Why did Lincoln care so much about preserving the union?

Elfwine · Mar 9, 2014

Ace Venom said:
There are so many reasons to militarily oppose secession that have little to do with ideals. It's much easier to impose economic will on a part of your country than on a foreign country. Plus one could also argue correctly that the loss of the South would have been an economic loss. All of a sudden, you're now having to import products from a foreign country that you once acquired through transactions within your own country. New Orleans was also a pretty important port. Plus, unknown to them at the time, the South was sitting on some pretty significant oil reserves. So you could also argue correctly that opposing the loss of a significant portion of your economy is a good enough reason to militarily oppose secession.

But one would be incorrect in arguing that economics were the reason for secession or the reason for opposition to the same.

Sulemain · Mar 9, 2014

Ace Venom said:
There are so many reasons to militarily oppose secession that have little to do with ideals. It's much easier to impose economic will on a part of your country than on a foreign country. Plus one could also argue correctly that the loss of the South would have been an economic loss. All of a sudden, you're now having to import products from a foreign country that you once acquired through transactions within your own country. New Orleans was also a pretty important port. Plus, unknown to them at the time, the South was sitting on some pretty significant oil reserves. So you could also argue correctly that opposing the loss of a significant portion of your economy is a good enough reason to militarily oppose secession.

The thing is though, economics, politics, it all came back to slavery.

TFSmith121 · Mar 9, 2014

As per:

Sulemain said:
The thing is though, economics, politics, it all came back to slavery.

During the war, Lincoln tried to persuade slaveowners in various US states/liberated territories (Delaware among them) to accept compensated emancipation; basically, this was one of the many policy options regarding reconstruction the Administration tried, in locations as diverse as US-controlled Louisiana and South Carolina to Tennessee and the border states.

Slaveowners were not interested - "not a federal issue" (seriously, that was the argument).

http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/spec/exhibits/lincolnbicent/01_slave.html#compensated

After all, as early as the 1830s, Calhoun et al were arguing that slavery was a "positive good"....

"...(slavery) has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."

See:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...positive-good/

No matter how hard various and sundry individuals have tried to obscure it since 1865, the South seceded over their various elites desire to sustain and grow slavery, and the war occurred because the south seceded.

One can pretend otherwise, and the moonlight and magnolias/lost cause/some of my best friends are enslaved types will continue to do so for ever, but...

It's true.

Best,

Sulemain · Mar 9, 2014

I agree with you

.

Avskygod0 · Mar 10, 2014

usertron2020 said:
Did you get my PM?

Yes, but i didn't really understand what was going on

usertron2020 · Mar 10, 2014

Avskygod0 said:
Yes, but i didn't really understand what was going on

Your post is written in the past tense, indicating that you understand what is going on now. Do I understand YOU now correctly?

Evan · Mar 12, 2014

Johnrankins said:
Can you show me WHERE you got that idea? Show me one Lincoln quote where he says he would be fine with secession as long as they paid the US tribute.

I think I understand where Colleen is getting his idea about Lincoln proposing the Confederacy pay the US tribute. In his first inaugural address, before hostilities started, Lincoln said that he would not initiate force to provide respect for the national authority; but that federal forts and customs houses would continue to be occupied when possible. Someone could think that refusing to insist every federal office be occupied was an acknowledgement of secession, while insisting that customs duties be collected was a demand for tribute. Of course, this totally ignores the horns of the dilemma on which Lincoln was perched, and the overwhelming need for the border states' loyalty.

Abraham Lincoln said:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

Johnrankins · Mar 12, 2014

Evan said:
I think I understand where Colleen is getting his idea about Lincoln proposing the Confederacy pay the US tribute. In his first inaugural address, before hostilities started, Lincoln said that he would not initiate force to provide respect for the national authority; but that federal forts and customs houses would continue to be occupied when possible. Someone could think that refusing to insist every federal office be occupied was an acknowledgement of secession, while insisting that customs duties be collected was a demand for tribute. Of course, this totally ignores the horns of the dilemma on which Lincoln was perched, and the overwhelming need for the border states' loyalty.

He also knew if the CSA allowed the US to keep the forts and collect duties without doing anything they would not look like a sovereign nation. In effect he did something that would goad the CSA to fire the first shot and being the aggressor and it worked.

Grey Wolf · Mar 12, 2014

Redem said:
Loosing almost half the country on your first day look sorta bad

This is probably under-rated

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

fscott · Mar 12, 2014

Otis R. Needleman said:
Because he stood for what was right.

Preserving the Union was right.

Ending slavery was right.

Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he had an unwavering moral compass and the courage of his convictions.

I wish we had a Lincoln now.

He married the daughter of a slave owner and was happy to use the influence her family gave him. He also, had he lived, wanted to send them back to Africa.

Elfwine · Mar 12, 2014

fscott said:
He married the daughter of a slave owner and was happy to use the influence her family gave him. He also, had he lived, wanted to send them back to Africa.

An idea that he had dropped, or was dropping, by the time he was assassinated.

And that definitely should be put in the context of his time - Lincoln felt that might be better than them living in a society where they would be treated as anything but equal. Not "this country is for whites damnit" or any such nonsense.

CthulhuFhtagn · Mar 12, 2014

Redem said:
Loosing almost half the country on your first day look sorta bad

Lincoln's Inaugural Address:

"Yes, we lost the entire South, but cut me some slack, it's my first day."

fscott · Mar 12, 2014

Patriot said:
Preserving the Union, and thus engaging in civil war, was alone justified in order to destroy slavery (yes, not Lincoln's primary goal but whatever) and forever hold in contempt those who would engage in war to protect such an evil institution.

I m totally Anti-Slavery. I hate the comments that the Union was superior to the South. When the North needed the South in the Revolution slavery was ok but as soon as the North was more powerful and didn't need the South they suddenly become anti slavery. Your talking 80 years and suddenly slavery is wrong. I agree slavery is an evil but stabbing the South in the back is also wrong.

Sulemain · Mar 12, 2014

fscott said:
I m totally Anti-Slavery. I hate the comments that the Union was superior to the South. When the North needed the South in the Revolution slavery was ok but as soon as the North was more powerful and didn't need the South they suddenly become anti slavery. Your talking 80 years and suddenly slavery is wrong. I agree slavery is an evil but stabbing the South in the back is also wrong.

In summary, this is one of the most single most unaware, inaccurate... things I have seen on this site for a while. There should be an Anti-Turtledove for the level of fail.

Elfwine · Mar 12, 2014

fscott said:
I m totally Anti-Slavery. I hate the comments that the Union was superior to the South. When the North needed the South in the Revolution slavery was ok but as soon as the North was more powerful and didn't need the South they suddenly become anti slavery. Your talking 80 years and suddenly slavery is wrong. I agree slavery is an evil but stabbing the South in the back is also wrong.

How on earth do you categorize sentiment in the free states bcoming antislavery as "stabbing the South in the back"?

usertron2020 · Mar 12, 2014

Elfwine said:
How on earth do you categorize sentiment in the free states bcoming antislavery as "stabbing the South in the back"?

My ignore list is getting too long...

The South had had the North dancing to its tune since...forever, really. Then the North had the gall to elect an all-Northern ticket.

Doctor Evulz · Mar 12, 2014

fscott said:
I m totally Anti-Slavery. I hate the comments that the Union was superior to the South. When the North needed the South in the Revolution slavery was ok but as soon as the North was more powerful and didn't need the South they suddenly become anti slavery. Your talking 80 years and suddenly slavery is wrong. I agree slavery is an evil but stabbing the South in the back is also wrong.

There were heated debates in the Revolution over slavery. The difference between then and the 1860's was that the North and South were weaker and needed to stick together to avoid losing to the British. Even many slaveowners in the 18th century wouldn't oppose emancipation happening eventually in the future. By 1860, slavery was a "fundamental good" rather than "necessary evil".

MrHaakwood · Mar 12, 2014

fscott said:
I m totally Anti-Slavery. I hate the comments that the Union was superior to the South. When the North needed the South in the Revolution slavery was ok but as soon as the North was more powerful and didn't need the South they suddenly become anti slavery. Your talking 80 years and suddenly slavery is wrong. I agree slavery is an evil but stabbing the South in the back is also wrong.

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.

usertron2020 · Mar 12, 2014

Doctor Evulz said:
There were heated debates in the Revolution over slavery. The difference between then and the 1860's was that the North and South were weaker and needed to stick together to avoid losing to the British. Even many slaveowners in the 18th century wouldn't oppose emancipation happening eventually in the future. By 1860, slavery was a "fundamental good" rather than "necessary evil".

Slavery was already dying in the North, and wasn't doing so great in the South, either. Then came the Cotton Gin...

MrHaakwood said:
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.

South Good

North Bad

Get it?

Elfwine · Mar 12, 2014

usertron2020 said:
My ignore list is getting too long... The South had had the North dancing to its tune since...forever, really. Then the North had the gall to elect an all-Northern ticket.

Even if this is exaggerated, from the 3/5ths compromise on, the South was overrepresented.