Changing history

[Nope]

[Minimalist]

It's like no one cares about truth anymore. People just want someone who looks smart and is well dressed to tell them what to think and do.

I'm sure you cannot see the irony there but no matter.

If slavery was a moral issue for the north then why did Lincoln wait till the north was loosing to emancipate them? Why did he fire generals for freeing slaves as they marched on southern bordered states? Why did he write this proclamation giving confederate 100 days to stop fighting OR threaten them with freeing their slaves? Why did Lincoln write this letter?

1.  Lincoln decided to issue the EP on 9-22-62...five days after the Battle of Antietam.  Although it was far from a "victory" ( bloody, stalemated, slaughter, might be a better description) at least it was not an outright disaster as Second Manassas had been a month earlier.  Lee, with only a portion of his army, was sufficiently impressed by union resolve that he withdrew back south thus giving the field to McClellan....who scarcely knew what to do with it.  Lincoln fired McClellan a month after his "victory" because McClellan with an army which had been mauled failed to pursue Lee as winter approached.   Lincoln announced that the EP would be effective on 1-1-63 which, coming just a mere three weeks after the outright fucking fiasco of Fredericksburg made it look like something of an act of desperation but, technically the decision was made when Lincoln thought the war was turning his way.  Lincoln was no soldier.

2.  Preventing the border states from joining the confederacy was a steadfast principle of Lincoln's war philosophy.  The surest way to fuck that up would have been to attack the property of the aristocracy in those border states.  Pure political decision.

3.  Speculation here, but it seems probable that he was listening to too many abolitionists - the republican party then was full of them - who were telling him that the south was fighting to preserve slavery and dismissed other causes.  The Civil War had many causes and while the upper 1% may have wanted to retain their slaves the bottom 99% was less than thrilled with the idea of millions of freed blacks running around "emancipated."  There were other issues in which the south felt bullied by the north and saw itself being marginalized by the growing industrial power of the north.  Most major events have more than one cause.  In any case, by thinking that the only issue was slavery Lincoln deluded himself into thinking that the south would come running back to the union.  A more cynical position is that the EP had little to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the British and French from recognizing the Confederacy after the string of union disasters in the summer of 1862.

4.  What else could he do?  There was no Twitter to post it on.

[Drich]

Again, little concern was about actual truth. It was about who he was and how he was dressed. Maybe that's why hitler always appeared in a military style uniform as well. it demands respect to the point that people abandon common sense and truth.

Kind of like how the Pope puts on a fancy robe and everyone bows down to his ultimate wisdom? Or any cardinal, priest or guy with a white collar, for that matter...

No sport not at all. If you took the time to read the comments two things stand out concerning how people viewed the video. One, they heard what they wanted to hear. Two, was cemented in their minds because the colonel is the history professor at West Point.

The pope does not hold not claims to be a history professor, nor is he rewriting American history

[Drich]

Everything the colonel said was taken at face value because he is who he is. And no one seems to question him

[Napoléon]

The pope does not hold not claims to be a history professor, nor is he rewriting American history

No, you're right. He claims to be completely infallible. That's much more reasonable.

[Drich]

Nope...

Did you even read the OP?

I clearly state that the southern states wanted keep slavery. That the went to war and die to keep slavery. My objection was the moral high ground this colonel was trying to take. Several times in the video he states that the union ended slavery because of it moral implications. My whole post disproves that fact.

Lincoln s letter spelling out that if he could end the war and not set slaves free, he would do that. He even tried, but ultimately surrendered to the idea that only by freeing the slaves in JUST THE CONFEDERATE STATES he would being to reunite the country, so he did that.

Again if freeing the slaves was a moral issue then why not free all slaves under the emancipation proclamation?

No this war was fought for control of not only slaves (the north wanted to consolidate and tax slave owners in the states, and slave owners wanted to move out west to the territories where their was no tax) but the political power To make and enforce such changes

[Nope]

Nope...

Did you even read the OP?

I clearly state that the southern states wanted keep slavery. That the went to war and die to keep slavery. My objection was the moral high ground this colonel was trying to take. Several times in the video he states that the union ended slavery because of it moral implications. My whole post disproves that fact.

Lincoln s letter spelling out that if he could end the war and not set slaves free, he would do that. He even tried, but ultimately surrendered to the idea that only by freeing the slaves in JUST THE CONFEDERATE STATES he would being to reunite the country, so he did that.

Again if freeing the slaves was a moral issue then why not free all slaves under the emancipation proclamation?

No this war was fought for control of not only slaves (the north wanted to consolidate and tax slave owners in the states, and slave owners wanted to move out west to the territories where their was no tax) but the political power To make and enforce such changes

I thought you would find my links interesting. Yes, I read your OP

[Drich]

Wow. I think he'll just froze over because I actually agree with mini. For the most part anyway.

Lincoln was playing a political game. He even made mention of it in his letter that I posted. That he would have no issue freeing some slaves while keeping others as slaves. Which is exactly what the emancipation proclamation did.

I do not however agree that Lincoln thought winning the war was doable simply because he won the last few battles. No the turning point was not until July 63 at Gettysburg. There were half a dozen key battles yet to be fought between September and July. I believe Lincoln saw an end date. Coming quickly to the end of his army and resources. He was looking to make things happen, because in September they still saw no end in site for the war, but end to their resources. Freeing the slaves added another 20,000 warm bodies to shoot and stop "Minnie balls."

Sorry couldn't help my self

[Minimalist]

Two things, Drippy.

1.  Remember that in 1861 virtually everyone thought that one big battle would decide the war.  William Sherman demurred, saying that the war would be a long drawn out affair and he was marginalized at the beginning as a result.  Simply put, no one wanted to hear it.

2.  Lincoln was not an abolitionist.  In fact, the noted abolitionist Wendell Phillips called him "a first-rate, second-rate, man."


Recall also that in 1860 Inauguration Day was in March.  By the time Lincoln was sworn in the original 7 states of the confederacy had already seceded.  When he arrived the crisis was already well advanced.  Recall these words from his First Inaugural speech:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

 
 In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

  I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

The abolitionists were not at all happy with his outlook on slavery.


And yes...they were called (inarticulately) "Minnie" balls....although I'm sure Captain Minie of the French Army (the inventor) did not approve.

[CapnAwesome]

Most people misunderstand a lot about the civil war. Although I think there are a lot of correct things about that video lets not forget that Kentucky, a slave state, fought on the side of the Union. Also lets not forget about the horrid racism of most people in the north. The north was full of white racists. Is it realistic that the northern racists would fight a war to free southern blacks? No, it is not. Would they fight a war to keep their country together? Yes. It seems like people typically make the issues too simple.

Another annoying thing is how the man in the video says he's proud of the fact that people went to war to free the slaves. Really??? How about the fact that almost every other country in the world ended slavery peacefully? I'd be embarrassed that it took a war to end slavery if I were him.