Civil war in USA (19th century) - how it was possible?

Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board.

Quoting Linkey

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.

It would be better seen as the third iteration of the English Civil War. The struggle between aristocratic and plebian democratic forms occurred in the fight between the King and Parliament. The fragility of democratic process can be seen in how Cromwell went from being an MP to becoming a Dictator. War, itself, is a kind of tyranny.

The American Civil War was also the collision of two incompatible forms of economic expansion. The first fights occurred in Kansas and Missouri between slave holders and farmers who paid for labor. John Brown was forged in that violence before he brought it to Harper's Ferry.

An excellent introduction to that history is The Cousins' War, by Kevin Phillips

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Lionino

Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board.

Sorry, I am a newbie here, maybe the thread can be moved?

Quoting tim wood

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is.

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Linkey

Power grabs by elites are often a source of civil wars but they are by no means the only way such wars start. Ethnic conflict is a pretty common cause, particularly in the modern era due to electoral systems of governance taking root. Once you have an electoral system, shifting demographics result in shifting control of the state. See: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, the collapse of the Austrian Empire, etc. Religion can play a similar role, e.g. by far and away the most destructive wars in French and German history (killing far larger shares of the population than both World Wars combined) centered around religious disputes (the Huguenot Wars/Thirty Years War).

I don't really have a go to book on the American Civil War to recommend unfortunately. But, any way you cut it, slavery was very much the defining factor in the war. This is explicitly how secessionists framed their actions in their own words. The issue of slavery was filtered through institutions though. For instance, slave owning states had votes allocated to them based on their slave populations, which ties the issue to control of the legislature and presidency (since the US doesn't do popular vote presidential elections). Economic undercurrents mattered too, but again, these related deeply to slavery. And then obviously there was a strong movement of abolitionists who found the institution of slavery abhorrent who exerted influence as well.

Quoting tim wood

Meaning?

Before the Linkoln's speach, the States were "states" in the meaning of "countries" to a relatevely big extent. And a war betreen these countries started.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Linkey

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one.

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden. This particular split was inevitable. It written into the constitution. As industry and trade developed, the southern states, being almost entirely agricultural and focused on export, considered themselves unfairly taxed on imported manufactured good. And the agricultural economy had the single advantage of inexpensive captive labour. That was something the southern states would not give up, and were determined to spread through new territories beyond Missouri as the nation expanded westward. Th federal government would not allow that - could not allow it, lest the slave states outnumber and overwhelm the the free states.

Quoting Linkey

My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states?

I don't know how representative the vote was, but the leaders certainly had general support. Most of the people wanted to retain their accustomed lifestyle; the whites obviously wanted to retain their racial ascendancy and privilege - many still do. The peasants certainly didn't want a whole lot of liberated slaves competing for their pay or having the vote or being allowed to own property. There wasn't much popular support for secession at first (at least in South Carolina where the movement started) as long as the question was one of states rights; the change came when Lincoln was elected president and the institution of slavery was seen to be imperilled.

Quoting Linkey

I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.

I suppose that could be inferred from the taxation-representation POV. But even that's bogus, when you consider that white men in the South were already over-represented.

Reply to Linkey
The Southern states had a powerful stake and influence upon Federal policy. The compromises made in the Constitution continued right up to the outbreak of war. A clear indication of that is how many of the military leaders on both sides were trained at West Point.

A great book that discusses these matters and more is Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson.

Reply to Linkey

Quoting Paine

The Southern states had a powerful stake and influence upon Federal policy.

Indeed they did, and this influence continued long after the Civil War was over. 70 years later, the southern block of senators and congressmen (from formerly slave states--the "solid south") were able to exclude blacks from some of the premier New Deal programs -- particularly housing programs (the FederalHousing Act), Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance. The exclusion of blacks from home purchase programs was explicit. The SS and UI programs excluded farm workers and household help (maids) from coverage. Most blacks worked on farms or as household help.

The post WWII housing programs that enabled millions of Americans to establish a property stake in the suburbs and build family wealth excluded blacks, specifically. Housing programs provided rental housing for blacks. Some of the rental housing was quite good, but within 30 years, the huge urban rental housing projects were in a spiral of deterioration owing to bad rental policies and neglect of maintenance by city housing programs.

Reply to Linkey Slavery was a social arrangement, of course, and a central, critical feature of Southern state societies. It was also a tremendously important part of the American economy -- North and South, both. Roughly 12% of the whole American workforce was slave. The slaves produced about 12% of the nation's output (though a much higher percentage of output in southern states).

Some authors claim that 50% of the economic value of output was slave produced. This is unlikely, because the products slaves produced -- mostly agricultural products -- did not have a high per-pound value. A bale of cotton became much more valuable after it landed in an English mill and was turned into cloth, and more valuable still when the cloth was cut up and sewn into clothes. But all of that did not happen in the south, or in the north either.

The slave economy wasn't isolated in the south. Banks, importers, exporters, insurers, shippers, and so on were located in Philadelphia, New York, Providence, and Boston (and some other northern cities). Southern plantations and companies depended on northern companies for all sorts of financial services.

There was friction between free labor and slave labor systems--mainly between the north and south, but also within the south. Support for slavery was not universal in the south. Support for secession was also not universal in the south.

Reconstruction after the Civil War largely failed. Blacks were subjected to systematic repression after the Civil War until roughly 1970, by which time major civil rights legislation had passed on the federal level, and courts had ruled various forms of segregation unconstitutional. I am white, and have never lived in the south, so I am not in a position to judge what conditions are now from a black person's perspective.

Reply to BC
An excellent clarification of the situation before and after.

I would like to add some observations but will wait to see if the original poster of the discussion has something to say.

I have a question: how much were the taxes in the north states and in the south states prior to the war? Maybe the latter were higher?

Quoting Linkey

I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smutas” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one.

Quoting Vera Mont

A democracy (whether sound or flawed) can be split on a key issue, like which religion should be dominant or which claimant has a right to rule, or whether a large segment of the population should be owned like beasts of burden.

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles.

Reply to BC :up:

Quoting ssu

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles.

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally, and if it is possible to achieve the honesty of this assessment. The same scheme can solve all the problems of separatism in democratic countries. Do you guess what I mean?

Reply to Linkey
This sounds like an AI generated thing.

Quoting Paine

This sounds like an AI generated thing.

Well, I used the google translator since my English is not perfect...

Reply to Linkey
What is your native language?

Quoting Linkey

And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally,

Some similar schemes have been proposed for democratic voting procedures, effectively turning every election into a plebiscite on some key issue. The efficacy of such a system depends on voters being fully and accurately informed on the issues, and if that's in the purview of broadcast media, we in North America are toast.

Quoting Paine

What is your native language?

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe.
If the English in my previous post was bad, maybe I should use ChatGPT more often for word translations. How reliable is it for this task, what do you think?

Quoting Linkey

I am from Russia.

That gives you a unique perspective on civil war and how it is taught in school a few generations after the fact. I know more about the US one, and how it's been represented in popular media - romanticized, for the most part, endlessly memorialized, fetishized and re-enacted, while it was by all practical accounts by far the most costly of all America's many conflicts in terms of human lives and suffering. I have an idea the Russian one was similar in destructiveness and long-term after-effects.
The American one was completely predictable. The French one was completely predictable. Was the Russian one similar?

Quoting Linkey

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe.

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc...

If I were Russian, I would feel very proud of the heritage of my nation.

Reply to Linkey Welcome to The Philosophy Forum! Not sure, but we have very few participants who are Russian.

Quoting Paine

This sounds like an AI generated thing.

I'm not sure what Paine meant, but you are doing the best you can to get over the language barrier. My impression of Google Translate is that the quality of its translation is not always very good.

Quoting Linkey

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves.

Theoretically it's totally possible. Of course in order to prevent this democracies do have constitutions and these can either not be changed or demand a 2/3 majorities to be changed etc. Then also come international agreements like the UN charter, which for instance in your example could make a lot of other sovereign countries be quite angry and suspect of the validity of this law and the leaders of that country. Not only having slavery, but having it even accepted by law would definitely get a response from other sovereign states.

But if we think about this on a purely theoretical level, having a law that all redheads should be imprisoned because they are witches is totally possible. There's no limitations on what kind of laws Parliaments make. That's why for a democracy to function, it does need the citizens to be informed. Usually people are and democracies function as a safety valve.

And welcome to the forum!

The Civil War to some extent disproved the tyranny of the majority concept because it was a suppression of majority rule that sustained slavery and that led to war.

The South went to great lengths to isolate itself from dissenting votes by declaring that state rights and local rule made Northern votes inapplicable. They also disallowed slave voting. Voter suppression is anti-democratic by definition, and that is what allowed slavery to persevere.

Voter suppression remains a tactic today of course.

Had there been free and open elections in 1860. one person one vote, slavery was doomed. In fact, the Civil War began at Lincoln's inauguration, letting the South know that their regional protections were falling fast so secession was the only option.

Reply to Hanover The war started when Lincoln sent supply ships to Fort Sumter, which had been a federal fort, now seized by SC. SC fired on the supply ships and Lincoln declared rebellion.

Quoting frank

The war started when Lincoln sent supply ships to Fort Sumter, which had been a federal fort, now seized by SC. SC fired on the supply ships and Lincoln declared rebellion.

Quoting Hanover

In fact, the Civil War began at Lincoln's inauguration, letting the South know that their regional protections were falling fast so secession was the only option.

Alright, we'll get the specific dates straight:

11/6/60 - Lincoln wins the election
1/5/61 - The South fires upon the North when it attempts to resupply Ft. Sumter, so the North abandons that effort.
3/1/61 - Jefferson Davis reinforces the defenses around Ft. Sumter.
3/4/61 - Lincoln is inaugurated.
4/4/61 - Lincoln sends reinforcements to Ft. Sumter
4/12/61 - The South fires upon the northern reinforcements and the Civil War officially begins.

My point remains that the reason for these hostilities leading up to the Civil War was that the Lincoln election spelled an eventual end to slavery and the only way to stop it was to fully remove the South from northern control, which was to remove those votes from influencing southern policies.

That is, in order for the tyranny to continue over the slaves, the vote had to be suppressed and manipulated so that the only votes that would count would be the ones supporting the current system. And that was my main point, which is that American slavery is not an example of how democracy fails, but it is an example of why democracy should not be suppressed.

Quoting Hanover

11/6/60 - Lincoln wins the election
1/5/61 - The South fires upon the North when it attempts to resupply Ft. Sumter, so the North abandons that effort.
3/1/61 - Jefferson Davis reinforces the defenses around Ft. Sumter.
3/4/61 - Lincoln is inaugurated.
4/4/61 - Lincoln sends reinforcements to Ft. Sumter
4/12/61 - The South fires upon the northern reinforcements and the Civil War officially begins.

Right. The South succeeded when Lincoln was elected. SC then took Ft Sumter. Many predicted that Lincoln wouldn't start a war, but would just let the South go. The prominent politicians around Lincoln had begged him to give a speech advocating a constitutional amendment that would permanently protect slavery in the South. He did give a speech, but left out the amendment and said that in sentiment he was with the abolitionists. The war was a result of Lincoln's actions, and his alone. Weird, I know, but the whole war was weird.

Quoting Hanover

My point remains that the reason for these hostilities leading up to the Civil War was that the Lincoln election spelled an eventual end to slavery and the only way to stop it was to fully remove the South from northern control, which was to remove those votes from influencing southern policies.

That's not true. All the South had to do was wait for the SCOTUS to hand them victory. The back story:

The reason Lincoln was elected was that the Democratic party fell apart prior to the election when the southern delegates walked out of the national convention. The Democrats were running two guys for president, the Republicans were running only one: Lincoln. This was a reversal from the way things had been for decades previously. The pro-slavery forces were always united, while there were 5 different anti-slavery parties splitting the anti-slavery vote (note that anti-slavery is not the same as abolitionist) One side effect of pro-slavery's unification was that the SCOTUS was leaning heavily pro-slavery, and this resulted in the Dred Scott "decision."

The Dred Scott case led the SCOTUS to declare that outlawing slavery is an infringement of the federal govt's jurisdiction over property rights. In other words, as soon as a case came questioning the constitutionality of free states, the SCOTUS was going to do away with them. Slavery would be legal everywhere. This was a shock to the anti-slavery forces in the North. They were now facing the result of years of division and apathy. It was believed that once this happened, the chances of ever uprooting slavery from the US would be slim to none. There was nothing anyone could do, though. Congress was so divided that representatives were beating each other up. There's nothing a president could do, even if the anti-slavery people could get into the White House.

And on to the scene walked one guy. John Brown. For real. It's a crazy story.

Quoting Hanover

That is, in order for the tyranny to continue over the slaves, the vote had to be suppressed and manipulated so that the only votes that would count would be the ones supporting the current system. And that was my main point, which is that American slavery is not an example of how democracy fails, but it is an example of why democracy should not be suppressed.

I think you're saying the war was a result of voter suppression. If the slaves had been citizens, then they would have been freed. I see what you're saying. What didn't fail was the constitution. It allows a president to become a temporary dictator during wartime. The civil war was the first test of that, and it turned out well.

The Dread Scott case in 1857, whereby ironically, the states rights of the North were infringed if their laws recognized the slaves as free citizens...Also upset the Free Soil movement regarding citizenship and free federal territories, Probably the most racist decision in US history..

Kansas Nebraska Act, whereby now territories had to fight it out with population to see if state was admitted as a free or slave state.. This kicked off Bleeding Kansas whereby free soilers and slaveholders both fought for control.. These "mini civil wars" created the atmosphere for insurrectionists like John Brown to cobble together a militia to march on Harper's Ferry in Virginia and try to start a rebellion there in 1859. This in turn made slaveholders in the South scared that the North was plotting insurrections and they weren't safe to keep slaves

The Republican Party, ironically a party dedicated to the issue of anti-slavery, and with the figure of Lincoln who was known for his debates against Stephen Douglas which firmly denounced slavery. This election was the thing that pretty much tipped the scale in favor of war as the Southern states completely disengaged from any of the candidates of the North (Lincoln or Douglas), in favor of Breckenridge or Bell.. It was by that time as if they were acting as if there were two different elections..

By the time of the February, 1861, South Carolina, and other Southern states were sending their own delegates to Montgomery Alabama to form a new constitution, and the ones that went to Washington were forcefully removed if they did not recognize Lincoln as president.

The debate itself was more about the expansion of slavery in the Louisiana Purchase and recently acquired Mexican War territories when the territories were admitted as states (were they to be slave or free states when admitted?) and also about states rights, but not in the way you may think.. Because of various "Fugitive Slave Acts" and the Dread Scott decision, it was Northern state citizens who were angry that their laws were not recognized in regards to fugitive or freed slaves in their states.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
We can go over each speech, but this one gives a good gist of Lincoln's general position (this is really against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, but touches on the broader issues):

Quoting Abraham Lincoln - August 21, 1858

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.

This declared indifference, but, as 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. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North,

227
and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slavemasters.
When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question,

228
if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechize me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without

229
my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the fugitive-slave law.
Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in

230
the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The judge is woefully at fault about his early friend Lincoln being a "grocery-keeper." I don't know that it would be a great sin if I had been; but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a little still-house up at the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend, the judge, is equally at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War. The judge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I tell you what he can prove, by referring to the record. You remember I was an Old Whig, and whenever the Democratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President,

231
I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land-warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth; and the judge has the right to make all he can out of it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War, or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him.
As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the judge has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield in which I say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Does the judge say it can stand? I don't know whether he does or not. The judge does not seem to be attending to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character.

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of saying something seriously.

232
I know that the judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misapply it; and the judge has a right to urge that in my application I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not misapply it. When he undertakes to say that because I think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various States in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of union. They do not make "a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house.
233
I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise with the same moral and intellectual development we have -- whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when the judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it -- restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think -- and in this I charge nothing on the judge's motives -- lately, I think, that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say,
234
and I have, that believe we shall not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Now I believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington and Jefferson and Madison placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years -- if it should live so long -- in the States where it exists, yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. (A voice: "Then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?") Well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty! What is popular sovereignty? Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the Territories? I will state -- and I have an able man to watch me -- my understanding is that popular sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they
235
do not want it. I do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in a Territory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one; but I do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott decision if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them.
When I made my speech at Springfield, of which the judge complains, and from which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave States. I had no thought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred to me that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence in producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can it be true, that placing this institution upon the original basis -- the basis upon which our fathers placed it -- can have any tendency to set the Northern and the Southern

236
States at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency to make the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane because they raise it in Louisiana, or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do grow? The judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. Does the judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of the government? I think he says in some of his speeches -- indeed, I have one here now -- that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and therefore he set about studying the subject upon original principles, and upon original principles he got up the Nebraska bill! I am fighting it upon these "original principles" -- fighting it in the Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, and Madisonian fashion.
Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing to the people of this country, what I believed was the truth -- that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among those who

237
have engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with this bit of comment:
We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result of pre-concert, but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance; and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, -- not omitting even the scaffolding, -- or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in -- in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin, and Roger and James, all understood one another from the beginning and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck.

From it I can see that as you point out, Lincoln was trying to show that he did not believe in outright abolition but he thought the westward expansion of slavery and the Dread Scott decision were wrong (as far as I can interpret it). That is to say, he stood as a moderate Free Soiler of his day, but it was clear, being that Douglas was in favor of Kansas-Nebraska, and the overthrowing of the idea of the original Missouri Compromise that Slavery should not end up north of the 36th parallel (aka Mason-Dixon line), that Lincoln had already made himself an enemy to staunch pro-slavery advocates.

But the biggest thing that would absolutely turn pro-slavery people against him is in the very beginning of the speech itself:

This declared indifference, but, as 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. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

So I agree, and in this you can see Lincoln, at least at this point was bigoted (or at least played so for the audience), as was the majority of his time, but also forward looking in terms of the gradual abolition of the South whilst preventing the spread of it in the new territories. I find it interesting he mentions the popular view at the time of Liberia.. The view being that Slave owners can be compensated and that the ex-slaves would not live a happy life with their former masters and could be shipped to Liberia to start anew.. He thought this untenable and basically advocated for equality of rights. This too would have infuriated many pro-slave advocates.

Quoting Hanover

My point remains that the reason for these hostilities leading up to the Civil War was that the Lincoln election spelled an eventual end to slavery and the only way to stop it was to fully remove the South from northern control, which was to remove those votes from influencing southern policies.

Lincoln, by his own declaration, was willing let the institution of slavery stand, so long as that tolerance kept the union together, but he was determined to stop it spreading to potential new states and allowing slave states to gain a majority. According to the constitution, the slave owners got extra legislative seats due to the three-fifths compromise.

[Lincoln] did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
:up: Indeed Lincoln was prescient in more than one ways..
A statesman is supposed to put country above politics...
A mere politician puts himself or a party above country, usually to gain or stay in power...

Don't get confused though, a statesman can be a deft political actor, but knowing how to play the game for the greater good, and knowing how to play the game to stay in power are two different things.

How Lincoln maneuvered to get the Republican nomination, how he played his cards to keep the border states from succeeding, slowly evolving strategy to make about a greater ideology (only after decisive wins).. How he was able to cobble the coalition to pass the 13th amendment is a great political actor done by a statesman.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting javi2541997

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc...

I don't like this point of view. Currently the Russians are insane fascists, and I hope they will be cured by the West, as the Germans were.. And yes, both Russians and Germans had had a rich culture before the insanity.

Reply to Linkey
I sympathize. Hungary is under a pretty shitty government, too. I'm very lucky to have left a long time ago. But I don't feel safe here anymore, either. The insanity is everywhere, and I don't think it will go away until a lot more international and civil wars have killed a lot more people. I can see the US heading for CWII in the very near future.

Quoting Linkey

Currently the Russians are insane fascists

Well, not all Americans support Trump either. But some do, yes. :smirk:

And Russians have long known to say different things in public and to what you can confide in private to your closest friends that you trust. That's just the system. A lot of Russians abroad are horrified about where Putin has lead the nation. And likely many inside Russia too.

And do notice that the ordinary Russians didn't spontaneously blocking the streets of Moscow and protect their beloved President when Yevgeny Prigozhin tried his march on Moscow.

Quoting Vera Mont

The insanity is everywhere, and I don't think it will go away until a lot more international and civil wars have killed a lot more people. I can see the US heading for CWII in the very near future.

That's the typical way people describe Civil Wars: that people simply became insane. But once violence becomes the norm, people too easily adapt to it. And reasonable things like "why cannot we be together and not kill each other" sounds just ridiculously naive and out totally of touch of reality.

Quoting Vera Mont

I can see the US heading for CWII in the very near future.

Never happen. The federal government is too large and has its fingers in too many pies. People are not going to give up their Medicare and S.S. benefits. You might see something like Ireland's troubles, but I doubt it. There is very little political violence in America. When's the last time a politician was assassinated by someone from the other party? People are content to rage online and go about their daily lives.

Quoting ssu

That's the typical way people describe Civil Wars: that people simply became insane.

There is nothing simple about that process. Even more complicated is the fact that most of those people are not insane individually, in their daily life, even while holding insane ideas to be worth defending with their lives.
The situation builds up slowly, at first almost imperceptibly; it grows and spreads and breeds crazy ideas, crazy narratives, twisted versions of reality. Then it begins to cast to the surface leaders appropriate to that dysfunction. Once those leaders take firm hold of a faction, there is rarely a peaceful way back from the brink to which they lead the people.

Quoting RogueAI

Never happen.

Maybe some other catastrophe will intervene. More likely a major climate event than Mars attacking.
Quoting RogueAI

The federal government is too large and has its fingers in too many pies.

Even the biggest trees fall if their pith is chewed by enough termites. Government agencies are vulnerable to funding and political appointments, as well as loss of public confidence. It's easy enough to promise the people a better health insurance and more social security. Don't have to deliver...
Once a crazy idea is planted, the next step is fantasy, then desire, then intention, then action. From idea to desire is a very small step. From there to intention, most people require a push. That incentive is usually supplied by a big mouth, who may very well hide in his mansion while the action is taking place.