Slavery and the Insanity of the 1860's: The Honest Truth about Honest Abe

I was just thinking about the oft disputed relationship between the "Insanity of the 186o's", if you will, and slavery.

First of all, I feel it unnecessary to go into any great detail of how slavery, of any form, is repugnant in a free and Christian society.

Also, I feel it equally unnecessary to go into any great detail of the supposed "inferiority" or "superiority" of any man compared to another of differing skin shade, or the segregation thereof; this is equally repugnant in a free and Christian society.

What is noteworthy, though, is the position of the North and of the South on the matter, especially when contrasting them with the current presuppositions of modern opinion on the subject.

The most common opinion is that the South wanted slaves and the North didn't. To relegate both sides into such a paradigm, though, would be naive, as well as disrespectful to the men who died in that war.

To begin with, Abraham Lincoln, the supposed "Great Emancipator" of the slaves, may not be the greatest example of a Christian war-time President.

In response to a letter from Horace Greeley, somewhat critical of Lincoln's handling of the crisis, the President writes what I feel summarizes Lincoln's truest stance on the institution of slavery in America during the war:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.

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.

I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

Greeley replied to this, once again critically, charging Lincoln to consider whether his domestic policies, as President, were following the law or rising above it.

What is clear to me is that Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but not to a degree that he would have wanted a war to end it. He perhaps saw slavery as his personal justification for a war that had already begun. The war greatly disturbed Lincoln to the point of near madness; in that, I pity him.

He abused his powers domestically by eliminating Habeas Corpus, among many other things, but I don't believe he was purposely usurping power; rather, I think he was simply unqualified and unconditioned to hold his office during the war.

I don't despise Abraham Lincoln; rather, I see him as a greatly fabled man, too caught up in matters beyond his control.

What Should It Be Called?

Everybody in America knows what "the Civil War" is, but the strange thing is that it was anything but a "civil war".

A "civil war" is best defined as two or more factions competing for control of a common political center; the war that took place in the 1860's did not fit this definition.

A term synonymous with the Civil War is the "War of Northern Aggression"; while there is no apparent bias with this appellation (!?!), our friends in the North find this term a bit one-sided.

"War Between the States"

I find fault with this term, as it is somewhat confusing and incorrect. (The United States of America was at war with The Confederate States of America, but Maine wasn't at war with Virginia.)

"War of the Rebellion"

I disagree with this one, also. The Confederacy wasn't in "rebellion" against anything; it was, and is, perfectly legal and moral for any state to secede from the Union.

"Second American Revolution"

Again, there was no revolt. Contrast this to the actual Revolutionary War, where there was a revolt against the controlling government by the subservient colonies.

"War of the Insurrection"; "Slaveholders War"; "Great Rebellion"; "War to Save the Union"

1. There wasn't an "insurrection"; 2. the war had less to do with slavery than any other cause; 3. there was no "rebellion"; 4. "What a noble title!" Oh, brother!

There are a few more obscure titles for "The War", but what I want is a clear, precise, succinct term for it.

Therefore, I shall be starting yet another poll for you, the reader, to decide what the unfortunate events of the 1860's shall be referred to on this blog.

I will be adding the poll at a later time, so if you have any suggestions, comment them; submit as many as you like.

Poll

Well, that was fast, and there's quite a margin: four to one!

We have a land-slide on the side of the C.S.A.

Thanks for participating!

I'll have to cook up another poll. Any suggestions for a topic?

An Article about Confederation

Our government structure is a Federalized Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The only form of Democracy involved is in the election process, where majority rule.

But note that we are a Federalized Constitutional Republic; we have a central federal form of government. These United States were not always so, though.

When the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, we were under Articles of Confederation.

Believe it or not, Confederate isn’t another word for a slaveholder.

It means a decentralized form of government, with no concentration of power; each unit of local Government has as much power as the next.

In the late 1780’s, when the Constitution was being written, one could say that there were basically two political parties: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were those that felt not that the current government wasn’t big enough under the Confederation, but that it wasn’t strong enough to exist as a Union; it had no provisions for the collection of taxes, among other basic things.

The Anti-Federalists were those the felt that the fewer powers that a central government had the better, as the idea of “Americanism”, if you will, was the sovereignty of the individual.

Just so long as the government was in-fighting, they felt, the people couldn’t be oppressed.

As you know, the Federalists won, but with a few compromises with the Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were against the idea of a Bill of Rights, stating that if an enumeration of an Individual’s writes were put into law, it might cause the Government to take any rights not enumerated.

Never the less, the Constitution was written with a Bill of Rights, (for what it was worth), and the Confederation ended.

Not another Confederacy sprouted up in America until 1861, but that died just five years later due to an overwhelming invasion by an opposing government.

You may have previously noticed a Confederate States of America flag on my blog header; I removed it because the C.S.A. is gone and I have an allegiance to the Constitution. But, I didn’t put up the current U.S. flag in its place, I put up a flag of 1770’s, as it is the flag of what America used to be.

The current flag represents the current state of affairs, as the flag changes with the times , and I don't like the current state of affairs.

I think I would prefer that we still lived under a Confederation, but who knows what it would have been like.

Never the less, I am an individual, free and sovereign, answerable only to the law of God and the law of this land, respectively. I neither owe, nor am I indebted to any state or governing body, past or present.

I support my Constitution, and pray God brings confusion on upon its enemies, be they peasant or prince.

The War Between The States: Rebellion or Adherence?

For the most part, one cannot speak of the so-called "Civil War" without mentioning rebellion.

I feel that this is a disservice to American history, whether one is for or against the ideologies at war. The simplest research into the matter would show that the South was not in rebellion, rather, it was the North.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
To willingly create any law against the Constitution is treason.
The southern cause was to leave the Union due to Washington D.C.'s lack of respect for the Constitution. The rights of individual states were being infringed upon.

To be in rebellion, whether on a personal or national level, there must something or someone to rebel against. In the case of the War Between the States, it would, at first, appear that the South started the war against the morally upright and abolitionist North.

However, it would seem war was started, in fact, by the North; hence the term "War of Northern Aggression".

The southern states primary objectives were to separate from what they felt was a tyrannical government, not to control it.

There were no apparent provocative attempts at war on the part of the South once their provisional government was set up. And it would seem that such an endeavour, by itself, was not at ideological fault, as I shall explain.


*************************************************

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit." ~January 12, 1848.

Who do you think said this?

Robert E. Lee? Sam Davis? Stonewall Jackson?

It was Abraham Lincoln. Not twenty years later would he face such a situation. Not a revolution, but a "shaking off". Apparently, Lincoln wasn't one to allow the practice of what he preached. Sort of ironic, huh?

Lincoln made quite a few contradictory statements such as this.

Popular culture has it that Lincoln freed all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation; truth be told, he didn't. That famous document only freed slaves in states that were "in rebellion", not anywhere else.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people.

There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
~ Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858.


"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"~ Acts 17:26.

It would seem he didn't much care at all for ending slavery, and clearly states that the war was not about slavery, instead, he wanted to "save the Union" at any cost:

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it.

If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." ~Lincoln in a letter to Greeley.

Sad to say, Lincoln also denied the Christian faith:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln.

**************************************************

The point I am making is that to say the war was about slavery is a deep injustice to the 618,000 men that died in one of the most uncivil wars in history. It appears that the war was about the prevalent issue of state's rights, versus the centralized control of Washington, D.C.

The Southern states tried to remove themselves from the Union, and had no intention of provoking or invading their Northern counterpart. They felt that the differences between the southern and northern cultures were too great to stay in the same union. And even today some feel that the United States has too diverse a populace to remain a peaceful nation.

While the legality of secession is debatable, the founding documents seem to overwhelmingly support that choice by each state. The Southern states were adhering to the letter of the law.
Many states' constitutions contain clauses which indicate that the state has the unquestionable right to dissolve the contract binding it to the U.S.

Think of what "U.S.A." means.

United States of America, the Union of States, before the War of Northern Aggression, it was known as these United States, not the United States, denoting the fact that the Union was made up of several sovereign states.

In fact, when the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the American Revolution, Britain made peace with each state individually, not the whole Union.

**********************************************************
I used to always enjoy movies where the glorious Union troops would wipe out rabble encampments to protect the United States from the dreaded "Johnny's", but, they were Americans killing Americans.

One should note that the South made no offensive manuevers until the war was well underway, and even that was a last ditch effort to end the war quickly, as the South did not want a war with the North.

The entire war was an unnesesary and revolting display of rash insanity.

Each side fought for their nation, and no one really won that war, but I have a new found respect for the men in butternut and grey. I happen to have relatives who fought on both sides, one of which actually served in the Second Confederate Congress.

I wonder just what would have happened if the South won the War between the States.