6 ms·

The thing about our pro-North viewpoint of the Civil War was that while Lincoln emancipated slaves, it was used more as a political weapon. Lincoln once said th

The thing about our pro-North viewpoint of the Civil War was that while Lincoln emancipated slaves, it was used more as a political weapon. Lincoln once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done it. However, during Lincoln's administration, the power of the US increased. In fact, it was called the "united States of America," before the Civil War, if it didn't appear in title case. Lincoln actually committed many constitutional wrongs and increased the size and scope of the federal government.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- kenjackson 13y ago
  That war destroyed one country and created a new one, with a different and less free path. You must not be black.
  - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
    I wonder if it would have been much worse than it is now. See: Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow
bobwaycott 13y ago
The thing about this "pro-North viewpoint" is that it isn't pro-North at all. It is pro-union, pro-Constitution, and pro-United States of America. That the North called themselves the Union is a historical convenience when discussing the Civil War's historical treatment as a war over the union of the states who ratified the Constitution. Were the Confederates to have won, there would no longer be a United States of America. There would not have been a 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. There would not have been a march toward applying the principles of the Constitution to formerly excluded people who only counted as 3/5ths of a person for the sake of increasing the slave states' representation in Congress. Slavery wasn't just "used more as a political weapon"--it was one of the primary political and human issues dividing the united States (downcase intentional). The acts of secession were seen as in violation of the Constitution and a detriment to building a United States (upcase intentional). To suggest slavery was merely "used more as a political weapon" reads as if there's an implicit statement that it was not a huge political problem. The facts of history overwhelmingly suggest that it was. There is a reason that long before the civil war, Americans considered themselves to be members of either free states or slave states. Moreover, there is far more historical evidence to suggest that the war, and not slavery, was "used more as a political weapon" to resolve the divisive issues surrounding slavery and the primacy of the US Constitution. Suggesting that slavery was used as a political weapon falls down when one looks at the post-assassination history, particularly the negotiations between the Johnson administration and the reconstructing state governments in the South. American support for the abolition of slavery had been present since the time of the Constitution. The problem in the intervening 70 years was that most people saw slavery as constitutionally protected, requiring a political solution that would abolish it permanently (e.g., an amendment). The war was, ultimately, the political weapon used to find a solution. Even as far back as the ratification of the Constitution, these tensions existed. Twenty years prior, in the 1770s, there were already known and notable movements to abolish slavery in the colonies. Lincoln introduced an amendment to a resolution abolishing slavery in DC in 1849. The Compromise of 1850 leaves zero room to suggest that slavery was not an inherently and fundamentally divisive issue for which the Congress was trying to find any peaceful, political way possible to resolve it while mitigating growing tensions. The Kansas-Nebrasks Act of 1854 brought Lincoln back out of what looked like political retirement because he felt it was wrong to leave the slavery question a matter of popular vote in new territories. His opinions on slavery are well-documented, before and during his presidency. > This declared indifference, but I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself...it deprives our republican institutions to taunt us as hypocrites...the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity...it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self interest. > The doctrine of self-government is right-absolutely and eternally right-but has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is not to that extent, a destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? 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...What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent. > Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that and that only is self-government...Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a ‘sacred right of self-government.'...Let us return to the position our fathers gave it...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence. We shall have so saved [the Union], that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations. Perhaps close to your cited statement on Lincoln's wanting to keep slavery and the Union, you are mischaracterizing his intent: > ...Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it is in his love of justice...repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature. For Lincoln, as with others who sought a political solution, the biggest problem was maintaining fidelity to the Constitution and the Union, while solving what was seen as a national problem: > You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union. The apologists for the Confederacy who to this day stupidly refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, those who try to rewrite the intent of the actors before, during, and after the Civil War--those who attempt to hide behind the statement that the Confederacy seceded to exert and protect States' Rights--willfully ignore history to advance an insidious viewpoint. Nobody involved, not even Lincoln, disputed that the secession and the resulting Civil War was a matter of States' Rights. More importantly, everyone at the time knew exactly which rights the States were seceeding and fighting to protect. This is a matter of historical record, not some alleged pro-North viewpoint. --- Now, beyond that, it is a matter of historical record that Lincoln committed constitutionally questionable actions, based on his interpretation of his wartime powers and other factors. That he committed "many constitutional wrongs" is a likely candidate for debate, but can only be discussed if you care to mention what those wrongs were. This article definitely highlights some of them. Arguing that he "increased the size and scope of the federal government" also requires significant explanation of exactly what you mean. Excluding the wartime expansion of budget and federal employees, which dramatically shrunk after his death and the war's end, what specifically are you referring to here?
- jasonjei 13y ago
  This is a long post and merits a long response. I apologize if I'll be using HN as my draft board until I have answered or conceded to your points. As far as your point that it's pro-Union versus pro-North, the Union in the 1860s is practically equivalent to the North. It doesn't detract from the fact that the North meant the Union, and the South the Confederation. Since all the states that attempted to secede are in the South, I think it's fair to say pro-Union is semantically equivalent to pro-North. However, pro-Union seems to be the terminology preferred by victors as it implies consensus while pro-North made it seem like regional differences (in truth it was). The Civil War was about regional differences largely over slavery. For instance, the South sometimes calls the Civil War by another name, ``the War of Northern Aggression." History is always POV. To indicate the indecisiveness on terminology, Wikipedia interchangeably refers to the Union or the North. It's absolutely about the differences with the North and the South. That's why the South attempted to leave the ``united States of America." If the South had won, I might argue that the USA wouldn't cease to exist, it just would only include a subset of the original members. -- Out to dinner, will draft when I come back --
  - mpyne 13y ago
    There were slave states (even Southern slave states) that did not secede from the Union though. Virginia is perhaps the most exceptional case of that, the western counties of that state seceded from Virginia itself to re-join the Union as the state of West Virginia. Either way though, bikeshedding about the name of each belligerent is to miss the whole point of that wonderful long post. I encourage you to give it another look once you return from dinner before you give your fully-considered response.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    You're looking at history somewhat oddly. Until the outbreak of war, the Union was the entirety of the US states. It was when Southern states seceded that the Union became the North—that is, those states upholding preservation of the Union of states and resolving the slavery issue. Once the war is underway, the Union is used interchangeably to refer to the army and the states. Among historians, pro-Union isn't a tenable position of historiography. This isn't about victors writing the history. The pro-Union nature of the conflict had everything to do with keeping the states united under the Constitution. The stupid semantics of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression is far more a pro-South political statement than is prevailing historiography pro-North. That the war was regionally divided does not lend credence to equating pro-Union with pro-North. This is key. Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. War broke to preserve the Union in the face of Southern states wishing to break it to persist in determining their own right to perpetuate enslavement of Africans. War resulted in resolving both the status of the Union and slavery.
skwirl 13y ago
Who did you learn your American history from, Lew Rockwell? Because on the subject of Lincoln, it certainly isn't from Lincoln's own writings and statements or the writing and statements of his contemporaries (one example of hundreds: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.h...). Any belief that Lincoln was intent on letting slavery live is a belief that is not based in reality, and ignores the reason southern states seceded to begin with - Lincoln's opposition to expanding slavery into U.S. territories, one of the purposes being that states carved from those territories would be states that opposed slavery, thus eventually outvoting the slave states and abolishing slavery. The issue of slavery defines Lincoln from the beginning. The difference between Lincoln and people like Thaddeus Stevens was one of tactics; Lincoln was pragmatic. Your statement on Lincoln and slavery is roughly the 1860s equivalent of believing that 9/11 was an inside job. As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the federalist papers.
- comefrom30 13y ago
  > believing that 9/11 was an inside job. On that subject, there's a video that it would be great it every American watched. It's made by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's about evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Regardless of one's opinion on the "Truther" movement (which does include some genuine crackpots), it's clear that the official investigation was an embarrassment, and such a significant historical event deserves more level-headed scientific scrutiny.
    - comefrom30 13y ago
      > "Truther" movement (which does include some genuine crackpots) No contest. Just for anyone reading this, please remember that having crackpots in a movement doesn't make it a crackpot movement.
mikeash 13y ago
"Lincoln once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done it." You seem to be implying that Lincoln preferred slavery, but allowed it to go because he had to. This is not the case. While Lincoln did say he would have preserved both slavery and the union, he meant that he was against both, but that he placed more importance on preserving the union than on ending slavery. Here is the full quote: "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."
- jasonjei 13y ago
  I think my comment about Lincoln and emancipation is being misconstrued. Lincoln genuinely believed in ending slavery, but as you mentioned, he cared more about preserving the unity of the Union. However, I don't believe I said he preferred keeping slavery. If he could keep the Union from being divided and preserving the inhumane practice of slavery would do that, I think he would. However, as others pointed out, the rift between the two regions were too great. I apologize for any confusion if I implied he preferred slavery. I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps the nuance I was trying to put forward was that he preferred preserving the union, even if that meant keeping the savagery of slavery. Perhaps an analogy to present day might be DADT. The Obama administration preferred to avoid resolving the issue of DADT immediately, even though his administration wanted to end it at some point, since it would cost significant political capital. However, given the public support at the right time and conditions, DADT was repealed.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Your wording implied that he preferred to keep slavery, which I guess was just inadvertent on your part. I didn't know that wasn't what you meant, so I took it at face value. "If I could do X and Y, I'd do it" implies a preference for both. Anyway, I get what you mean now, especially since it's the same thing I said.
natrius 13y ago
To add to this, many Americans seem to view the goal of preserving the Union as self-evidently noble. I disagree. Self-government is an inalienable right of free people. The Union didn't just forcibly end slavery in the South, which would've been noble enough. They conquered the South and ruled it. What gave the Union the right to impose laws on the South that had nothing to do with human rights? Governance without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 13y ago
That war destroyed one country and created a new one, with a different and less free path. You must not be black.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  I wonder if it would have been much worse than it is now. See: Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow

bobwaycott 13y ago

The thing about this "pro-North viewpoint" is that it isn't pro-North at all. It is pro-union, pro-Constitution, and pro-United States of America. That the North called themselves the Union is a historical convenience when discussing the Civil War's historical treatment as a war over the union of the states who ratified the Constitution. Were the Confederates to have won, there would no longer be a United States of America. There would not have been a 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. There would not have been a march toward applying the principles of the Constitution to formerly excluded people who only counted as 3/5ths of a person for the sake of increasing the slave states' representation in Congress. Slavery wasn't just "used more as a political weapon"--it was one of the primary political and human issues dividing the united States (downcase intentional). The acts of secession were seen as in violation of the Constitution and a detriment to building a United States (upcase intentional). To suggest slavery was merely "used more as a political weapon" reads as if there's an implicit statement that it was not a huge political problem. The facts of history overwhelmingly suggest that it was. There is a reason that long before the civil war, Americans considered themselves to be members of either free states or slave states. Moreover, there is far more historical evidence to suggest that the war, and not slavery, was "used more as a political weapon" to resolve the divisive issues surrounding slavery and the primacy of the US Constitution. Suggesting that slavery was used as a political weapon falls down when one looks at the post-assassination history, particularly the negotiations between the Johnson administration and the reconstructing state governments in the South. American support for the abolition of slavery had been present since the time of the Constitution. The problem in the intervening 70 years was that most people saw slavery as constitutionally protected, requiring a political solution that would abolish it permanently (e.g., an amendment). The war was, ultimately, the political weapon used to find a solution. Even as far back as the ratification of the Constitution, these tensions existed. Twenty years prior, in the 1770s, there were already known and notable movements to abolish slavery in the colonies. Lincoln introduced an amendment to a resolution abolishing slavery in DC in 1849. The Compromise of 1850 leaves zero room to suggest that slavery was not an inherently and fundamentally divisive issue for which the Congress was trying to find any peaceful, political way possible to resolve it while mitigating growing tensions. The Kansas-Nebrasks Act of 1854 brought Lincoln back out of what looked like political retirement because he felt it was wrong to leave the slavery question a matter of popular vote in new territories. His opinions on slavery are well-documented, before and during his presidency. > This declared indifference, but I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself...it deprives our republican institutions to taunt us as hypocrites...the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity...it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self interest. > The doctrine of self-government is right-absolutely and eternally right-but has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is not to that extent, a destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? 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...What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent. > Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that and that only is self-government...Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a ‘sacred right of self-government.'...Let us return to the position our fathers gave it...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence. We shall have so saved [the Union], that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations. Perhaps close to your cited statement on Lincoln's wanting to keep slavery and the Union, you are mischaracterizing his intent: > ...Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it is in his love of justice...repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature. For Lincoln, as with others who sought a political solution, the biggest problem was maintaining fidelity to the Constitution and the Union, while solving what was seen as a national problem: > You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union. The apologists for the Confederacy who to this day stupidly refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, those who try to rewrite the intent of the actors before, during, and after the Civil War--those who attempt to hide behind the statement that the Confederacy seceded to exert and protect States' Rights--willfully ignore history to advance an insidious viewpoint. Nobody involved, not even Lincoln, disputed that the secession and the resulting Civil War was a matter of States' Rights. More importantly, everyone at the time knew exactly which rights the States were seceeding and fighting to protect. This is a matter of historical record, not some alleged pro-North viewpoint. --- Now, beyond that, it is a matter of historical record that Lincoln committed constitutionally questionable actions, based on his interpretation of his wartime powers and other factors. That he committed "many constitutional wrongs" is a likely candidate for debate, but can only be discussed if you care to mention what those wrongs were. This article definitely highlights some of them. Arguing that he "increased the size and scope of the federal government" also requires significant explanation of exactly what you mean. Excluding the wartime expansion of budget and federal employees, which dramatically shrunk after his death and the war's end, what specifically are you referring to here?

jasonjei 13y ago
This is a long post and merits a long response. I apologize if I'll be using HN as my draft board until I have answered or conceded to your points. As far as your point that it's pro-Union versus pro-North, the Union in the 1860s is practically equivalent to the North. It doesn't detract from the fact that the North meant the Union, and the South the Confederation. Since all the states that attempted to secede are in the South, I think it's fair to say pro-Union is semantically equivalent to pro-North. However, pro-Union seems to be the terminology preferred by victors as it implies consensus while pro-North made it seem like regional differences (in truth it was). The Civil War was about regional differences largely over slavery. For instance, the South sometimes calls the Civil War by another name, ``the War of Northern Aggression." History is always POV. To indicate the indecisiveness on terminology, Wikipedia interchangeably refers to the Union or the North. It's absolutely about the differences with the North and the South. That's why the South attempted to leave the ``united States of America." If the South had won, I might argue that the USA wouldn't cease to exist, it just would only include a subset of the original members. -- Out to dinner, will draft when I come back --
- mpyne 13y ago
  There were slave states (even Southern slave states) that did not secede from the Union though. Virginia is perhaps the most exceptional case of that, the western counties of that state seceded from Virginia itself to re-join the Union as the state of West Virginia. Either way though, bikeshedding about the name of each belligerent is to miss the whole point of that wonderful long post. I encourage you to give it another look once you return from dinner before you give your fully-considered response.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  You're looking at history somewhat oddly. Until the outbreak of war, the Union was the entirety of the US states. It was when Southern states seceded that the Union became the North—that is, those states upholding preservation of the Union of states and resolving the slavery issue. Once the war is underway, the Union is used interchangeably to refer to the army and the states. Among historians, pro-Union isn't a tenable position of historiography. This isn't about victors writing the history. The pro-Union nature of the conflict had everything to do with keeping the states united under the Constitution. The stupid semantics of calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression is far more a pro-South political statement than is prevailing historiography pro-North. That the war was regionally divided does not lend credence to equating pro-Union with pro-North. This is key. Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. War broke to preserve the Union in the face of Southern states wishing to break it to persist in determining their own right to perpetuate enslavement of Africans. War resulted in resolving both the status of the Union and slavery.

skwirl 13y ago

Who did you learn your American history from, Lew Rockwell? Because on the subject of Lincoln, it certainly isn't from Lincoln's own writings and statements or the writing and statements of his contemporaries (one example of hundreds: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.h...). Any belief that Lincoln was intent on letting slavery live is a belief that is not based in reality, and ignores the reason southern states seceded to begin with - Lincoln's opposition to expanding slavery into U.S. territories, one of the purposes being that states carved from those territories would be states that opposed slavery, thus eventually outvoting the slave states and abolishing slavery. The issue of slavery defines Lincoln from the beginning. The difference between Lincoln and people like Thaddeus Stevens was one of tactics; Lincoln was pragmatic. Your statement on Lincoln and slavery is roughly the 1860s equivalent of believing that 9/11 was an inside job. As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the federalist papers.

comefrom30 13y ago
> believing that 9/11 was an inside job. On that subject, there's a video that it would be great it every American watched. It's made by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's about evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
- lukifer 13y ago
  Regardless of one's opinion on the "Truther" movement (which does include some genuine crackpots), it's clear that the official investigation was an embarrassment, and such a significant historical event deserves more level-headed scientific scrutiny.
  - comefrom30 13y ago
    > "Truther" movement (which does include some genuine crackpots) No contest. Just for anyone reading this, please remember that having crackpots in a movement doesn't make it a crackpot movement.

mikeash 13y ago

"Lincoln once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done it." You seem to be implying that Lincoln preferred slavery, but allowed it to go because he had to. This is not the case. While Lincoln did say he would have preserved both slavery and the union, he meant that he was against both, but that he placed more importance on preserving the union than on ending slavery. Here is the full quote: "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."

jasonjei 13y ago
I think my comment about Lincoln and emancipation is being misconstrued. Lincoln genuinely believed in ending slavery, but as you mentioned, he cared more about preserving the unity of the Union. However, I don't believe I said he preferred keeping slavery. If he could keep the Union from being divided and preserving the inhumane practice of slavery would do that, I think he would. However, as others pointed out, the rift between the two regions were too great. I apologize for any confusion if I implied he preferred slavery. I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps the nuance I was trying to put forward was that he preferred preserving the union, even if that meant keeping the savagery of slavery. Perhaps an analogy to present day might be DADT. The Obama administration preferred to avoid resolving the issue of DADT immediately, even though his administration wanted to end it at some point, since it would cost significant political capital. However, given the public support at the right time and conditions, DADT was repealed.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Your wording implied that he preferred to keep slavery, which I guess was just inadvertent on your part. I didn't know that wasn't what you meant, so I took it at face value. "If I could do X and Y, I'd do it" implies a preference for both. Anyway, I get what you mean now, especially since it's the same thing I said.

natrius 13y ago

To add to this, many Americans seem to view the goal of preserving the Union as self-evidently noble. I disagree. Self-government is an inalienable right of free people. The Union didn't just forcibly end slavery in the South, which would've been noble enough. They conquered the South and ruled it. What gave the Union the right to impose laws on the South that had nothing to do with human rights? Governance without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.