Why did Lincoln care so much about preserving the union?

Thats some weird mind gymnastics you are doing here. Slavery was not okay, because humanity had progressed. Not because the North needed it. How that is a stab in the back, I dont understand.

The North needed it to win the Revolution. Remove the Southern and Border states we would have lost the war,
 
Cotton was extremely profitable and helped the North a good deal as they also had access to the crops and could transport it amongst other things. To be clear, everyone agrees that slavery is a bad thing and that it was the lure of more money that made taking care of slaves not being an actual responsibility so much as making profits grow?

On a side note, wasn't there a few thighs in the Cnfederate Constituion which banned even speaking about ending slavery and limiting states rights on the issue of masters wanting to free their slaves? That and the despotism may have gave Lincoln extra reason to believe the Southern leadership was looking for greater control over everyone beneath them, Black or White. Ahh, and then there are all the areas that were against secession....

Ahhh, and doing so would mean less wars. The Confederates might have tried claiming US Territories, empty out reservations, and, of course, expand South.

The Confederacy was all too happy to throw over States Rights and embrace Federalism when it came to defending the institution of Slavery. Which is why whatever hypocrisy the North might be accused of regarding the war being about freeing the slaves, the South would always have them trumped.
 
You let it sound like it was a kind of a deal "You fight with us and as a payment you can keep slavery." Did I get that right?

It was a deal. Did anyone come out and use those exact words probably not. You add the abolition of slavery in the DOI or Constitution then the number of Loyalist Colonies would grow by leaps and bounds.
 

Japhy

Banned
The idea that the south was "Stabbed in the Back" is at the very least, completely ridiculous. Not really anything more to say about that. Everything else aside still, the South was attacking Constitutional Government and Democracy itself, and Lincoln was sworn to uphold that.
 
It was a deal. Did anyone come out and use those exact words probably not. You add the abolition of slavery in the DOI or Constitution then the number of Loyalist Colonies would grow by leaps and bounds.

You know, this makes the South even more moral despicable than I ever thought. Now they would have not fought the war of independence without promises of keeping slavery. :rolleyes:
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Don't forget the 3/5ths clause...

You know, this makes the South even more moral despicable than I ever thought. Now they would have not fought the war of independence without promises of keeping slavery. :rolleyes:


"Yes, they're enslaved, but we want to represent them - at least 60 percent of them - in Congress..."

"...morally despicable" is putting it mildly...

Best,
 
It was a deal. Did anyone come out and use those exact words probably not. You add the abolition of slavery in the DOI or Constitution then the number of Loyalist Colonies would grow by leaps and bounds.

And it's all a moot point anyway, as slavery was not yet confined to the South Iirc even the New England colonies and PA abolished it only in the 1780s, while NY and NJ had it into the 1800s.
 
And it's all a moot point anyway, as slavery was not yet confined to the South Iirc even the New England colonies and PA abolished it only in the 1780s, while NY and NJ had it into the 1800s.

Not true, sadly. I can't speak for the other states, but Connecticut did not abolish Slavery until the late 1830s, and only then due to the notoriety of the Amistad Affair. As to colonies outside the Thirteen Colonies joining the ARW, Canada was in far too primitive a state to consider independence in the 1770s. They were more or less in the same state as the Thirteen Colonies were in 1690.
 
Good clarification.

Best,

Add on Southern White Unionists, and you had a 5-4 Anti-Secession majority. But as always when you don't respect democratic traditions (and slavery tends to erode your respect for such things) the side with the guns AND the willingness to use them had their way.:(
 
"Yes, they're enslaved, but we want to represent them - at least 60 percent of them - in Congress..."

"...morally despicable" is putting it mildly...

Best,
It also had the effect of winning the electoral college for Thomas Jefferson. I can only imagine how many other presidencies were won by the South that way.
 
It also had the effect of winning the electoral college for Thomas Jefferson. I can only imagine how many other presidencies were won by the South that way.

OTOH, but for the deadlock between the two chambers of the PA legislature, Jefferson/Burr would have won comfortably even without the Southern gerrymander.

It's not clear that any presidential elections were changed down to the Civil War, as with the Federalist decline, DR victories became too one-sided for the gerrymander to matter, while in the second party system, both Democrats and Whigs had strong support in both sections, so neither party benefited greatly from it.

The year when it really made a difference was 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed the HoR by thirteen votes. Without that extra Southern representation, the measure would have lost, which might well mean no Republican Party - or at least not for a lot longer. So the Southerners' gerrymander had come back to bite them on the bum. Poetic justice?
 
The idea that the south was "Stabbed in the Back" is at the very least, completely ridiculous. Not really anything more to say about that. Everything else aside still, the South was attacking Constitutional Government and Democracy itself, and Lincoln was sworn to uphold that.

This. Firing on Ft. Sumter amounted to insurrection, something the President of the United States is expressly authorised to suppress in the Constitution.
 
Though one must admit, a myth of the South being "stabbed in the back" does nicely put our Lost Causers in another category of history discussed on these forums...
 
This. Firing on Ft. Sumter amounted to insurrection, something the President of the United States is expressly authorised to suppress in the Constitution.

Yeah, this ranks with the German "stabbed in the back" idea which prevailed in Germany after WWI for rewriting history.
 
Yeah, this ranks with the German "stabbed in the back" idea which prevailed in Germany after WWI for rewriting history.

That was some simultaneity!

But there is some interesting parallels here, between the Lost Causers, and the something-in-Germany-changes-so-there's-no-holocaust-but-all-the-cool-weapons-and-uniforms-are-available-for-my-TL threads in after 1900. Call'em the "we want the cool militarism, but not the moral dreadfulness inextricably tied up with the militarism" threads.
 
That was some simultaneity!

But there is some interesting parallels here, between the Lost Causers, and the something-in-Germany-changes-so-there's-no-holocaust-but-all-the-cool-weapons-and-uniforms-are-available-for-my-TL threads in after 1900. Call'em the "we want the cool militarism, but not the moral dreadfulness inextricably tied up with the militarism" threads.

Never get "cool" uniforms get in the way of human decency. :rolleyes:
 
Never get "cool" uniforms get in the way of human decency. :rolleyes:

Well, the "coolest" uniform of all time is possibly the SS one.

Most uniforms, both Western and Communist, are eminently drab and forgettable, yet even now, almost seventy years after the firm went out of business, an SS uniform can still give people the creeps.

Could one say that, reputation-wise, the Nazis were the victims of their own dress sense?
 
Well, the "coolest" uniform of all time is possibly the SS one.
Well, black, SS runes and skulls certainly have its charm. You know that one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y :D

Most uniforms, both Western and Communist, are eminently drab and forgettable, yet even now, almost seventy years after the firm went out of business, an SS uniform can still give people the creeps.
I agree. Most uniforms these days seem rather boring. But in civil fashion some features make a comeback. Ever heard of Thor Steinar?

thor-steinar-altes-logo_800.jpg

Could one say that, reputation-wise, the Nazis were the victims of their own dress sense?
Hmm, what was there first? The egg or the hen?

thor-steinar-altes-logo_800.jpg
 
Top