Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2012, 12:41 AM   #461

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
The Constitution is in favor of Lincoln's election.

He was elected according to the Law that people, at the time, accepted as true. Legitimacy was contained in derivation from the US Constitution of 1787 right up until South Carolina decided it would not stand for Lincoln's victory, so I will maintain the position that Lincoln was the 'President-Elect' in 1860 until the day I die.
MAlexMatt, the answer is in the election rules and laws not in the things what you choose to believe. However I think I might agree with you. Considering some following events like the Supreme Court nullifying the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which outlawed discrimination against blacks using public facilities) or like contesting the 13th Amendment on the grounds that it has not applied to individual plantation owners, but to the state only is quite self-explanatory for me at least. At the time Americans wasn't still sure whether the slavery is illegal or not but I can't find anything that suggests the very scrutinising of the Lincoln's election.
Lors is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:26 AM   #462

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Excuse my arrogance, but the had 13th Amendment been passed before of after this Lincoln speech:

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 (applause), 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 in as much 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone.

What I really see that after war the Lincoln's try to cover the needs of business by the rhetoric of humanitarianism has been succeeded.
Your argument is a complete strawman. The 13th Amendment was about the ABOLITION OF SLAVERY, not about giving black people equal rights. As Lincoln said in the speech you quoted, "I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."

Some Republicans believed in full equality for blacks. Others, like Lincoln, only believed in partial equality. But they ALL believed that slavery should be eliminated, either immediately or gradually. Lincoln had been advocating the exclusion of slavery from the national territories, and the gradual extinction of slavery, for YEARS prior to the Civil War. And that's exactly why the Southern states seceded when he was elected President. And that's why there was a civil war.

Last edited by Rongo; November 23rd, 2012 at 03:48 AM. Reason: added last sentence
Rongo is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:41 AM   #463
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
That's what I was merely asking for - are those elections legal or not. I'm sure there are not regardless of the never questioning them after the war. But like you, I'm just guessing due my lack of knowledge on that matter.
There is no question about the legitimacy of Lincoln's election in 1860. It was not disputed by the south. He was not on the ballot in 10 southern states because he had almost no support there.

The election of a regional candidate pursuing what was perceived as an antisouthern adgenda, mostly antislavery of course, is what lead to secession.

There were many cases of questionable elections in the south during and after the Civil War though.

During the Civil War, there were elections in Maryland with Union troops at the polling places. In those days, men voted by annoucing there votes to the clerk, so those were not entirely free elections.

In the south after the Civil War, initially blacks were not allowed to vote. Then they were allowed and many whites were kept from voting. Some states had black majority legislatures and northern "carpetbagger" govenors. Then the KKK intimidated blacks and white Republicans. Later there restrictions on blacks voting.

In 1876, 3 southern states sent 2 sets of electors. An electoral commision gave all those to the Republican so he won by 1 electoral vote. Part of the agreement was to end the military occupation of the south. So you could definitely questions the legitimacy of Hays' election in that year.

In Louisiana in the 1870s, there was a battle for the control of the state capital in which the White League defeated the state militia and state police.
betgo is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 06:18 AM   #464
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
There have been many negotiated peaces agree to under threat of war. If the north accepted the secession of the south, I am sure the captured US soldiers would have been released and the Confederacy would have made other concessions. The US invaded the Confederacy. The Confederacy would not have invaded the US.
They certainly didn't have a problem invading Kentucky, so to say that the Confederacy was above invading the North is a stretch.. In addition, 1859, S. Carolina was ready to send troops into Washington so again offensive military use was not above them.
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 06:19 AM   #465
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Mohawk Valley, New York
Posts: 391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Was he on the ballots in the South States whatsoever to claim being "elected"?
Lincoln won because the South and the Democratic party was too splintered on whom they wanted to have for President..He was fairly elected under the Constitutional process and that has never been successfully challanged..
wilber6150 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 06:39 AM   #466
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilber6150 View Post
Lincoln won because the South and the Democratic party was too splintered on whom they wanted to have for President..He was fairly elected under the Constitutional process and that has never been successfully challanged..
The fact that there were multiple candidates was not the main reason Lincoln won. The split Democratic vote only made the difference in Oregon and California. Lincoln didn't have a majority of the votes, because he got practically no votes in the south, but he won most of the northern states easily.
betgo is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:26 AM   #467

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The election of a regional candidate pursuing what was perceived as an antisouthern adgenda, mostly antislavery of course, is what lead to secession.
The key word here being "perceived". This was one of the great myths perpetrated by the slavocracy, that the Republican Party was "anti-Southern", when in fact it was anti-slavery. The slavocracy's great fear was that when the Republicans came into power, Southerners would recognize that they really weren't anti-Southern, and that they in fact had a lot to offer the non-slaveholding Southerners, such as free access to the territories. This in turn became part of the reason why the Confederate leaders were so hell-bent on getting out of the Union as fast as they possibly could.

As Georgia Governor Joe Brown put it:

Quote:
"If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance [*sic*] of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist." - Joseph Brown, December 7, 1860

Source: Gov. Joseph Brown's Open Letter

Last edited by Rongo; November 23rd, 2012 at 09:53 AM. Reason: spelling
Rongo is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 06:51 AM   #468
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

I haven't read the entire thread, but wasn't the economic reasons (slave labour out-competing regular labour) the main reason for the anti-slavery movement?

It seems irrational to go against an institution (slavery) and even wage a war and risk your life, just because of moral qualms.
There must be something more to it.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 06:59 AM   #469

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
I haven't read the entire thread, but wasn't the economic reasons (slave labour out-competing regular labour) the main reason for the anti-slavery movement?

It seems irrational to go against an institution (slavery) and even wage a war and risk your life, just because of moral qualms.
There must be something more to it.
Well, I would really suggest you read the thread, but to give you a short answer:

The root cause of the war was the issue of the EXPANSION of slavery. Most Northerners disapproved of slavery but were content to turn a blind eye to slavery where it already exist. However, they recognized it as a problem and they didn't want to see the problem get bigger - for moral, political, social AND economic reasons.

Most of them didn't go to war to free the slaves, but they did go to war to preserve a democratic Union that had elected a President who was committed to stopping the expansion of slavery.

Last edited by Rongo; December 26th, 2012 at 07:02 AM. Reason: added last paragraph
Rongo is offline  
Old December 26th, 2012, 07:05 AM   #470
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Well, I would really suggest you read the thread, but to give you a short answer:

The root cause of the war was the issue of the EXPANSION of slavery. Most Northerners disapproved of slavery but were content to turn a blind eye to slavery where it already exist. However, they recognized it as a problem and they didn't want to see the problem get bigger - for moral, political, social AND economic reasons.

Most of them didn't go to war to free the slaves, but they did go to war to preserve a democratic Union that had elected a President who was committed to stopping the expansion of slavery.
Then I must be right in my assumptions that the moral reasons are far too little to be of any contributing factor comparable to the economic reasons?
philosopher is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
acw, myth, slavery


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Biggest Myth about Slavery. etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 75 March 29th, 2013 09:59 AM
The 9/11 Myth Lord Sonny Speculative History 20 March 4th, 2013 02:27 PM
History or Myth? Caracalla General History 4 October 25th, 2011 07:29 AM
Your Favorite Myth??? Salah General History 48 April 17th, 2011 08:35 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.