the Corwin Amendment. And that is exactly why the South seceded. It wasn’t over slavery but rather the continuous breach of contract by the North of which slavery issues represented the most recent examples and legal reasons for secession.

3. Some claim protecting slavery necessarily involved extending slavery into the territories. Let’s think about that one. When the South seceded from the Union, it cut itself off from any legal claim to the territories (with the exception of a small section of the Southwest territories that asked to join the CSA). How then did secession in any way help serve the cause of extending slavery into the territories? It in fact did just the opposite.

4. An intentionally suppressed aspect of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is that it offered the South the right to keep slavery if it returned to the Union within the 100 days before the Proclamation went into effect. All the South had to do is quit fighting to keep slavery but they didn’t. Weren’t they fighting to keep slavery? Why didn’t they return to the Union and keep their slaves? Obviously they didn’t secede over slavery. Otherwise they would not have seceded and stay seceded with the offer to keep slavery on the table in the Emancipation Proclamation?

5. Perhaps most revealing about what motivated secession is found in an exchange that took place on July 12, 1862 between Lincoln and the border slave States that did not secede. He is admonishing the congressmen in those States for not supporting a resolution of a gradual compensated emancipation. In Lincoln’s mind, had these border slave States accepted his offer of compensated emancipation and given up Slavery, it would have ended the war because, “Let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that, in no event, will the states you represent ever join their proposed Confederacy, and they can not, much longer maintain the contest.” Here, as in the EP, he had turned to emancipation as a war measure. Then he adds, “But you can not divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states... – You and I know what the lever of their power is – Break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more forever –“ Lincoln was convinced that secession was about slavery, and that the “lever of power” used to rally the South around secession was slavery.

The loyal border slave States congressmen had rejected Lincoln’s offer by a 20 - 8 margin. On July 14, the 20 legislators wrote Lincoln a letter explaining why, none of which were a desire to keep slavery: 1- the resolution was rushed through congress without a social plan. 2- they felt the federal gov’t was exceeding its Constitutional bounds and infringing on States rights. 3- they questioned the Constitutionality of a law to appropriate the funds. 4- they were concerned about the financial debt. 5- they were concerned about the constitutionality of causing one section of States to make sacrifices that other loyal States were not having to make... It was an issue regarding the Constitutionally required equity of the States. This is why these pro-Union congressmen turned down Lincoln’s offer.

After covering these reasons for voting no, they took Lincoln to task as to why his plan would not have ended the war. They did not agree that slavery was the “lever of their power” around which the Confederacy did secede and fight. They pointed out that it was NOT SLAVERY, but NORTHERN INFIDELITY to the Constitution which generated a fear that the common gov’t would be wielded against the rights of the States:

“In both Houses of Congress we have heard doctrines subversive of the principles of the Constitution... To these causes, Mr. President, and not to our omission to vote for the resolution recommended by you, we solemnly believe we are to attribute the terrible earnestness of those in arms against the Government and the continuance of the war. Nor do we (permit us to say, Mr., President, with all respect for you) agree that the institution of Slavery is "the lever of their power," but we are of the opinion that "the lever of their power" is the apprehension that the powers of a common Government, created for common and equal protection to the interests of all, will be wielded against the institutions of the Southern States.”

That concern was “the lever of their power” by which the Southern States rallied around secession. These border slave State congressmen were still loyal to the Union, they had no reason to deceive Lincoln. But they were also keenly aware of why their sister slave States left the Union. If secession was about slavery, why did these loyal slave State legislators say it wasn’t?

6- But the story does not end there. On July 15, 1862 the 8 minority State legislators who had voted for the resolution of compensated emancipation also wrote to Lincoln. In their explanation of why they took a position to approve, there is an amazing revelation:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”

This is not the only account of the seceded States revealing a willingness to surrender slavery for independence. This effort continued right up to January 1865 when one of the largest slave holders, Rep. Duncan Kenner of Louisiana, proposed and was sent to France and England by Jeff Davis to once again negotiate ending slavery in exchange for France and England’s help in securing INDEPENDENCE for the Confederacy. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to gain independence. You don’t surrender what you are fighting for to win the fight. If the South was willing to sacrifice slavery as this evidence reveals, how can slavery be the cause of secession?

The motive for secession was obviously not slavery. Slavery as the South often said was merely the occasion and not the cause of secession:

“Slavery was the mere occasion and not the object or end of this war. The South is
fighting for National independence and freedom from Yankee domination. The people are willing sacrifice all the slaves to the cause of freedom.” Richmond Inquirer, 1863

“Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting a decision. It has disappeared almost entirely from the political discussions of the day. No one mentions it in connection with our present complications. The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a Negro slave on American Soil…” The New York Times, April 9, 1861.

“The war has slanderously been called the slaveholders’ war; undertaken for slavery, and maintained and supported solely for the perpetuation of negro slavery. Our enemies have charged, and much of the world believes the charge, that we have sacrificed the best and noblest of our land, heartlessly and cruelly, to maintain the negro property of some three hundred thousand slaveholders. The unparalleled suffering of this war has been slanderously misrepresented as detailed upon the poor and rich of these States by the selfish slaveholder for the security of his ‘human chattels.’ The people of these States know the infamous falsity of these charges...” The Richmond Enquirer, 1863

“If, to save our liberties, we find it necessary to emancipate, we shall have, therefore, lost nothing, while we shall have gained the supreme issue – independence.” Richmond Sentinel, 1864

“We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence - and that, or extermination, we will have.” Jeff Davis, July 29, 1864.

Slavery represented the most recent Northern violation of the Constitution, and therefore was emphasized because it was the most recent legal justification for secession. Emphasizing slavery also made it difficult for Lincoln to convince a racist North to go to war. The ploy almost worked as members of his own cabinet were saying “just let the South go.” Slavery talk was also a way to gain support for secession from fire eater plantation owners who believed slavery was best protected in the Union. But slavery was not the cause of secession. Every action of the South after secession makes this clear. As do the words of congressmen in a position to know the true motive for secession.

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 20 congressmen saying slavery was not the cause of secession:
Image 10 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, July 14, 1862 (Response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

Library of Congress link to the letter by the 8 congressmen stating the South sought to end slavery to gain independence:
Image 1 of Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, July 15, 1862 (Minority response to Lincoln's proposal for compensated emancipation)

The Duncan Kenner mission link relating the 1864 mission of Kenner seeking to end slavery:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4232057

I think he said that if you like your slaves, you can keep them. But you know how politicians are.

 

[Unkotare]

[..., here are Lincoln's actual comments:

“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.....”

Sounds like Bill Belichick!

 

[whitehall]

Thanks to sycophant "biographers" and "historians" the failed administration of A.Lincoln has achieved virtual sainthood but maybe we can get beyond the incredibly flawed administration that was viewed through the prism of assassination.

 

[Picaro]

Lincoln's plan was to keep them on the plantations and working cheap; he set their wages at $2 a month and restricted them to their plantations where they couldn't leave without written permission from the plantation owners; those 'freed' slaves who weren't employed were forced into Contraband Camps and left to starve and die from disease epidemics, since allowing them to flee into northern states wasn't going to happen. Some 700,000 or so died in the camps, solving a lot of Lincoln's problems. Lincoln needed to plunder the South to pay for his corporate welfare projects in the northern states, particularly the Midwest and 'Old Northwest'. He and his railroad plundering pals opposed the radicals and their plans for completely destroying and looting the South.

 

[Picaro]

Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states where it already existed, but he drew the line at allowing slavery to extend into the territories. However, this was a phantom issue: there was no chance in hades that slavery was going to extend into the territories, and only a very tiny trickle of slaveholders had moved into territories where slavery was legal.

Slavery was on its way out anyway....This was the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Between the Compromises in 1850 and the Census of 1860, 9 slaves were found outside the Cotton Kingdom; natural geography and climate limited the economic feasibility of slavery to the regions it already had reached by 1850, and it was going no further.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Maybe if Lincoln delayed and lied and played political games rather than "drawing a line" the Union would have been preserved. Apparently Lincoln's problem was that he was a pompous fool and/or a coward who thought slick rhetoric would replace hard negotiations and solve political issues or he depended on criminally bad advice or both. Lincoln didn't preserve the Union, his negligence caused the Union to fall apart.

Lincoln was willing to reach a reasonable compromise, but Southern Fire-Eaters and Northern Radicals sabotaged the negotiations. There is also something to be said for the point that the Deep South states could have at least given Lincoln a chance to govern for a few months before deciding whether or not to secede. They also had a legal obligation to accept the election results.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[..., here are Lincoln's actual comments:

“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.....”

Sounds like Bill Belichick!

...if Bill Belichik had signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Did he?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Short version:

Lincoln, politically, set the aim of preserving the union above all else. He offered the seceding States this compromise, to that end.

The slave states rejected it, as they did not trust the abolitionist states not to simply subvert the proposed amendment at will, or to help enforce their slavery laws. So, in the interest of forever keeping slavery, they declined the offer.

So, Lincoln said (paraphrasing), "Fuck you, then. If i have to force you to stay, then i plan to get everything I want."

And you know the rest....

 

[Unkotare]

[..., here are Lincoln's actual comments:

“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.....”

Sounds like Bill Belichick!

...if Bill Belichik had signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Did he?

Only for free safeties.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[..., here are Lincoln's actual comments:

“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.....”

Sounds like Bill Belichick!

...if Bill Belichik had signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Did he?

Only for free safeties.

Ha, he would forge your name ,for that.

 

[Picaro]

It was also a criminal act to use force against the states; Madison rejected granting the Federal government that power in the Constitution when it was proposed by one of the Federalist factions. The Union was to be voluntary re original intent. It was in fact northern states who routinely threatened 'secession' over the first 30 or so years of the Union, due to what they perceived as the state of Virginia's and the South's political power and outsized influence in the Federal govt.

 

[irosie91]

It was also a criminal act to use force against the states; Madison rejected granting the Federal government that power in the Constitution when it was proposed by one of the Federalist factions. The Union was to be voluntary re original intent. It was in fact northern states who routinely threatened 'secession' over the first 30 or so years of the Union, due to what they perceived as the state of Virginia's and the South's political power and outsized influence in the Federal govt.

that was the good ole' days when the fastest communication was via pony express and--------dit dit dit dash....dit dit. We can't act like that anymore------the nation has
become ONE----thru the magic of skywriting and hovering drones