OT: LINCOLN

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=moneymaker]Not having seen the movie or read a history book in over 30 years I’m pretty sure if any state in the union tried to secede (ok except Alaska or Hawaii) the troops would be called in.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure we’d let Mississippi go. And maybe Kansas. And Iowa.

[no_such_reality]

Actually, the civil war was really about State Authority versus Federal Authority.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States![/quote]

DR: Lincoln’s First Inaugural Speech lays out his case that secession was unconstitutional and would lead to anarchy or dictatorship. He cites the constitutional requirement that the”Laws of the Union faithfully be executed in all the States”.

NSR is correct that the Confederacy thus saw the war as state’s rights versus Federalism. The majority of the Confederate rank-and-file were not landed gentry, nor Southern aristocracy, nor were they fighting to preserve slavery, anymore than Lincoln was fighting to abolish it. He favored gradual emancipation using federal monies. However, when the initial group of Southern states seceded, he believed disunion would be the death knell of the United States and moved for a diplomatic solution. The Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter put paid to that.

This is the simplified explanation. Lincoln’s speeches on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and a “House Divided” offer a lot more background.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dumbrenter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States![/quote]

DR: Lincoln’s First Inaugural Speech lays out his case that secession was unconstitutional and would lead to anarchy or dictatorship. He cites the constitutional requirement that the”Laws of the Union faithfully be executed in all the States”.

NSR is correct that the Confederacy thus saw the war as state’s rights versus Federalism. The majority of the Confederate rank-and-file were not landed gentry, nor Southern aristocracy, nor were they fighting to preserve slavery, anymore than Lincoln was fighting to abolish it. He favored gradual emancipation using federal monies. However, when the initial group of Southern states seceded, he believed disunion would be the death knell of the United States and moved for a diplomatic solution. The Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter put paid to that.

This is the simplified explanation. Lincoln’s speeches on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and a “House Divided” offer a lot more background.[/quote]

Thanks for both the elaboration and for speech references.
If the confederate rank and file had no land or property (slaves), then why / how were motivated to fight for their state rights? What did state’s right even mean to them?
Wonder what was in it for them. They obviously could not have gone through the constitution and decided to stand up for their state’s rights.
Maybe it was something about preserving their way of life or culture or something like that. And may be many of them were led to believe that the north had no stomach for a fight.

[no_such_reality]

That’s easy. We have the same issue today.

The perception of big government nannyism telling you what to do.

Think ‘death panels’ and Obamacare.

Think ‘no child left behind’.

Imagine a Federal Same Sex Marriage law.

etc.

[all]

My kids liked his silver-plated ax.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dumbrenter][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Except for the fact that Lincoln had no such option. He had to preserve the Union at all costs and when it became apparent that the Southern states were bent on secession, war was inevitable.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate on why the Union had to be preserved at all costs by Lincoln? Curious as to what you think the reasons are.
If the States did not really have a right to secede, then I guess we are not really a union of States![/quote]

DR: Lincoln’s First Inaugural Speech lays out his case that secession was unconstitutional and would lead to anarchy or dictatorship. He cites the constitutional requirement that the”Laws of the Union faithfully be executed in all the States”.

NSR is correct that the Confederacy thus saw the war as state’s rights versus Federalism. The majority of the Confederate rank-and-file were not landed gentry, nor Southern aristocracy, nor were they fighting to preserve slavery, anymore than Lincoln was fighting to abolish it. He favored gradual emancipation using federal monies. However, when the initial group of Southern states seceded, he believed disunion would be the death knell of the United States and moved for a diplomatic solution. The Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter put paid to that.

This is the simplified explanation. Lincoln’s speeches on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and a “House Divided” offer a lot more background.[/quote]

Thanks for both the elaboration and for speech references.
If the confederate rank and file had no land or property (slaves), then why / how were motivated to fight for their state rights? What did state’s right even mean to them?
Wonder what was in it for them. They obviously could not have gone through the constitution and decided to stand up for their state’s rights.
Maybe it was something about preserving their way of life or culture or something like that. And may be many of them were led to believe that the north had no stomach for a fight.[/quote]

DR: The Civil War was the first “documented” war, in terms of the writings of the enlisted soldier (letters home, diaries/journals, etc) and it illuminates how both Union and Confederate soldiers viewed the conflict, especially the “why” of it.

As far as the North not having the stomach for a fight, First Bull Run and the battles leading to Antietam would certainly bear that out, as would the timidity of Union generals like McClellan or the incompetence of generals like Burnside (who had a golden opportunity to end the war at Antietam, but failed to aggressively pursue Lee after).

The Confederacy certainly boasted excellent leadership, like Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart, etc and the elan of Southern soldiers was legendary (the dreaded “Rebel Yell” comes immediately to mind). However, once Jackson was killed and Gettysburg showed Lee’s weaknesses as a field commander and Lincoln appointed Grant to the top spot, the momentum shifted.

[Author]

Posts