Oppose gun control? YOU'RE A CONFEDERATE!

[Perd Hapley]

lincoln was not bound bt the powers he legally had in other areas    

Not sure what you mean. Oh, you mean he ignored the constitution in other areas? Maybe so, but that doesn't mean he had the power to do whatever he wanted.

so it just wasn't "practical"?

Instantly banning slavery nationwide wasn't "practical" for the abolitionists, either. That's why they didn't do it.

[Balog]

So to say the war was about slavery is to miss the point of the war.  It was in essence over state's rights.   Sadly the state's rights side lost simply because "the hill they staked their flag" (Slavery) on was and is morally repugnant.

That is kind of my point. You were probably side tracked by fistful saying that disagreeing with him makes us poorly educated.

Not sure what you mean. Oh, you mean he ignored the constitution in other areas? Maybe so, but that doesn't mean he had the power to do whatever he wanted.


Instantly banning slavery nationwide wasn't "practical" for the abolitionists, either. That's why they didn't do it.

So he can ignore some parts of the Constitution and enforce that with the military, and he can use force against Northern states for some things (draft riots), but using force against the Northern states for the ostensible point of the war was out of the question. Got it.

Last I checked, the abolitionist movement didn't have ultimate control of the Armies of the North.

[Perd Hapley]

Some o' y'all are setting about things with a bad set of premises.

Regardless who started the war, Lincoln's "pretext" was that of preserving the Union; not any promise to end slavery. So if you want to know why Lincoln didn't immediately ban slavery, as soon as the balls started flying at Sumter, well there you go.

And I don't know where this mythical view of the Emancipation Proclamation began. Apparently, everyone seems to have learned in school that every slave was immediately freed, feted, and given 40 acres, a mule, and the key to the city. Then they find out the reality, and they feel they've been had. And maybe they have, but it wasn't by Lincoln.

That is kind of my point. You were probably side tracked by fistful saying that disagreeing with him makes us poorly educated.

No, I said ignorance on basic facts about the Emancipation Proclamation makes one poorly educated. Have any opinion you want; I'll just help you keep your facts straight.

So he can ignore some parts of the Constitution and enforce that with the military, and he can use force against Northern states for some things (draft riots), but using force against the Northern states for the ostensible point of the war was out of the question. Got it.

Last I checked, the abolitionist movement didn't have ultimate control of the Armies of the North.

Are those the same armies that were being run ragged by the South's early victories? Yeah, I'm sure they had plenty of spare time and resources to visit every slave-holder in Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Massachusetts, or wherever you claimed all these slaves were. I'm sure all those people rioting against the draft would have welcomed that kind of federal assistance.

You'll notice I haven't defended Lincoln against the charge that he violated the Constitution in various ways. I'm not defending him on that level. I'm just pointing out that, whatever he might have liked to do, he wasn't Stalin. He didn't have that kind of power.

"Ostensible." I do not think that word means what you think it means. The ostensible purpose was to preserve the union. Now, I know you're not an idiot. Tell me what you think would have been more realistic for Lincoln, in the middle of a civil war - to put down a few riots up north, so he could hope to continue drafting soldiers, or to task his armies with ending Northern slavery, by his fiat?   

[Balog]

Once again, you've managed to take the very point I'm making, pretend it's your own and that I'm opposing it, add in some silly rabbit trails, and tie it up with a smarmy bow. It's really impressive, in an annoying way.

My basic point is that 1. the Civil War was not a battle to end slavery 2. Lincoln was a tyrant who didn't give a damn about slavery until it suited his agendaand who started this country into the death spiral of shredding the Constitution it's currently in 3. many (most?) people don't believe 1 & 2.

[Perd Hapley]

Once again, you've managed to take the very point I'm making, pretend it's your own and that I'm opposing it, add in some silly rabbit trails, and tie it up with a smarmy bow. It's really impressive, in an annoying way.

And you've been a model of civility, humility, and not being smug. 

My basic point is that 1. the Civil War was not a battle to end slavery 2. Lincoln was a tyrant who didn't give a damn about slavery until it suited his agendaand who started this country into the death spiral of shredding the Constitution it's currently in 3. many (most?) people don't believe 1 & 2.

If you just wouldn't claim that Lincoln used slavery as a pretext, or as an ostensible purpose, I don't think we'd have anything to argue about. I'm not a Lincoln fanboi, or a Civil War nut, so I'm easy.

[MicroBalrog]

Absolutely no President, ever, obeyed the Constitution.

[Scout26]

so why were the other.9 mill slaves less deserving of freedom?  location?

Because legally, he could not.  Did you not read what was posted?

[Tallpine]

Regardless who started the war, Lincoln's "pretext" was that of preserving the Union collecting taxes

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Because legally, he could not.  Did you not read what was posted?

legally he couldn't lock up legislators or send union troops into md to vote

[Balog]

Because legally, he could not.  Did you not read what was posted?

Funny how selective he was about what laws he just couldn't break and which he ignored easily.

[Perd Hapley]

Funny how selective he was about what laws he just couldn't break and which he ignored easily.

Funny how he never claimed he would end slavery, but people seem to think he broke a promise, or something.

Funny how he did more than any other president to end slavery, but draws such ire for failing to end it overnight.

[Scout26]

Funny how people just don't realize that had he tried to issue an executive order freeing slaves in all states would have been struck down.

Funny how people claimed he "locked up legislators" forget he simply ordered the arrest of those that were pro-secessionist and therefore rebels/traitors to the US.  We held Confederates as POW's, did we not?

And suspending Habeus Corpus applied only to those aiding and abetting or acting for those in rebellion.   Again that's the important part.  "Rebellion".  You know, Treason basically.

The writ did provide for trial by Courts Martial or Military Commission.   So it's not like they were totally denied due process.

You make it sound like Lincoln created Gitmo, before Gitmo was cool.

Also the Draft Riots were more like race riots.  The draft was to add to the Federal Army, not the volunteer militias, therefore, the federals had jurisdiction over enforcing the law.   And the riots occurred in heavily Irish cities.  Reason being, the Irish were the most recently arrived immigrants.  They were at the bottom of the food chain and literally had all the *expletive deleted*it jobs.  They were afraid that millions of freed slaves would work cheaper and push them out of those bottom rung jobs.     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_draft_riots

[Balog]

Funny how he never claimed he would end slavery, but people seem to think he broke a promise, or something.

Funny how he did more than any other president to end slavery, but draws such ire for failing to end it overnight.

My point was about the historical revisionism of those who claim that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You're arguing something that has no bearing on anything. Sometimes it's like arguing with CSD trying to talk to you.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Funny how people just don't realize that had he tried to issue an executive order freeing slaves in all states would have been struck down.

Funny how people claimed he "locked up legislators" forget he simply ordered the arrest of those that were pro-secessionist and therefore rebels/traitors to the US.  We held Confederates as POW's, did we not?

And suspending Habeus Corpus applied only to those aiding and abetting or acting for those in rebellion.   Again that's the important part.  "Rebellion".  You know, Treason basically.

The writ did provide for trial by Courts Martial or Military Commission.   So it's not like they were totally denied due process.

You make it sound like Lincoln created Gitmo, before Gitmo was cool.

Also the Draft Riots were more like race riots.  The draft was to add to the Federal Army, not the volunteer militias, therefore, the federals had jurisdiction over enforcing the law.   And the riots occurred in heavily Irish cities.  Reason being, the Irish were the most recently arrived immigrants.  They were at the bottom of the food chain and literally had all the *expletive deleted* jobs.  They were afraid that millions of freed slaves would work cheaper and push them out of those bottom rung jobs.     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_draft_riots

[Scout26]

My point was about the historical revisionism of those who claim that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. You're arguing something that has no bearing on anything. Sometimes it's like arguing with CSD trying to talk to you.

What you said was:

If he could start a damned war to end slavery in the south I'm confident he could have figured out a way to end the practice in his own states. If ending slavery was important enough to send federal troops to kill Southerners and shred the Constitution, why wasn't it important enough to do the same to Northerners?

I merely posted facts showing that this was simply not the case.

Did I miss a sarcasm smilie or [/sarcasm]?  I guess I (and a couple of other completely missed your point.  Are you arguing that what Lincoln did was the best he could do at that time under those circumstances?  Or are you arguing that Lincoln pulled a Stalin and "shredded the Constitution"?

[Balog]

What you said was:
I merely posted facts showing that this was simply not the case.

Did I miss a sarcasm smilie or [/sarcasm]?  I guess I (and a couple of other completely missed your point.  Are you arguing that what Lincoln did was the best he could do at that time under those circumstances?  Or are you arguing that Lincoln pulled a Stalin and "shredded the Constitution"?

I realize that, if you only look at that post it is confusing. My point is that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, and Lincoln was not the "Great Emancipator" he is portrayed as. Proof if this is that he, you know, didn't do anything to actually end slavery except as a way to hurt his enemies.

And yes, I'm saying his blatant disregard of the Comstitution was wrong and started us down the path we are on today where it is meaningless. The fact that it could have been worse is irrelevant.

[TommyGunn]

Once again, you've managed to take the very point I'm making, pretend it's your own and that I'm opposing it, add in some silly rabbit trails, and tie it up with a smarmy bow. It's really impressive, in an annoying way.

My basic point is that 1. the Civil War was not a battle to end slavery 2. Lincoln was a tyrant who didn't give a damn about slavery until it suited his agenda and who started this country into the death spiral of shredding the Constitution it's currently in 3. many (most?) people don't believe 1 & 2.

Huh?  Really?

Last time I saw a biopic on Lincoln it reported how as a child and teen, Lincoln's father would sell out his (Abe's) labor to neighbors.  His father received the pay and Lincoln himself received little or nothing from the work.  Young Abe deeply resented this and considered it to be abject slavery (it was legal though, at that point in time).  A trip down south as a youn man during which he got a first hand look at how blacks lived only deepened his hatred of slavery.
It is true that Lincoln's over-all purpose during the Civil War was to keep the country unified but it is also deeply unfair to diminish his disgust at the institution of slavery.  He hated it.  That said he was a realist to the point he believed that keeping the union together was a better cause to hang his hat on.  

[Perd Hapley]

I realize that, if you only look at that post it is confusing. My point is that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, and Lincoln was not the "Great Emancipator" he is portrayed as. Proof if this is that he, you know, didn't do anything to actually end slavery except as a way to hurt his enemies.

Except that he emancipated the vast majority of slaves in the U.S.

[Balog]

Except that he emancipated the vast majority of slaves in the U.S.

Collateral damage, just in a good way. If it hadn't been expedient to do so for the war effort I doubt he'd have freed anyone.

[makattak]

Collateral damage, just in a good way. If it hadn't been expedient to do so for the war effort I doubt he'd have freed anyone...

...at that time.

Had he not been killed he may have done a whole lot of other things, too.

However, to claim Lincoln, especially as a member of the Republican party formed by Abolitionists as a result of the slavery issue, would not have done anything to end slavery is the result of unnecessary animosity to the man.

Further, it's a failing of modernity to think that individuals have only one aim, much like claiming the Founders couldn't have really cared about freedom and even ending slavery because they had slaves.

People can argue of the means and tactics while agreeing with the overall goal.

[Tallpine]

Huh?  Really?

Last time I saw a biopic on Lincoln it reported how as a child and teen, Lincoln's father would sell out his (Abe's) labor to neighbors.  His father received the pay and Lincoln himself received little or nothing from the work.  Young Abe deeply resented this and considered it to be abject slavery (it was legal though, at that point in time).  A trip down south as a youn man during which he got a first hand look at how blacks lived only deepened his hatred of slavery.....  

And George Washingdone chopped down a cherry tree 

[TommyGunn]

And George Washingdone chopped down a cherry tree 

If you cannot spell the name of America's first president, how can I be expected to take your remark seriously?   

[Tallpine]

If you cannot spell the name of America's first president, how can I be expected to take your remark seriously?   

Does that mean that up until this time, you've been taking me seriously     

[TommyGunn]

Shouldn't I have?

[Scout26]

Collateral damage, just in a good way. If it hadn't been expedient to do so for the war effort I doubt he'd have freed anyone.

Actually he and Congress had wanted to and been working on it:

In December 1861, Lincoln sent his first annual message to Congress (the State of the Union Address, but then typically given in writing and not referred to as such). In it he praised the free labor system, as respecting human rights over property rights; he endorsed legislation to address the status of contraband slaves and slaves in loyal states, possibly through buying their freedom with federal taxes, and also the funding of strictly voluntary colonization efforts.[30] In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. On March 13, 1862, Congress approved a "Law Enacting an Additional Article of War" which stated that from that point onward it was forbidden for Union Army officers to return fugitive slaves to their owners.[31] On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. Slaves in the District of Columbia were freed on April 16, 1862, and their owners were compensated.

On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in all current and future United States territories (though not in the states), and President Lincoln quickly signed the legislation. By this act, they repudiated the 1857 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in U.S. territories.[32][33] This joint action by Congress and President Lincoln also rejected the notion of popular sovereignty that had been advanced by Stephen A. Douglas as a solution to the slavery controversy, while completing the effort first legislatively proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1784 to confine slavery within the borders of existing states.[34][35]

In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act, containing provisions for court proceedings to liberate slaves held by convicted "rebels," or of slaves of rebels that had escaped to Union lines.[36] The Act applied in cases of criminal convictions and to those who were slaves of "disloyal" masters, however, Lincoln's position continued to be that Congress lacked power to free all slaves within the borders of rebel held states, but Lincoln as commander in chief could do so if he deemed it a proper military measure,[37] and that Lincoln had already drafted plans to do.

- Wikipedia.  Yeah I know, but it is accurate and concise.

The other reason Lincoln waited was he wanted a Union victory first.  So he had to wait until after Antietum to issue it.