lvaces
Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
My point was actually that most 19th century northerners would have said the same thing. This point gets at what is so complex about the whole situation. You are right that most northerners of the time would have said that blacks were inferior people. However many of them would have still said that they were people, and as such were entitled to some rights. Lincoln himself summed up the tension in these beliefs perfectly when he said the following in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate. "I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, 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 the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] 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. [Great applause.]" Source - http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm I believe this sums up as well as anything what the northern Lincoln voter was voting for. Most agreed that blacks were inferior, but did not agree that from this it follows they count for nothing and exist only to be exploited. An unattractive attitude to modern eyes, yes, but still significantly different than the attitude of the South. quote:
I agree that firing on Fort Sumter was a big mistake, and evidence of a belligerent attitude that was both unwise and unattractive. But the incident has been somewhat exaggerated. No-one was actually killed by the Confederate bombardment; and the fort itself, although erected by the federal government, stood on the territory of South Carolina (deep in the Confederacy, a long way from the US border). Given that Major Anderson was in breach of his orders in occupying the fort, Lincoln could have chosen to react to the incident by rebuking both Major Anderson and the Confederate forces who fired on him. It would interesting to know if history would have been significantly altered had the Confederates ignored Anderson's provocative occupation of the fort, or if they had at least held their fire. Most likely, some other incident elsewhere would have 'started' the war. I hardly think that Fort Sumter by itself was enough to justify four years of war and about a million casualties . Ahhh .. but when the war started, the northerners didn't know it would last 4 years with a million casualties. They thought it would be won with those famous 90 day soldiers. If the only result of the war had been to reoccupy Fort Sumter, of course 4 years and a million casualties were too much. But that did not turn out to be the end result, the end result was to end slavery in America and reunify the country. Was that worth all the blood and money? From my viewpoint 150 years later, I answer yes. It is not uncommon for wars to have results and consequences (and casualties) by the end far beyond the initial starting goals of the governments. I also wonder if some other incident would have started the war if the south had not fired on Fort Sumter. In hindsight, if I was President of the Confederacy, my policy would have been a major peace offensive. Openly allow the Federals to provision Sumter. Heck, shower the Feds there with free food at our expense. Sign a treaty to allow the Northerners permanent access to it. The South already had 99.98% of what they wanted, independence and control of all the federal property except Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. The longer they could keep peace with an independent South in place, the more used to the idea the northerners would become. The only thing that could blow it for them would be the start of a huge war. Do whatever you have to to keep that war from starting. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you think the destruction of the Confederacy was necessary), the built-up anger between north and south along with a more than healthy dose of pride in South Carolina kept them from settling for 99.98% of the loaf. I do have to disagree with your statement that Major Anderson violated orders in occupying Fort Sumter. President Buchanan's Secretary of War had given Major Anderson orders stating he could move from Fort Moltrie to Sumter whenever he had "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act" by the South Carolinians. As Bruce Catton puts it in 'The Coming Fury', "Inasmuch as tangible evidence of such a design lay all over Charleston as thick as a winter's fog, Anderson had in substance been told he could go to Sumter whenever he thought best." When he did go to Sumter and the southerner's protested, a huge part of the reason the Buchanan ended up backing Anderson is that when they double-checked the orders he had been sent, they realized his orders did justify what he had done. Of course once the game comes out, Jonathan, you realize we can settle this discussion as it should be settled, over the (virtual) battle field.
< Message edited by lvaces -- 11/24/2006 9:07:11 PM >
|