The Gettysburg Address---By Abraham Lincoln

[Dahlia]

I need a "real" history lesson. So, I had heard that the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war, and that, the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights. So, South wanted to cede from the Union mainly to economic and state rights issues? Again, up "North" I am sure we are taught a very different "view". Any books to suggest reading on this that outline this?
Thanks.

[Agent Iron]

I like:
The South was right
The real Abraham Lincoln
States Rights and the Union
The South Under Siege
Facts and Falsehoods

I am forgeting many more.

History is skewed. There is a whole new world out there for you when you start to mine good literature on civil war history. You will learn that Lincoln had no use for slaves, and wanted to send them all back to Africa. You will likely not call it the civil war, but the war of Northern Agression. At least I do....and I am from the North.

It is interesting history accounting the darkest period for our nation...at least maybe until now.
AI

[Dahlia]

thank you for the list..I will start self-informing...

[Ren]

when you get through with studying the war, then start looking into the "reconstruction" of the South.

Then your eyes will be opened even more...

[bobn]

...So, I had heard that the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war, and that, the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights. So, South wanted to cede from the Union mainly to economic and state rights issues?...

Fair warning:

I believe the following: There can be no such thing as the "right" to hold slaves. People are not property, and never could have been property under any righteous law, and anyone arguing differently will have nothing but grief from me.


If you look at the reasons stated for the secession of four of the states here , you find that the only state's "right" involved is the "right" to own black people.

South Carolina scurrilously quotes the parts of the Declaration of Independence which it finds convenient, thusly:

A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."

However, they strangely missed the parts of the Declaration of Independence that read like so:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

South Carolina then goes on to say:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." ...
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States...
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution...
Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation...

So South Carolina makes a legal case based on the infringement of their "right" to own other human beings.

Texas says, after complaining some about issues both related and not related to slavery:

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude...
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, ...
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations;...

Georgia says:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party...

[ then they list some economic complaints, but continue:

...A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States...
We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity...

Again, the state's "right" involved is the "right" to own black people, and to retrieve them from free states. Legally, by the letter of the constitution, they might have a point. But has ever a point rested on a more loathesome foundation?

Mississippi at least comes right to the point:

...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world...

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst....

There is nothing in any of this here to lead one to actually believe that "the emancipation of slavery was already underway before the civil war".

One might argue the "the civil war was more about state's sovreign (spelling probably wrong) rights" - but we come back to my original statement of my beliefs, raising the question: "States's rights to do what?"

Once again:

They might have a (legalistic) point. But has ever a point rested on a more loathesome foundation?

I say no.

I will concede that it is a separate argument as to whether the Union had the right to overcome the secession by force, and whether other actions taken by a war-time president damaged the constitution. It seems to me that there are valid arguments that the CSA could have been left alone.

But let us have no illusions as to what the CSA was about. It was about the ownership of human beings.