June 15, 1858 Lincoln's "House Divided" Speech

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,074
Republika Srpska
#21
Well, what do you want me to say?

To simply say: "the North was not behind Lincoln" would also be wrong because significant parts of the North were behind him and you know...the North was behind him enough to enable him to actually lead the Union to victory.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,710
Sydney
#22
Good point ,
Lincoln was't making things to fit his own way ,
he was surfing a wave , and a pretty big one at that , of revulsion against slavery
the drew Scott ruling did more for the anti abolitionist than all the speeches in Massachusetts
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,544
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#23
That sentence would make more sense without the word "costs."

Fact? Yankees forced Lincoln to war? Forced him to send ships to Sumter?

I am not sure how clear a picture can be 150 years down the road. And I don't think for a second, you have this picture clear. There are a lot more editorials noting the legality of secession than the other way around. You can find hostile anti-southern editorials much more easily in NY and Boston. I agree Massachusetts was "unified," even before Lincoln, the Wide Awakes and the Society of Odd Fellows were already training for war.

And consider that editorial that says traitorous. Has it ever occurred to you that the federal government is not a principal in the compact between the states? The states are. And that up until the Civil War, the country was "unified" in that opinion? What are states supposedly traitorous tp? What are they rebelling against? This mythical "the union" that Lincoln invented? Propaganda.

And as I posted here, and to you last week, Lincoln invaded at least three states that did not secede, but where most did not want to fight their "brothers."

Picture getting clearer?


My apologies to the OP. I will self suspend to stop interfering with any House Divided talk that might occur - and before a referee has to come in and break up Maki and me, again.
“At least three states”? Are there perhaps more?

Did the Confederacy invade any states that might not have wanted to secede?

Did the people decide to secede or did the “States”, without regard to their constituents opinions?

You also referenced a “supposed first shot” at Sumpter. Not supposed, it was a first shot, deliberately fired to provoke the war.

You also said “warships” to Sumpter, when they were supply ships, as was communicated to the south.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#24
Well, what do you want me to say?
To simply say: "the North was not behind Lincoln" would also be wrong because significant parts of the North were behind him and you know...the North was behind him enough to enable him to actually lead the Union to victory.
I don't "want" you to say anything. It's up to you.

But it would be nice to find out whether you think he has majority support or not. I had no trouble saying it.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#26
You also said “warships” to Sumpter, when they were supply ships, as was communicated to the south.
I don't think the Law of Nations makes that distinction.

I don't think Wiki makes that distinction:
"Ships from Fox's relief expedition began to arrive on April 12. Although Fox himself arrived at 3 a.m. on his steamer Baltic, most of the rest of his fleet was delayed until 6 p.m., and one of the two warships, USS Powhatan, never did arrive."

What can I say? One man's warship is another man's Love Boat.

You also referenced a “supposed first shot” at Sumpter. Not supposed, it was a first shot, deliberately fired to provoke the war.
And how do you infer that sending the ships was not deliberate provocation, and that the so-called first shot is not defensive? What evidence can be compiled to reach that conclusion?

On the other hand -
Lincoln threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" on March 4 over the very issue of control of the waters in Charleston Harbor (tariff collection). He negotiated in bad faith with the peace commission, and you think after that it is reasonable for South Carolina to take his word that the mission of the (war)ships is not belligerent? lol
Didn't Beauregard send word that Anderson could send men ashore to get supplies from South Carolina?

I see no evidence that Lincoln is trying to "provoke" peace. The Republican Party itself is an open declaration of war.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,980
Caribbean
#29
So, the Republicans should have just disbanded in order to please the South?
This isn't a philosophy forum. It's a history forum. lol
I am not saying what they should have done. I am saying what they did.

And just disbanded? They only formed in 1854. When should they have disbanded, in 1853?

But if you like philosophy, maybe you should explain the virtues and pitfalls of organizing power in one part of a country for the purpose of interfering with the economy of the people in another part of the country. And then, you can perhaps explain the philosophy behind arguing that the party so conceived and so dedicated for interference, even after sending armies into the other part of the country, is NOT the one responsible for civil war. What's up with that?
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,074
Republika Srpska
#30
I will write one last post on this topic. Confederates States of America were founded on the principles of owning other human beings. Throughout multiple threads you have proclaimed that the North was racist, which is true, but you pretty much stayed silent on the topic of slavery like a perfect Lost Causer. The very fact that the CSA explicitly claimed that it was fighting for the preservation of slavery is enough to make it a morally reprehensible regime, regardless of the legality of their actions. After all, the NSDAP also used legal means to gain power. It is true that the United States also had slavery, but unlike the CSA, the pre-war US actually a strong anti-slavery movement. Had the South won, millions of blacks would remain as property to be sold just like livestock. Can that really be compared to racism in the North? You also ignored the many examples of Northerners helping escaped slaves.

Should we make excuses for the Confederacy? I would say we should not. And we cannot say that the Southerners, unlike Greeks and Romans, lived in a world where slavery was the norm. They lived in a world that had started to move away from slavery. Yet they still kept slavery and were prepared to go to war for it. The values that the Confederacy fought for are incompatible with the basic human rights.

Now, as for your last post, Abraham Lincolm said that he would NOT interfere with slavery in the states where it had already existed. The Republicans' main goal was to stop the EXPANSION of slavery into the territories. So they were not dedicated to interfering with the South itself. Slavery would have remained there. The South killed its own economy when they decided to secede knowing that would probably cause a war in which the South would be at a disadvantage.
 

Similar History Discussions