"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[Timjoebillybob]

We aren't talking about lynching, we are talking about returning escaped slaves to their masters. Yes, it would be all well and good if someone fled to a free state and they didn't hand them over. I am literally astonished that you can't see that.

We're talking about a state refusing to extradite a person in line with the other states laws. Those laws could be anything. How about a slave escapes and gets to a free state and their owner discovers them and kills them. Then flees back to their slave state and said slave state refusing to extradite them because killing your slave is legal in that state? Is that all good with you? States Rights right?

The fact that you can't see that they lost the moral argument is the root of the problem here.

They lost the moral argument how exactly? By firing on a fort of another country that said country was trying to resupply against their will?

Yes, we disagree, that much we agree on.

You don't agree that the feds making a state deal in interstate commerce against their will is an infringement on States Rights?

The fact that you can "make the argument for enforcing the Constitution regarding it however repugnant I believe slavery is" is exactly the mistake I was referring to when I referenced the fire-eaters. I don't know what to do to make you understand the problem with attempting to force others to hand back escaped slaves. If following the law is more important to you than doing what is right, we are VERY different people and this discussion can never lead anywhere.

Perhaps if those states were so adamant with not following the rules that they agreed to they should have seceded? Wouldn't that have been the moral and honorable thing to do?

The wisdom to restore the Union and end slavery in the process in spite of the costs involved. I have not previously resolved in my own mind if it was truly the correct course, but I realize now that the obstinance of the slave owners and westward expansion made the conflict inevitable. He did the right thing to bring them back into the Union at the point of a bayonet. I never really believed that until now, but you and Big Red have convinced me that it was the only way to bring the argument to an end. Otherwise, it just goes on and on.

My opinion is he should have just let them go, bringing them back cost more than lives. I'd say it was the major turning point with federal expansion and loss of rights. And once again, he didn't do it to end slavery. He's said as much in his own words, he just wanted to "preserve the union" no matter the cost. I don't see what he did as wise, iirc his predessor stated that they had no lawful power to keep them in the union. You think it was wise of him to cause the deaths of how many people including slaves simply to enforce his own desires? I don't call that wise, more megalomaniacal. Thank you much for letting me see just how evil he really was.

 

[BigRed]

Lincoln and Coincidence? – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Well, if nothing else this thread continues to educate me on things that I'll readily admit I had no idea happened before.

Further thoughts to follow, but first, the most striking part of this article to me:

For it is not mere coincidence that the very next day after meeting with those seven legislators, July 13, 1862 Lincoln sat down and drafted his “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” No wonder Lincoln called it a “war measure” intended to keep Britain and France out of the war. Once again, he was attempting to preempt the Confederate offer of emancipation, but this time believing it to be a “fact” instead of mere “rumor,” Lincoln had upped the ante of his compensated emancipation “offer” to a mandatory “proclamation” of uncompensated emancipation freeing the slaves under Confederate control.

One thing can be certainly deduced from all these too “coincidental” actions of Lincoln. His desire to emancipate was a reaction to the Confederate offer made January 1862, and in no manner was he motivated by a genuine concern for the slaves.

I assume you posted this article because you are in agreement with it? I only ask that, because this article seems to pretty clearly argue that Lincoln did emancipate slaves, albeit for an ulterior motive, the which proposition I seem to recall you strongly denying on many occasions.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So the Confederate States sent out diplomats in early 1861 offering, and lets be clear on terms here, not to emancipate any current slaves, but to begin emancipating those newly born into slavery after a certain date, if England and/or France would intervene in their favor in the War.

I never knew this happened.

I have lots of questions.

Does anyone know where I could find the text of this supposed speech by General Toombs in which he declares that the Southern States would rather emancipate slaves than return to the Union? This seems to be quite a striking break from all the other founding documents and speeches of the Confederacy that I have ever read, and I'm really wondering why it wasn't brought up sooner in this conversation (unless it was and I missed it.)

I wonder what would have happened if England or France had accepted the offer of the Confederate Sates? Something tells me that one of the reasons they were leery of accepting it probably had to do with the fact that the Confederate States considered themselves free to at any time for any reason reject any agreement that had entered into while under the original Union, so what would stop them from doing the same thing under the Confederacy? If England and/or France had intervened, and caused the South to win the War, what would have stopped an individual state from saying, "You know what, we actually don't want to end slavery, so now we're going to secede from the Confederacy so we don't have to stick by the agreement they made with the Europeans."?

Also, how in the world was it supposed to work to emancipate newborn babies while keeping their parents in slavery? That just makes no sense in so many ways on a practical level.

 

[rob63]

Does anyone know where I could find the text of this supposed speech by General Toombs in which he declares that the Southern States would rather emancipate slaves than return to the Union? This seems to be quite a striking break from all the other founding documents and speeches of the Confederacy that I have ever read, and I'm really wondering why it wasn't brought up sooner in this conversation (unless it was and I missed it.)

This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER believe anything put out by the abbeville institute. They take pieces of information out of context, remove anything that doesn't agree with their agenda, etc.

There never was going to be any such offer to emancipate slaves made to England or France. Here is the original source, a newspaper article from 1885 in which it is claimed that Toombs said the following:



You will note that this is someone claiming Toombs said this, we don't really know. You will also note that the abbeville institute article left out the part where Toombs said that Davis didn't have the courage to do it. You will further note that the abbeville institute article left out the part where Toombs said that emancipation would be repudiated after they gained English and French recognition. They also left out the part where the same gentleman that quoted Toombs, also said that when he asked Davis about all of this Davis replied that this was the first time he had heard of any of it.

Moving on, here is the speech by Toombs in which he talks about the South having the power to emancipate slaves. I will let you read it and decide whether the abbeville institute article has placed it in the proper context. The pertinent part is at the very end, but I will provide a little bit more to give it greater context.






The full speech can be found here: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=_XQKAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-_XQKAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1&pli=1

 

[SheepDog4Life]

A Viscount said that Americans in Paris said that Gen. Scott said... something that was never announced as official US policy.

A Viscount that was the Secretary of War when England lost the War of 1812. A Viscount who supported the Confederacy, mostly because the division of the Civil War presented an excellent opportunity to re-conquer the colonies... and just by "coincidence" relays "rumors" that could inflame and incident and lead to war between the US and England.

I'd say more like "convenient" than "coincidence".

 

[HoughMade]

This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER believe anything put out by the abbeville institute. They take pieces of information out of context, remove anything that doesn't agree with their agenda, etc.

There never was going to be any such offer to emancipate slaves made to England or France. Here is the original source, a newspaper article from 1885 in which it is claimed that Toombs said the following:

View attachment 255124

You will note that this is someone claiming Toombs said this, we don't really know. You will also note that the abbeville institute article left out the part where Toombs said that Davis didn't have the courage to do it. You will further note that the abbeville institute article left out the part where Toombs said that emancipation would be repudiated after they gained English and French recognition. They also left out the part where the same gentleman that quoted Toombs, also said that when he asked Davis about all of this Davis replied that this was the first time he had heard of any of it.

Moving on, here is the speech by Toombs in which he talks about the South having the power to emancipate slaves. I will let you read it and decide whether the abbeville institute article has placed it in the proper context. The pertinent part is at the very end, but I will provide a little bit more to give it greater context.

View attachment 255127
View attachment 255128
View attachment 255129
View attachment 255130

The full speech can be found here: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=_XQKAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-_XQKAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1&pli=1

Interesting.

General rule- be very wary of what is said about the pre-1865 beliefs and attitudes of confederates, stated or written after 1865, especially after about 1870. There are plenty of primary source materials from prior to 1865. Believe what people say about themselves at a time when they are not trying to salvage their reputations or the reputation of a lost cause.

 

[JettaKnight]

Interesting.

General rule- be very wary of what is said about the pre-1865 beliefs and attitudes of confederates, stated or written after 1865, especially after about 1870. There are plenty of primary source materials from prior to 1865. Believe what people say about themselves at a time when they are not trying to salvage their reputations or the reputation of a lost cause.

Revisionist history isn't a new thing.

 

[BigRed]

Lincoln and Fort Sumter – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org