Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
286
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

286 Views
Message 31 of 35

Ok, I’ll bite. What’s the history you want assessed for true or false?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
286
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
297
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

297 Views
Message 32 of 35

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Not sure where you found this, but your assertion the North wouldn't have gone to war to end slavery in 1861 is another alternative factoid from the lunitic fringe,

 


Suggest you google 'Corwin Amendment' instead of coming up with your own version of history.  Gail's post is true, and I have read about this in various history publications, plus articles on the internet.  One you might try for a start is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment   . 

 

The amendment was endorsed by both the outgoing President, James Buchanan and President Lincoln.  Lincoln even went to lengths to get it ratified by the states to prevent war, even accepting a peaceful succession of the southern states.

 

More information on this can be found at http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

 

Some historians have suggested that even if there had been no civil war emancipation would have eventually evolved before the end of the century due to economics.

 

 


“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. . . FDR
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
297
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
294
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

294 Views
Message 33 of 35
The Northwest Ordinance, written by the founders, paved they way for this. Lincoln was the first President that studied law under that Ordinance.
So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
294
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
301
Views

Re: History - True or False ?

301 Views
Message 34 of 35

If by "true" you mean there was great ambivilance among whites including Lincoln over slavery, the answer is FALSE! The North DID go to War in 1861, and the only issue between the North and South was SLAVERY. The Southern slave owners knew this, its why they provoked the war by attacking Ft Sumter.

 

Here's some ACTUAL history regarding Lincoln's views:

In 1854, Sen. Stephen Douglas forced the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. The bill, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, also opened up a good portion of the Midwest to the possible expansion of slavery.

Douglas' political rival, former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, was enraged by the bill. He scheduled three public speeches in the fall of 1854, in response. The longest of those speeches — known as the Peoria Speech — took three hours to deliver. In it, Lincoln aired his grievances over Douglas' bill and outlined his moral, economic, political and legal arguments against slavery.

 

Unlike the infantile ninny now in the White House, Lincoln was a diplomat and wanted to preserve the Union without bloodshed if at all possible.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
301
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
314
Views
34
Replies

History - True or False ?

314 Views
Message 35 of 35

History - True or False ?

 

National Parks Service - Confronting Slavery and Revealing the "Lost Cause"

This essay is taken from The Civil War Remembered, published by the National Park Service and Eastern National. http://www.eparks.com/store/product/88361/The-Civil-War-Remembered/

 

As the most respected historians of our generation have shown, Lincoln and the vast majority of Republicans sought only to limit the expansion of slavery. Most who supported this "free soil" program that would maintain the western territories for free labor, did so out of self-interest. To urban or farm workers or to northern small farmer owners, Republicans offered the possibility of cheap land devoid of competition from slave labor or even from free blacks, who faced restriction in western settlement. "Vote yourself a Farm," was the not-so-subtle Republican message to white laboring men with the understanding that the western territories, having undergone Indian removal in the 1830s and 1840s, would be racially homogeneous.

Abolitionists, black and white, sincerely sought the end to slavery and accepted its geographical limitation as a step toward its inevitable demise. But although most whites in the North wanted to restrict slavery's spread, they would not have gone to war in 1861 to end it. President Lincoln understood his constituency very well and his statements on slavery were calculated to reassure white northerners as well as southern slaveholders that the U.S. government had, in his words, "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists." Indeed, Lincoln even reluctantly agreed to accept an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have protected slavery in those states where it existed. Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois actually ratified this measure that, ironically, would have been the 13th Amendment. Although this may have played well among northerners who were willing to concede protection to slavery so long as it remained in the South, slaveholders understood only too well it was not that simple.

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
314
Views
34
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

AARP Call-in Event: Coronavirus: Maintaining Your Well-Being

Ask experts about the coronavirus, learn how to protect yourself, stay connected and cope with stress and anxiety brought on by the pandemic. Join AARP for a special call-in event April 9, at 1:00 pm (EDT).

You can participate by calling toll-free 1-855-274-9507.

Learn more about the event on our Tele-Town Hall page.

Top Authors