What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

[rdean]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

That may be, but it did exist, and it was allowed by the Constitution that becomes the governing authority of all states that join the union. And it was not slavery but the punative measures the North used to impose on the South by do gooders opposing slavery that compelled the Southern states to withdraw. Would those punative measures have been inflicted if there was no slavery? Probably not. But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.

If thee had been no power struggle in Europe at the time, there would have been no WWI. If Nazi-ism and Fasism didn't exist, there would have been no WWII. If communism didn't exist, there would have been no war in Korea and no Vietnam War. If Muslim fanaticism didn't exist, there would be no war in Afghanistan now.

If Lincoln had been willing to allow the South to withdraw peacefully and do its own thing, there would have been no Civil War.

Bull shit. There would have been a Civil War all right. Just not that one.

 

[Unkotare]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

That may be, but it did exist, and it was allowed by the Constitution that becomes the governing authority of all states that join the union. And it was not slavery but the punative measures the North used to impose on the South by do gooders opposing slavery that compelled the Southern states to withdraw. .

No. Sincere politicians from both the North and the South had worked assiduously for decades - arguably since the Constitution was written - to reconcile the institution of slavery and the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Compromise after compromise was hammered out only to sooner or later run up against the fundamentally untenable reality of slavery in our growing nation. Eventually, some faithless fools grew tired of trying to honor our Union and chose treason for themselves and death for well over half a million men. This, when all is said and done, in the name of an evil institution and the personal ambitions of a few hidden behind the gauzy justifications of men ultimately without loyalty, vision, or morality.

 

[oldfart]

But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.

I think you have slipped into a grave error. First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery. To that I vehemently object. There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North. No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.

If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.

If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing. But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.

I think you have slipped into a grave error. First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery. To that I vehemently object. There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North. No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.

If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.

If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing. But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully. In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South. What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.

Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it. Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.

 

[gipper]

But it was not the South's misconduct toward the North that caused the Civil War but rather it was the North's determination to control the South that caused the Civil War.

I think you have slipped into a grave error. First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery. To that I vehemently object. There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North. No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.

If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.

If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing. But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully. In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South. What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.

Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it. Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.

There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric. Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him. He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.

The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind. He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural. He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time. The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist. When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.

Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.

Cost Of The American Civil War

The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War

If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners. Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war? Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.

The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth. Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!

 

[BDBoop]

There's some fascinating thinking going on in here.

Has Harry Turtledove or a comparable writer written a book or series on the subject?

 

[BDBoop]

Does anybody have some bug spray to deal with annoying little gnats?

One does have to wonder why some feel so threatened by the honest history of past events. But we see the same phenomenon on the religion thread. Once some folks have stuff in their heads, no matter how indefensible, you couldn't dislodge it with a nuclear blast.

Step around the dropped turds, I find this thread fascinating.

 

[BDBoop]

Won it with European conscripts, are Europeans republicans now? If you are not proud of the killings why did you say you were "proud" and then continue on with your bragging?

Go cry me a river you cock sucker. You will now be on ignore because I refuse to debate a ignorant fuck who accuses me of being proud people died. Go to hell and burn asshole.

You said you were "proud" I quoted it. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Apparently you think they all deserved to die for the cause. Otherwise why would you be proud of one of the results. Means justify the ends. You said it. Not me.

Did 144 just whine that his ass was burning? No wonder he's being such a dick! He's in pain, ffs. Somebody get him some butthurt paste.

 

[MuadDib]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

The ordinances of secession did list slavery. However, that had more to do with the Constitutional questions of the federal government seizing private property, not the actual freeing of slaves.

While slavery did have more to do with the secession of the deep south, it was Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to raise an army to invade the south that triggered the secession of the border states.

You're also wrong on your last sentence. Even if the slave states had abolished slavery by 1860, there would still have been a Civil War because of the taxation and the political differences between the 2 sections. That's why the slavery-centric view of the war just doesn't hold up in the face of all the facts.

 

[Peterf]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

I find your point persuasive. As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.

 

[MuadDib]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

I find your point persuasive. As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

 

[Hoffstra]

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

bullshit.

the South depended on slave labor.

that's why they were furious that slavery wasn't extending West.

that's why they seceded.

 

[thanatos144]

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

I find your point persuasive. As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes

 

[Unkotare]

...The fact is the war WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY....

funny, every declaration of secession by the CSA states said slavery was a major part of it.

if slavery didn't exist in the USA there would have never been a civil war.

I find your point persuasive. As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.

It wasn't so much the federal government not "allowing" it to happen. There were efforts at compromise over this as well, but the nation as a whole was growing more and more anti-slavery, leaving a relatively small number of large-scale slave owners feeling increasingly isolated. These people were in a position to influence local power and politics and to demagogue the issue into something monstrous by, among other things, trying to tie the "tradition" of slavery to states rights and a fabricated outrage over the perceived centralization of power in the federal government. Instead of acting like statesmen, some key figures in the South then turned traitor and led over half a million men to their deaths.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you have slipped into a grave error. First you have leaped from a simple counterfactual history exercise to an argument on the causes of the Civil War, and in the process taking a side that at its core is a defense of slavery. To that I vehemently object. There was a great deal of Southern misconduct toward the North. No reasonable interpretation of history can ignore the plain fact that from 1820 to 1860 the South made increasing demands on the North, abrogated agreements such as the Missouri Compromise, threatened succession at every turn from 1854, and yet it was not enough.

If this is your view of history, you have aligned yourself with the worst aspects of American history and culture and have become another apologist for racism and slavery.

If you want to discuss a counterfactual history, that is one thing. But to put forward a false history to justify slavery is another. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully. In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South. What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.

Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it. Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.

There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric. Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him. He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.

The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind. He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural. He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time. The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist. When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.

Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.

Cost Of The American Civil War

The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War

If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners. Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war? Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.

The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth. Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!

Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.

I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved. Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.

Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist. He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was. That is a very different thing.

Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:

“When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”​

In other words his view was equal but separate. The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one. I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.

 

[MuadDib]

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

bullshit.

the South depended on slave labor.

that's why they were furious that slavery wasn't extending West.

that's why they seceded.

You're ignoring historical facts in favor of propaganda and hyperbole. You seem to do that a lot.

Only 14% of the population owned any slaves at all and the majority were owned by the wealthiest 6%. 86% owned no slaves and had no vested interest in it. The southern middle class saw slavery as an obstacle to their prosperity.

So ask yourself why the majority of the population were willing to go to war over an institution that the vast majority, almost 9 out of 10, had no part of.

It wasn't called the Age of Enlightenment for nothing. Slavery was dying a natural death. Industrial slavery had already proven itself untenable and agricultural slavery was doing likewise. There were 5 times as many abolitionist societies in the south than there were in the north.

If you owned a slave, you had to house him, feed him, provide him with essentials for daily life, and provide medical care. It's cheaper and simpler to hire an employee, pay him a wage, and let him sort those things our for himself.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not really. Unfortunately, there are Libtards in the South too.

However, Obama's idol, Lincoln, was elected even though he did not appear on the ballots in any of the Southern states because of his support for the Morrill Tariff.

obama's "idol" is FDR. He just invokes the name of Lincoln for crass political purposes.

I suspect it's more likely, if he has an "idol", it would be Reagan. Considering how kindly he talks about Reagan. Clearly he has Reagan on a pedestal.

His idols were his alcoholic communist Father and his porn star mom. After they died his Idol became himself. He may wish he had the power to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans like Lincoln did with European conscripts, and he may lust after the admiration Reagan has. But his idols have always been communists, domestic terrorists, and scum.

 

[MuadDib]

I find your point persuasive. As I understand it the South wanted to extend slavery into new Western territories and the federal government would not allow this to happen.

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes

Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.

You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.

The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.

Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.

So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.

 

[thanatos144]

Slavery was dying a natural death and would have been gone easily by 1870. It could have been ended much sooner if it hadn't been for the radical abolitionists.

I am sure slavery going away was great news to the thousands left in bondage for decades by your heroes

Slavery existed in America for 246 years. It only existed in the Confederate states for 4 years. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag and the south consitutionally banned foreign slave trade from the beginning. Importation was done by Yankee slave traders.

You might also bear in mind that slavery was still legal in 5 loyal Union states: Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and was legal in the Federal capital when the war began. U.S. Grant didn't free his slaves until the ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the war forced him to do so.

The Underground Railroad took escaped slaves up north...all the way to Canada because the northern states amended their state constitutions to prevent them from moving within their borders.

Southerners aditted their sins a long time ago. Northerners never have.

So you might want to be careful about who you accuse of keeping people in bondage.

So because slavery was around for a long time it is fine that they would have remained so for decades if the emancipation proclamation was never written? Please do all of us republican conservatives a favour and stay a democrat libertarian

 

[gipper]

You should be ashamed of yourself for not reading more carefully. In no place have I said there was no misconduct on the part of the South. What I said was that Southern misconduct was not the cause of the Civil War.

Further if you can find anything I have ever written in my entire life, let alone at USMB, that even suggests an attempt on my part to justify slavery go for it. Otherwise you are telling a lie about what I have written.

There is no doubt Olddick should be ashamed of his silly uninformed statements and hateful rhetoric. Sadly, he is a Lincoln Cultist and the facts will never change him. He learned lies about Lincoln and the war in second grade...in the government propaganda mills....and never progressed from there.

The war was NEVER about slavery, in Lincoln's mind. He sang the praises of slavery over and over before he was elected and in his first inaugural. He had no intention of ending it and was an extreme white supremacist even for his time. The Lincoln Cult likes to cite his inviting black leaders to the White House, as if this proves he was not an outrageous racist. When in fact, he invited them there to ask them to deport themselves.

Slavery no doubt played a big role in causing the war, but it was NEVER Lincoln's cause and he was the one responsible for starting it. He clearly told the slave states you can keep slavery FOREVER, but if you don't pay the Federal government it's taxes, we will kill you.

Cost Of The American Civil War

The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.Cost Of The American Civil War

If the war was about ending slavery, all Dishonest Abe had to do was pay off the slave owners. Would that not have been FAR LESS COSTLY than the war? Of course it would, but the Lincoln Cultists will never tire of their ignorant and foolish beliefs.

The war, in Lincoln's mind, was about increasing federal government power and wealth. Very much like every major war other POTUS's forced on America. Most disgusting!!!

Well, while I agree with you that the war was never about slavery in Lincoln's mind, I, as I have with some others, have to gently disagree on a few other of your observations and opinions.

I think a careful and thoughtful reading of the whole history shows Lincoln not to be one to seek to increase federal powers, but he did interpret the Constitution as intending that the union be preserved. Perhaps at a selfish level, he did not want a division of the country as his legacy, but I do believe he held a heartfelt conviction that preseving the union was the right thing to do.

Also, I can find nothing in Lincoln's writings, speech transcriptions, or in testimony of those who knew him that suggests he was in any way a white supremacist. He was a strong segregationist yes, as he, like almost every other person of his generation and culture, both black and white, was. That is a very different thing.

Lincoln was from Illinois, the most staunchly segregationist and anti-black state of any in the union, so he was definitely working outside the box and outside the prevailing politically correct stance when he said in Peoria in 1854:

“When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”​

In other words his view was equal but separate. The white supremacist sees his race as the superior one. I cannot find any evidence that Lincoln took that view.

“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 will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch 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.” Dishonest Abe 1858
Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)

Of course he believed the white race superior to blacks. And he sought to deport all blacks from America to his dying day.

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers and uttered these words...

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

... Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race ... The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

... We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.

He told General Butler in April 1865...

"But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes ... I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."

And regarding Lincoln and the Constitution...he like most presidents since his tenure, thought it meant whatever suited him. He shut down numerous Northern newspapers who disagreed with him, he ignored habeas corpus and arrested thousands...he arrested, imprisoned, and deported a Congressman who disagreed with him. So....Lincoln and the Constitution had little in common....very similar to Wilson in WWI with his Sedition Act and FDR imprisoning Japanese Americans in WWII.