Lincoln and Slavery

Certainly our US-American friends well give some better and more educated responses.

But -as a European- I found this site very helpful:

Encyclopedia of Slavery

While that site above is more general, the following one might give a concrete answer to your questions:

Lincoln on Slavery

Walter Hinteler: Thanks for the links. The excerpts from Lincoln's speeches were all interesting.

The slavery encyclopedia looks truly amazing. I scanned the first one on Charles Ball. Can't wait to go through each of the readings. What a terrific resource!

Thanks so much for the link.

Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, he would do; that if he could preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves and not others, he would do it; and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, he would do that. For Lincoln, the war was not necessarily about freeing the slaves, but, rather, preserving the Union. His emancipation proclamation, acting, as it did, only in those areas under Federal control, was a political concession to the "radical" republicans in Congress (sounds oxymoronic, don't it--radical republican) who were abolitionist. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri all considered slaverly legal at the outbreak of the war, but were in no position to oppose the emancipation proclamation. It is probably with reference to these states that someone made the entirely misleading comments about slavery in the North.

Setanta: Thanks for settling the debate between my Southern Mr. dupre and my New York-educated friend from Indiana.

Knew I could count on you to come through!

BTW: Thanks for suggesting Durant. I'm enjoying it.

Surprised to see so many people taken as captives. Makes me wonder . . . Did war in Sumeria start slavery? Was there slavery in China? Ancient Egypt?

Being Italian, I particularly enjoyed Durant's comments about the Italian familia. Seems they educated their young to think of their ancestors and their decendents. Perhaps long ago, some eight-year-old had the far-sightedness to glance 100 or so generations into the future and think of me.

I feel . . . more connected with time and history.

I'm glad you're enjoying that, Boss--this will also provide you with sign posts to pursue other interests you have, as well as stimulating new interests. My prejudice is obvious--you can't read too much history. I understand that much of the best history (in terms of reliability) is too dry for most readers--but the Durants demonstrate that history can be both reliable and readable.

Walter I do not think any subject in the US is studied more than the Civil War, lots of argument abound regarding the "real" issues surrounding the why - abolition of slavery for economic reasons and abolition of slavery because it was wrong to enslave people.

What I find more interesting than the actual Civil war is the history of the antebellum period and the economic, cultural, and social competition between the Southern States and the North. Prior to the out break of the actual war the South was trying to compete in every way, trying to ensure the preservations of their "peculiar institution" slavery.

In my opinion in the South slaves where so much a part of the economics they were considered commercial property just like any other farm equipment. The issue of interstate commerce was huge and under the constitution of the US the right to regulate and control interstate commerce is clear and slaves were property and transferring them from one state to another was important to the conduct of business. The South did not want any interference in their ability to transport their property or the or the commerce (product) of the slaves from one state to another.

Prior to the war the South was splitting from the other states in so many way, trying to compete in all aspects of American life. This split is easily seen in the creation of separate and distinct branches of the major religious institutions. Prior to the war the Southern Baptist Church and Southern Methodist were established because of significant differences within the governing bodies of each church of each church on the issue of slavery. Southerners seemed willing to do anything to protect their peculiar institution.

Lincoln was not of the South and I to agree with Sentena the President would do anything to preserve the Union.

Supreme Court Decsion on Slaves and the Interstate Commerce Provisions of the Constitution

Slavery--The Peculiar Institution

JoanneDorel: Thanks for explaining the economics of slavery in the South. I had never before considered interstate commerce in the conflict. And thanks for the links.

Lincoln's 'Emancipation Proclamation' of Jan. 1, 1863 proclaimed all slaves in areas 'not now under federal control' to be free.

Still slaves until the individual states prohibited slavery and/or until the 13th amendment were:
--Slaves in non-rebelling states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia)
--Slaves in Tennessee (by plea from Tennessee Senator and future President Andrew Johnson, the only Senator from a rebelling state to stay in the Senate)
--Slaves in areas already occupied by the Union Army as of Jan 1; which included large parts of Virginia, Texas, much of the Mississippi River valley, etc.

Equus: Thanks for the info. My history-buff boyfriend will be eating crow tonight!

Oh, and I didn't mention- since the E.P. only freed slaves in areas not NOW under federal control, and since the US couldn't enforce freedom in such areas yet, NOBODY was freed until more territory was occupied.

Hi, Equus. Thanks for your specificity.

The term carpetbagger . . . I'll post here and see if someone responds:

I'm proofreading a work of fiction and the author has a character using the term carpetbagger. The problem is it is only 4 weeks after Appomatox (May of 1865) and my Websters shows the first use of the word in print in 1868.

My research online as to whether this term was widely in use a mere 4 weeks after the Civil War has been conflicting with some sites saying the Yankees moved into the South for personal gain immediately after the war, and some sites saying they moved at the beginning of Reconstruction.

Does anyone know when the term was on the tips of the average Southerner's tongue?

Any proof or reference would also be helpful, since I do have to justify recommended changes.

This is a hard question, I know.

Any thoughts on the matter are greatly appreciated.

I doubt they were using 'carpetbagger' so early. I think you are correct. But, compared to many other anachronisms in print and literature it isn't so bad.

When exactly the term was in use is of less relevance than that point at which it became an epithet--in line with Lincoln's wishes, Andrew Johnson attempted to make reconstruction as rapid and painless as possible. George Henry Thomas, a Virginian who had been a witness to the Nat Turner rebellion as a child, and who had remained in Federal service at the beginning of the war, was made the commander of the Military District of the South. It was not until Grant took office that Thomas was ditched (Grant never liked those who were more competent than he, and especially those whom he condemned and who subsequently outdid his gloomy expectations), and the ugly side of reconstruction began. There were "nightriders" before that, and they quickly took over Forrest's new, secret organization, the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest became so disgusted with these activities, that he disbanded the organization in 1869. Nightriders continued to operate, largely to attempt to prevent voter registration, and blacks running for office. The modern Ku Klux Klan was founded by a lunatic in Georgia, about 1912 or 1913, but he was just formalizing what had by then taken place since shortly after the end of the war. Nathan Bedford Forrest and John Brown Gordon were both cleared by a congressional committee convened to investigate the disturbances taking place in the south as a result of hostility to the activities of the Freeman's Bureau. Probably your best means of getting a feel for the atmosphere of the south in those days immediately after the war would be to hunt down references to the Freeman's Bureau. There is also a good deal of information about the south in a book entitled The Diary of a Supertramp, written by an Englishman who toured the south in, i believe, 1867 and 1868--although you might have trouble finding that one. There was sufficient disturbance continually after the war for Grant to justify his replacement of Thomas, but the Freedman's Bureau was shut down shortly thereafter (i believe) and the Military District was also shut down shortly after. No matter how it had been handled, this was going to be a bad time for all concerned.

Equus and Setanta: Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

The nightriders and all that, it sounds very interesting. I had no idea that those who started the organization(s) later got out of them due to their activities. Thanks for the reference.

A little interesting factoid I picked up somewhere is that Slavery was not removed from the law books in Mississippi as a legal institution until 1999.

I think "Federalism" best sums up the cause of the Civil War. The growing north was shifting power from the states, to the Northern States, which threatened Southern power in the Congress.

Slavery was just the powder keg.

Sadly today we are rapidly losing federalism at every turn.

5PoF

Just wanted to say "hi" and welcome!

Interesting fact. Hard to believe.

Welcome to able2know!

5Pof


I've found that in 1890 the Mississippi state constitution restricts blacks' suffrage through an "understanding" test; The Colored Farmer's Alliance is founded and is dedicated in improving the economic condition of black farmers.

Could you please the source of your allegation?