slavery and abraham lincoln?
what was lincolns view of slavery when the civil war began…how did the north view slavery at the time…what did horace greeley state to lincoln…why did people criticize the emancipation proclamation…how did it affect the civil war and race relations…
p.s.
my reading that my teacher gave me is total bull and at least by your answers ill be learning something
what do u mean? ill give you 10
very good answer but what about the rest ( i appreciated it though)
there are 5 questions by the way…thanx for one of them though
Answer by mr user
Me need two points
Answer by Emme LGBT
As I understand it, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t very supportive of ending slavery at all. Ralph Waldo Emerson was very supportive of ending the slavery; and that is why Ralph hated Lincoln. I believe Lincoln, at one time, said “If I could keep slavery and save the Union [country], I would.” So, it seems that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t choosing to end slavery because it was the right thing to do, he was just doing it because he wanted to save the country…
… even though a country that allows slavery is worse than several countries that don’t allow it.
Answer by dan
This myth that somehow people in the North were morally on high ground and were all abolitionists and the North was a great place for minorities is just that, a myth. Minorities were hated in the north as well as the south. Northern states had numerous black codes forbidding activities for blacks such as being out at nigh and congregating. If the North was such a great place for slaves, why did the Underground Railroad had to go all the way to Canada?
The Emancipation Proclamation never freed a single slave. It only pertained to those states in rebellion, not to the thousands of slaves in federal controlled states such as MD, DE, MO, KY, NJ, and WV. They were not freed until after the war was over.
Answer by armouror
Lincoln did Not like any of the Slaves he said so slavery was only brought into the Civil war equation to stop the British helping the south
Lincoln only went to War to SAVE his Empire this is what he did
he actually said he was NOT in favour of any Integration or Mixed marriages and originally wanted to sent all the slaves back to africa
Once elected to save his empire and made plans to execute all these Illegal acts when you read all the Things he did he must have been Busy planning every Move Just to save an empire HIS
No president in our history ever abused his power, trashed the US Constitution, or committed more crimes than Lincoln. He acted like a total Dictator.
He waged a war that cost the lives of 620,000 Americans. Including the murder of 50,000 innocent Southern civilians.
He suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution).
He had duly elected State representatives illegally jailed without charges.
He illegally imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies
He illegally shut down and confiscated the printing presses of dozens of newspapers that had spoken out against him.
He re-instated and summarily promoted an Army officer who had been court marshaled and cashiered by the US Army for war crimes.
He illegally deported a member of Congress after said congressman criticized his unconstitutional behaviour.
He even had an arrest warrant issued for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court because said justice refused to back his illegal actions.
Chief Justice Roger B Taney ruled that Lincolns actions were illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.
Lincoln locked up Maryland legislators to prevent them from voting to secede from the Union, that’s kidnapping.
He invaded the South without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution, that’s a war crime.
He blockaded Southern ports without a Declaration of war, as required by the Constitution, that’s another war crime.
He imprisoned without trial, hundreds of newspaper editors and owners and censored all newspaper and telegraph communication.
He created three new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Party’s electoral vote.
He ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure his Party’s victories.
He confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
He had his Generals attack US cities full of women and children and burn them to the ground.
and this
U.S. Constitution “The Right To Secede” March 4, 1789
The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The “permanence” lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the “more perfect union” found in the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and
every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.”
A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, “The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.”
which shows the North did break their own Laws and Murderd americans to maintain the Union
Did Alexander inspire Abraham Lincoln to end slavery? ?
Lincoln didn’t run for presidency just to end slavery because he said it was a necessary evil, but as an extra credit question my teacher was curious to see if Alexander (from Russia I’m not sure which Alexander in Russia) inspired Lincoln. I was hoping that someone could help me to answer the question because I’ve looked at I couldn’t find anything on this subject.
Can someone please give their honest opinionated answer to this question and cite their source
Please and Thank you
^-^
ALEXANDER II
Answer by Robbie M
dunno but i do know that Alexander the Great was epilectic.
Funny that eh? x (the alex not from russia!) x mb thar could get you extra credit? x
Answer by Oscar Himpflewitz
~Lincoln did NOT run to end slavery. He said repeatedly all through his campaign (of 1860) that he had no desire to end slavery where it existed, and as president, he would have no authority to do so. He repeated those sentiments in his First Inaugural Address. If your ‘teacher’ is ‘teaching’ you that Lincoln ran on an abolition platform, your teacher is a liar or a fool.
Point of fact: slave ownership was a right guaranteed by the US Constitution (see Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Art IV, Sec 2, Amendments IV, V, IX and X) and could be abolished only by state law or constitutional amendment. No constitutional amendment to abolish slavery was proposed during the antebellum years for the simple reason that there was insufficient support in the north, never mind the south, for ratification. In fact, in 1861 the northern, Republican dominated Congress passed the Corwin Amendment. If ratified, Corwin would have become Amendment XIII and would have prohibited any future amendment for abolition. Lincoln voiced his support for Corwin in several letters.
[Collateral point of fact: The Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the several constitutional provisions already mentioned - and in violation of Lincoln's oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In any case, it was redundant and simply repeated what Congress, equally illegally and unconstitutionally, had done months earlier in the Confiscation Acts. The EP did not abolish slavery. Vast sections of Virginia and Louisiana, and all of Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri were exempt from its provisions. Slave owners in the CSA states, assuming they were subject to USA law - which they were not - could retain their slaves simply by renouncing the CSA and swearing loyalty and allegiance to the USA. Lincoln's plan for the freed slaves? He wanted to export them to colonies to be established in the Caribbean, in Africa, in uninhabited regions in Texas and Missouri and/or in Indian Territory. The Acts and EP were tools of war, weapons of mass destruction if you will, and not humanitarian gestures. For more on that, read the congressional debates on the Acts. Tsar Alexander II did not end serfdom in Russia as a means of conquest His motivation was social reform.]
The southern states did not secede over slavery. Only a fool would believe they did. Why secede to retain that which the supreme law of the land already guarantees? Why secede rather than to stick around and ratify Corwin, which would have guaranteed that right in perpetuity? And certainly the north did not fight to end slavery. War could not rewrite the constitution. Had the northern goal been abolition, then the northerners would have proposed an abolition amendment.
If you really want extra credit, why not write about why the war was NOT a civil war. Rather, it was a war of aggression by the USA against the sovereign nations of the CSA. It was an invasion with the goal being the conquest and annexation of the CSA.
When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies in 1783 by the Treaty of Paris, 13 new nations were created. Those nations formed an alliance and delegated certain limited powers to a central government over issues of common interest, but they did not surrender their independent sovereignty and autonomy otherwise. The Founding Fathers almost to a man spoke to the issue of secession and agreed that it was an implicit, if not express, right under the constitution. After all, the experiment of the Articles of Confederation had just failed. If the new experiment of the constitution proved equally unsuccessful, they were smart enough and wise enough to leave themselves and their nations and out. The colonies had just spent too much blood and money to earn their separate individual independence and they had no intention of giving it away.
The core principle of the Declaration of Independence is the right of secession. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798, wherein they argued the right of the states (think ‘nation-states’) to nullify federal law, and, by extension, to secede. The New England States threatened to secede in 1812, 1814 and 1815 over the Embargo Acts, the Non-Intercourse Act and Mr. Madison’s War. Several states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line threatened to secede in 1820 over the unconstitutional Missouri Compromise. South Carolina threatened secession in 1837 over the Tariff Act. On January 12, 1848, Abe Lincoln himself, on the floor of Congress, argued in favor of the right to secede.
Only after the war was history re-written and the states became subservient component parts of a single entity. After the war, there was a single nation called the USA rather than a coalition of (nation) states united. The very monolithic supreme federal government that the Founders tried so hard to avoid and prevent came into being by force of northern arms.
The question of secession has never been addressed by legal means. It could have been. Jefferson Davis was charged with treason. He demanded a trial. He intended to defend on the grounds of the legality of secession. The north could not afford an adverse verdict on those grounds, or worse still, an adverse decision by the Supreme Court on appeal. Davis was never tried for treason. No one was. Then there was the whole “readmission” process. How could, and why would, a state be readmitted if it had never left in the first place?
The democratically elected representatives of the people of the seceding states passed, by democratic process, the Ordinances of Secession. The people of those states ratified the Ordinances at the polls or in convention. The seceding states simply reasserted the autonomy, sovereignty and independence they had never surrendered, and they opted out of the USA confederation. In response, the USA, led by Lincoln, invade and the governments of the people, by the people, for the people of the CSA perished from the earth.
Lincoln was well read. He was inspired by many. Perhaps his inspiration for invasion, conquest, empire building and annexation of free and independent sovereign nations was Napoleon Bonaparte? That might be worth looking into.
Mark Twain once famously said “there was but one solitary thing about the past worth remembering, and that was the fact that it is past and can’t be restored.” Well, over recent years, The British Library, working with Microsoft has embarked on an ambitious programme to digitise its collection of 19th century books.
There are now 65,000 titles available (that’s an incredible 25 million pages) of material ranging from works by famous names such as Dickens, Trollope and Hardy as well as many forgotten literary gems , all of which can now be printed on demand and purchased right here on Amazon.
Further information on The British Library and its digitisation programme can be found on The British Library website.
List Price: $ 38.99
Click here to Saving :$ 0
Do you think Abraham Lincoln Allow the South to Rejoin if They Kept Slavery?
I have an essay to do and the question is this “In 1865, if the South had asked to rejoin the Union without ending slavery do you think Lincoln would have agreed?”
Most people argue that he would have not since slavery was ilegal and others say that he would have because he didn’t believe in a divided house
So what do you think?
Answer by raina_vissora
Lincoln only declared slavery illegal throughout the country as a political move during the war. His thinking was that when slaves realized that under Lincoln they’d be free, many of them would turn on their southern masters and either aid the North directly, or encourage a revolt in the south among the slave population. If the South had made the offer of rejoining on the condition that they got to keep slavery, he likely would have accepted… but they were never interested in rejoining of their own accord, hence the Emancipation Proclamation.
Answer by Notorious J.O.E.
No. Once he issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery became a condition for ending the war.
Answer by wtws?
I think he would’ve initially when the southern states first seceded because he said that he would preserve the union if he could free no slaves and would preserve the union if he has to free all the slaves, but after making public the emancipation proclamation, he wouldn’t allow the south to rejoin if they kept slavery because it would be like going back on his words. In the beginning he wanted no EXPANSION of slavery, but he wasn’t planning to abolish slavery immediately in places where it already existed.
Answer by whiteyT6
He would have absolutely let the south rejoin without ending slavery. Here is an exact quote from Lincoln:
“If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save the Union, I would do that also.”
The main goal of the Civil War was to preserve the Union. It wasn’t a war over slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, but even at that time it wasn’t really a war over slavery.
The only reason Lincoln ended slavery was because he had the chance. He defeated the Confederacy, and while they were down, he ended slavery.
The south wasn’t to angry with the act because the south knew the time to end slavery was very soon. The north was arguing to end slavery since the Declaration of Independence. But Lincoln had the right chance to end it so he did.
If you were playing mercy or uncle with friend, and your friend cried “Mercy”….wouldn’t he do anything to have you stop hurting him? They would, that’s why Lincoln ended slavery at this time, but ending slavery was not his ultimate goal.
So yes, he would have let the Union join if they kept slavery.
Terms:
- abraham lincoln ending slavery
- abraham lincoln the end of slavery
- when did abraham lincoln freed slaves the answer
- why did the north want to end slavery
Posts Related to slavery and abraham lincoln?
how did the American civil war start and how did Abraham Lincoln help start it?
how did the American civil war start and how did Abraham Lincoln help start it? im doing a project in history about the civil war ...
What are 5 accurate civil war facts about Abraham Lincoln that are significant?
What are 5 accurate civil war facts about Abraham Lincoln that are significant? I need 5 accurate ones!! Please!! Thaanks :) I know he issued ...
Abraham Lincolns Speeches?
Abraham Lincolns Speeches? Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (1861), the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), the Gettysburg Address (1863), and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (1865). Exactly when, and ...
How was it possible that Abraham Lincoln, the Union president, could emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy?
How was it possible that Abraham Lincoln, the Union president, could emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy? If Abraham Lincoln was the president of the ...
multiple choice pleeeeease help!!!!!!!!! I need a Genius!!!!!?
multiple choice pleeeeease help!!!!!!!!! I need a Genius!!!!!? (1) When a state seceded, the state was (A) withdrawing from the union (B) joining the union ...
Tagged with: Abraham • Lincoln • slavery
Filed under: Abraham Lincoln Bicentenial
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
If lincoln was so concerned about ending slavery then why did he allow missouri, kentucky, maryland, delaware, west virginia, and various western territories to keep their slaves?
also if you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation did no free any slaves in southern states occupied by union forces.
WTWS has it correct. While Whitey’s quote is quite accurate expression of Lincoln’s intent in 1861, by the year 1865 the country had suffered much at the hands of the southern traitors and his intent was clear from the time of the Emancipation Proclamation through the Gettysburg Address … “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” … through his 2nd Inaugural Address ” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”. His intent remains that the cost of the war in human life and wealth requires that a solemn promise of freedom to the slaves be kept.
Finally and definitively, the proof of Lincoln’s intent to mandate abolishing of slavery in the southern states is that in attending what has come to be called the Hampton Roads Peace Conference on February 3, 1865; Abraham Lincoln made these conditions for peace “Lincoln’s terms—reunion, acceptance of emancipation, immediate cessation of hostilities, and the disbanding of all Confederate forces”
Definitively, in Lincoln’s own words from 1865, Lincoln would NOT accept a return of the southern states if they were allowed to keep their slaves.
whale
For decades, the White people of America have been subjected to a continual barrage from Blacks and others that you and I are somehow “responsible” for the African slave trade and that we need to “atone” for our “guilt.” Their are a number of flaws with the idea that we are somehow “responsible” for the African slave trade.
First of all, very few White people even owned slaves-slavery was a rich man’s pursuit and slavery did not exist amongst the middle and working classes of White people.
Second of all, even if every one of us had an ancestor who owned slaves (which is an extremely unlikely proposition), it makes little sense to blame the children for the supposed sins of their fathers.
Third of all, it is a fact that Blacks sold their own kind into slavery. As this is the case, Blacks are every bit as much to blame for slavery as are Whites.
Fourth, European Whites did not bring the slaves to America. On the contrary, it was the Asiatic Jews who brought them here (as Louis Fahrakkan has also pointed out). Below is a listing of the Jewish slave ships and the Jewish owners of them.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-slaves-jewish-slave-ship-owners.html
Where do these people come from. While it is absolutely true that Lincoln was not a rabid abolitionist it is also clearly true by anyone reads as far as the Lincoln Douglas debates, that Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but ambivalent of what future, if any, slaves would have if freed but unlike those supporting slavery eh clearly saw them as human beings not chattel Speaking of the slave
“I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”
Lincoln entered office and did not believe that as President he had the power to end slavery he was pragmatic leader who would take whatever course need be taken to preserve the union.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
He decided to end slavery in said areas controlled by rebels and do so as a means of ended the war sooner and as a war powers act it was not permanent. Lincoln however, pushed very hard for what he called a Kings Cure – a constitutional amendment ending slavery. In part he did so because the service of Negro men in the army convinced him that such men must be freed.
Below is both Greeley ‘s letter published in the paper and Lincoln’s reply. As I said before you will see Lincolns view is entirely pragmatic.
Lincoln did not want to approach the question of slavery and was interested in eventually moving the slaves out of the U.S. when it became practical. The North saw slavery as a moral sin that stained Americas future. Abolition was mandatory and should be immediate. Horace Greeley told Lincoln that the conflict between the North and the South should be mediated by England, France, or Switzerland. Former president Pierce saw Lincoln as a tyrannical president and saw the emancipation as Lincoln giving into Charles Sumner, he further said that Lincoln’s limited ability and narrow intelligence was asking for a slave uprising and disaster. Many saw it as a conflict with the Constitution. The Civil War had now changed with Emancipation Proclamation into a war for human freedoms. This ended the English thoughts of coming in on the side of the Confederacy because it would be seen by others as condoning slavery which the British had outlawed. It was a perfect political move on Lincoln’s part and the South now knew their way of life was over and the war was going to crush the old South and look forward to a new South – without slavery.