The American Civil War Timeline- 150th Anniversary (1 Viewer)

Mjolnirs said:

Yankee23Fan said:

John C. Fremont was the first Republican party candidate for PResident. His platform was the first of its kind in the nation as it openly attacked slavery, slavery power of the deep south and condemned outright the Kansas-Nebraska Act and ensuing pro-slavery events.

Click to expand...

Lincoln is known to have stated his intent was to preserve the Union. Do you think Fremont's position in the '56 election branded the party as anti-slavery and regardless of what Lincoln said 1860 he was running as a Republican and therefore anti-slavery in the eyes of Southerners?

Meanwhile, the GOP who was just 2 years old was immediately a force and the clear enemy of the pro-slavery movement.

Click to expand...

That just seems odd.

Click to expand...

I think by 1856 any party or politician not in lock step with the deep south power bloc of the democratic party was branded anti-slavery or at least not worth trusting and regardless of what Lincoln said during 1860 that bloc wasn't going to budge from that position as witnessed by their own self execution by splitting the party in the election. Buchanan was unable to hold off the firestorm and the rhetoric within the party alone was too much to overcome, let alone in the face of the new Republicans that were guaranteed election the second the democrats split.That's the curious thing about the war starting in 1860 like it did. The south could have gotten away with so much more if they had just kep the party together. The deep south couldn't see the forrest for the trees. By splitting they guaranteed Lincoln's election. But by staying together, even if they didn't like Douglass all that much by then, they would have won the election. The combination of Douglass and Breckenridge's vote was more then Lincoln's. Lincoln wasn't even allowed on the ballot in the deep south. Douglass would have won.

As President I'm not so sure that Douglass takes the stance Lincoln does, nor do I think the deep south rushes to battle as fast they did as Buchanan allowed Rome to burn. But they got too caught up in the rhetoric and in their own fanned flames and at some point any reason got removed from the political decisions made in 1860.

BobbyLayne said:

Yes, I had read it, and its a ridiculous defense of a terrorist. But we'll get to that, be patient.

Click to expand...

I naturally disagree, and I will prove to you that you are mistaken; but all in due time.

timschochet said:

3. The term "Grand Old Party" as a definition of the Republican party was first coined in 1876, so Yankee was being anachronistic here. No harm done.

Click to expand...

Could the same be said of applying the word "terrorist" to John Brown?

Gigantomachia said:

I naturally disagree

Click to expand...

Its hard to escape the fact that is your default mode

Yankee23Fan said:

Unlike their inability to keep the party together in 1860, the Democrats managed to get in line behind Buchanan and the result was his election, where the GOP got close to zero votes in slave states - not a percentage close to zero, but a nmuber actually close to zero. I checked wiki and they count the vote for the GOP in the south as 0 except for Delaware and Maryland who gave him a combined 500 votes. That's probably right.

Click to expand...

That tends to happen when you're not listed on the ballot (around 10 states IIRC).

Black Box said:

timschochet said:

3. The term "Grand Old Party" as a definition of the Republican party was first coined in 1876, so Yankee was being anachronistic here. No harm done.

Click to expand...

Could the same be said of applying the word "terrorist" to John Brown?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Terrorist as a word is not a name brand. It's a definition that we use to describe someone. Granted it wasn't in use in the 19th century; neither was the term "racist". But we don't live in the 19th century and IMO there's nothing wrong with using such words to describe people as a means of bettering our own understanding.Though John Brown was not called a terrorist per se, both his supporters and detractors understood what they were talking about, and the meaning was the same. His supporters believed he was a hero and a martyr. His detractors thought of him as most of us think of Timothy McVeigh. I think it's great that Gigantomachia and Bobby Layne want to have this debate when we get to Harper's Ferry, and I am looking forward to it. I believe I am on BobbyLayne's side of things, but GG always makes great arguments so this should be fun. First though, I need to finish up Dred Scott and then devote some time to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Yankee23Fan said:

That's the curious thing about the war starting in 1860 like it did. The south could have gotten away with so much more if they had just kep the party together. The deep south couldn't see the forrest for the trees. By splitting they guaranteed Lincoln's election. But by staying together, even if they didn't like Douglass all that much by then, they would have won the election. The combination of Douglass and Breckenridge's vote was more then Lincoln's. Lincoln wasn't even allowed on the ballot in the deep south. Douglass would have won.As President I'm not so sure that Douglass takes the stance Lincoln does, nor do I think the deep south rushes to battle as fast they did as Buchanan allowed Rome to burn. But they got too caught up in the rhetoric and in their own fanned flames and at some point any reason got removed from the political decisions made in 1860.

Click to expand...

I wrote there were three main events during the Buchanan Administration that led to the final split: the Dred Scott decision, (which we are currently reviewing), the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, and Harper's Ferry. Dred Scott, as we shall see, polarized northern attitudes in a way that nothing before it had. But to answer your question as to why the Deep South refused to support Douglas, the answer is 20% the Debates, and 80% Harper's Ferry. As we shall see, in the debates Lincoln forced Douglas into a position that was intolerable to southerners. This in itself might not have made any difference except for Harper's Ferry and the Northern reaction to it. That was the final breaking point.

BobbyLayne said:

Gigantomachia said:

I naturally disagree

Click to expand...

Its hard to escape the fact that is your default mode

Click to expand...

Experience has made that so.

timschochet said:

Yankee23Fan said:

That's the curious thing about the war starting in 1860 like it did. The south could have gotten away with so much more if they had just kep the party together. The deep south couldn't see the forrest for the trees. By splitting they guaranteed Lincoln's election. But by staying together, even if they didn't like Douglass all that much by then, they would have won the election. The combination of Douglass and Breckenridge's vote was more then Lincoln's. Lincoln wasn't even allowed on the ballot in the deep south. Douglass would have won.As President I'm not so sure that Douglass takes the stance Lincoln does, nor do I think the deep south rushes to battle as fast they did as Buchanan allowed Rome to burn. But they got too caught up in the rhetoric and in their own fanned flames and at some point any reason got removed from the political decisions made in 1860.

Click to expand...

I wrote there were three main events during the Buchanan Administration that led to the final split: the Dred Scott decision, (which we are currently reviewing), the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, and Harper's Ferry. Dred Scott, as we shall see, polarized northern attitudes in a way that nothing before it had. But to answer your question as to why the Deep South refused to support Douglas, the answer is 20% the Debates, and 80% Harper's Ferry. As we shall see, in the debates Lincoln forced Douglas into a position that was intolerable to southerners. This in itself might not have made any difference except for Harper's Ferry and the Northern reaction to it. That was the final breaking point.

Click to expand...

I know why Douglas became a pariah to the deep southern power base. But the fact remained that once again we find the south acting in a way contrary to the rhetorical definition of what they claimed they were doingThe southern power bloc washed their hands with Douglass over the Freeport Doctrine. But all that was was an attempt to find some level of common ground between the Dred Scott Taney side of the deep south democrats and the popular sovereignty states rights side of the rest of the democrats as expoused by Douglas himself. But the deep south wasn't buying any states rights argument that didn't support their demand for pro-slavery policies unfetterd and unchallanged. Once again, the prime motive they use is mortally wounded by their own actions. In the end, the very reason that Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 was because the deep south would have none of a states rights argument if it led to the possibility of a state not supporting slavery.However, had the deep south taken a moment of calm, disagreed with Douglass but used him as their nominee then 1860 may have came out differently. He would have won the election. While after the fighting started and Lincoln was sworn in, Douglass became a very strong anti-secession leader who worked for Lincoln for a time, that might not have been his position had he won the White House with the deep south helping him win. He almost assuredly would have hesitated to use the military to react to actions of the south prior to his inauguration instead trying to work diplomatically and through the channels of the federal government political wings. It may have turned out, if nothing else, that the south could have moved with little federal resistance to shore up certain important territories, military installations and ports well before President Douglas came to the conclusion that some form of federal military response was necessary.But obviously that didn't happen. And all because men who tried to couch their treason in the rhetoric of stats rights spcifically thumbed their collective noses at a states rights argument to stop the oncoming war.

timschochet said:

Black Box said:

timschochet said:

3. The term "Grand Old Party" as a definition of the Republican party was first coined in 1876, so Yankee was being anachronistic here. No harm done.

Click to expand...

Could the same be said of applying the word "terrorist" to John Brown?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Terrorist as a word is not a name brand. It's a definition that we use to describe someone. Granted it wasn't in use in the 19th century; neither was the term "racist". But we don't live in the 19th century and IMO there's nothing wrong with using such words to describe people as a means of bettering our own understanding.Though John Brown was not called a terrorist per se, both his supporters and detractors understood what they were talking about, and the meaning was the same. His supporters believed he was a hero and a martyr. His detractors thought of him as most of us think of Timothy McVeigh. I think it's great that Gigantomachia and Bobby Layne want to have this debate when we get to Harper's Ferry, and I am looking forward to it. I believe I am on BobbyLayne's side of things, but GG always makes great arguments so this should be fun. First though, I need to finish up Dred Scott and then devote some time to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I would call him a terrorist. He tried to start a revolution/insurrection in a certain area of the country. Traitor fits more then terrorist. Either way what he did was criminal and the federal government, with Marine commander Robert E. Lee was right to bring arms to stop him.

Yankee23Fan said:

...Marine commander Robert E. Lee...

Click to expand...

We're not there yet...BUT...obvs Lee was a Cavalry Colonel of the U.S. Army at the time, leading a detachment of U.S. Marines (the local militia and town folk already had him surrounded and the only escape route was covered long before Lee arrived, but I digress).

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

...Marine commander Robert E. Lee...

Click to expand...

We're not there yet...BUT...obvs Lee was a Cavalry Colonel of the U.S. Army at the time, leading a detachment of U.S. Marines (the local militia and town folk already had him surrounded and the only escape route was covered long before Lee arrived, but I digress).

Click to expand...

You know, there is such a thing as spoiler tags for those of us learning as this thing goes along

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

...Marine commander Robert E. Lee...

Click to expand...

We're not there yet...BUT...obvs Lee was a Cavalry Colonel of the U.S. Army at the time, leading a detachment of U.S. Marines (the local militia and town folk already had him surrounded and the only escape route was covered long before Lee arrived, but I digress).

Click to expand...

Yeah, but JEB Stuart got to ram the door down and led the "assault" on Brown where they beat him silly.

Yankee23Fan said:

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

...Marine commander Robert E. Lee...

Click to expand...

We're not there yet...BUT...obvs Lee was a Cavalry Colonel of the U.S. Army at the time, leading a detachment of U.S. Marines (the local militia and town folk already had him surrounded and the only escape route was covered long before Lee arrived, but I digress).

Click to expand...

Yeah, but JEB Stuart got to ram the door down and led the "assault" on Brown where they beat him silly.

Click to expand...

The original two minute drill.OK, it actually took three minutes.

Black Box said:

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

...Marine commander Robert E. Lee...

Click to expand...

We're not there yet...BUT...obvs Lee was a Cavalry Colonel of the U.S. Army at the time, leading a detachment of U.S. Marines (the local militia and town folk already had him surrounded and the only escape route was covered long before Lee arrived, but I digress).

Click to expand...

You know, there is such a thing as spoiler tags for those of us learning as this thing goes along

Click to expand...

I should learn how to use those...its gotta be really simple, right?

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Black Box said:

timschochet said:

3. The term "Grand Old Party" as a definition of the Republican party was first coined in 1876, so Yankee was being anachronistic here. No harm done.

Click to expand...

Could the same be said of applying the word "terrorist" to John Brown?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Terrorist as a word is not a name brand. It's a definition that we use to describe someone. Granted it wasn't in use in the 19th century; neither was the term "racist". But we don't live in the 19th century and IMO there's nothing wrong with using such words to describe people as a means of bettering our own understanding.Though John Brown was not called a terrorist per se, both his supporters and detractors understood what they were talking about, and the meaning was the same. His supporters believed he was a hero and a martyr. His detractors thought of him as most of us think of Timothy McVeigh. I think it's great that Gigantomachia and Bobby Layne want to have this debate when we get to Harper's Ferry, and I am looking forward to it. I believe I am on BobbyLayne's side of things, but GG always makes great arguments so this should be fun. First though, I need to finish up Dred Scott and then devote some time to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I would call him a terrorist. He tried to start a revolution/insurrection in a certain area of the country. Traitor fits more then terrorist. Either way what he did was criminal and the federal government, with Marine commander Robert E. Lee was right to bring arms to stop him.

Click to expand...

This is still a matter of debate, irrespective of Yankee's sweeping claim of facticity.

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Black Box said:

timschochet said:

3. The term "Grand Old Party" as a definition of the Republican party was first coined in 1876, so Yankee was being anachronistic here. No harm done.

Click to expand...

Could the same be said of applying the word "terrorist" to John Brown?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Terrorist as a word is not a name brand. It's a definition that we use to describe someone. Granted it wasn't in use in the 19th century; neither was the term "racist". But we don't live in the 19th century and IMO there's nothing wrong with using such words to describe people as a means of bettering our own understanding.Though John Brown was not called a terrorist per se, both his supporters and detractors understood what they were talking about, and the meaning was the same. His supporters believed he was a hero and a martyr. His detractors thought of him as most of us think of Timothy McVeigh. I think it's great that Gigantomachia and Bobby Layne want to have this debate when we get to Harper's Ferry, and I am looking forward to it. I believe I am on BobbyLayne's side of things, but GG always makes great arguments so this should be fun. First though, I need to finish up Dred Scott and then devote some time to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I would call him a terrorist. He tried to start a revolution/insurrection in a certain area of the country. Traitor fits more then terrorist. Either way what he did was criminal and the federal government, with Marine commander Robert E. Lee was right to bring arms to stop him.

Click to expand...

This is still a matter of debate, irrespective of Yankee's sweeping claim of facticity.

Click to expand...

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

We don't have to wait, Brown broke the law. I understand that people argue all the time that sometimes you are justified in breaking the law - heck our country was founded on the premise. Doesn't make the criminal and less of a criminal in the eyes of the law though. He thought he was justified in doing what he did in the hopes that it would lead to the end of a terrible system of bondage. Who knows. MAybe he was. Although the first person he and his men killed was a freed black man just doing his job.

Yankee23Fan said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

We don't have to wait, Brown broke the law. I understand that people argue all the time that sometimes you are justified in breaking the law - heck our country was founded on the premise. Doesn't make the criminal and less of a criminal in the eyes of the law though. He thought he was justified in doing what he did in the hopes that it would lead to the end of a terrible system of bondage. Who knows. MAybe he was. Although the first person he and his men killed was a freed black man just doing his job.

Click to expand...

Again, you could make the same arguments about acts in Germany during the Nazi reign. Blindly saying anyone that breaks the law is a terrorist is short-sighted at best, the root of all evil at worst.

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

We don't have to wait, Brown broke the law. I understand that people argue all the time that sometimes you are justified in breaking the law - heck our country was founded on the premise. Doesn't make the criminal and less of a criminal in the eyes of the law though. He thought he was justified in doing what he did in the hopes that it would lead to the end of a terrible system of bondage. Who knows. MAybe he was. Although the first person he and his men killed was a freed black man just doing his job.

Click to expand...

Again, you could make the same arguments about acts in Germany during the Nazi reign. Blindly saying anyone that breaks the law is a terrorist is short-sighted at best, the root of all evil at worst.

Click to expand...

You do realize that I was the one that said he was specifically not a terrorist, right?

Yankee23Fan said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

We don't have to wait, Brown broke the law. I understand that people argue all the time that sometimes you are justified in breaking the law - heck our country was founded on the premise. Doesn't make the criminal and less of a criminal in the eyes of the law though. He thought he was justified in doing what he did in the hopes that it would lead to the end of a terrible system of bondage. Who knows. MAybe he was. Although the first person he and his men killed was a freed black man just doing his job.

Click to expand...

Again, you could make the same arguments about acts in Germany during the Nazi reign. Blindly saying anyone that breaks the law is a terrorist is short-sighted at best, the root of all evil at worst.

Click to expand...

You do realize that I was the one that said he was specifically not a terrorist, right?

Click to expand...

Yes. I should have put terrorist/traitor. Better?

I called John Brown a terrorist, and I don't mind discussing this now, because what I called him a terrorist for was not Harper's Ferry but for the Pottawotomie Massacre in Kansas, which we have already covered. Brown kidnapped four innocent people and split their heads open. He did this in order to spread terror among the rest of the proslavery settlers. I regard this as terrorism, pure and simple.

To use GG's analogy, if, in order to stop the Holocaust, a Jew snuck into Germany, kidnapped four innocent Germans, and killed them in cold blood and warned he would do the same thing every night unless the Holocaust was stopped, that Jew would be a terrorist. No matter what your motive, the deliberate murder of innocent people is IMO immoral. If you perform it as a means to spread terror, you are a terrorist.

Brown's actions at Harper's Ferry, which we will get to later, are a little cloudier, and there is certainly room for debate, even though I would still argue that they were criminal acts. But his actions in Kansas cannot IMO be distinquished from any member of al-Qaeda.

Dred Scott, Continued

Republicans adopted the dissents by Curtis and McLean as their official position on the case. Not only was Scott a free man by virtue of his prolonged residence in free territory, said the dissenters, but he was also a citizen under the Constitution. An that Constitution did empower Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. "All needful rules and regulations" meant precisely what it said. The first Congress under the Constitution had reaffirmed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery in the Northwest Territory. Subsequent Congresses down through 1820 excluded slavery from specific territories on 4 additional occasions. Many framers of the Constitution were alive during this period, and none objected to these acts. Indeed, several framers served in Congress and voted for them or, as presidents of the United States, signed them into law! If the exclusion of slavery from a territory violated due process, asked Curtis, what of the 1807 law ending importation of slaves from Africa? Indeed, what of laws in free states banning slavery? In any case, to prevent a slaveowner from taking his slavers into a territory did not deprive him of that property.

Instead of removing the issue of slavery in the territories from politics, the Court's ruling itself became a political issue. Northern Democrats gloated that Taney's opinion was "the funeral sermon of Black Republicanism...crushing and annihilating...the anti-slavery platform...at a single blow." Southerners congratulated themselves that "Southern opinion upon the sublect of Southern slavery...is now the supreme law of the land." The decision "crushes the life out that miserable...Black Republican organization." But the Republican party declined to die. Its press condemned this "jesuitical decision" (this was a pretty blatant attack on the fact that Taney was a Catholic; perhaps as an attempt to gain the support of the Know-Nothings) based on "gross historical falsehoods" and a "willful perversion" of the Constitution. If this ruling "shall stand for law" wrote William Cullen Bryant, slavery was no longer the "peculiar institution" of 15 states but "a Federal institution. Are we to accept this? Never! Never!" In this spirit several Republican state legislatures passed resolutions condemning the ruling. Many Republicans declared the entire decision was "dictum", which served to justify their refusal to recognize the ruling as binding. They proclaimed an intent to "reconstitute" the Court after winning the presidency in 1860 and to overturn the "inhuman dicta" of Dred Scott.

It sooned dawned on Northern Democrats that Taney had aimed to discomfit them as well as the Republicans. Although the question of popular sovereignity had not been directly before the Court, the main principle of Dred Scott was that slavery could not be excluded from the territories. Douglas grasped this nettle fearlessly. Yes, he said in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, in June 1857, the Dred Scott decision was law and all good citizens must obey it. A master's right to take slaves into any territory was irrevocable. BUT- citizens of a territory could still control this matter. How? The right of property in slaves "necessarily remains a barren and worthless right," said Douglas, "unless sustained, protected, and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation" which depended on "the will and the wishes of the people of the Territory."

This anticipated the famous Freeport doctrine enunciated by Douglas more than a year later in his debates with Lincoln. It was an ingenious attempt to enable both Northern and Southern Democrats to have their cake and eat it. It might have worked had not LeCompton crumbled Democratic unity. The southern Democrats agreed with Douglas that Dred Scott would not enforce itself. But much to his chagrin they insisted that it therefore must be enforced by Congress. "We demand it, we mean to have it," said Sen. Albert G. Brown of Mississippi. Congress must pass a federal slave code in the territories, argued Brown, and enforce it with the United States Army. And Brown went on in his speech to make clear what would happen if Congress did not do so:

If pirates seized ships owned by citizens of Massachusetts, senators of that state would rightfully demand naval protection. Have I, sir, less right to demand protection for my slave property in the Territories? If you of the North deny to us rights guaranteed by the Constitution...then,sir...the Union is a despotism and I am prepared to retire from the concern.

Dred Scott, concluded (and prelude to Lincoln/Douglas)

Thus instead of crippling the Republican party as Taney had hoped, the Dred Scot decision strengthened it by widening the sectional schism among Democrats. Republicans moved quickly to exploit their advantage by depicting the decision as a consequence of a slave-power conspiracy. Seward and Lincoln were two of the foremost advocates of a conspiracy theory. Citing "whisperings" between Taney and Buchanan at the inaugural (see Bobbylayne's earlier post on this), Seward charged collusion between the president-elect and the chief justice. Seward's accusations provoked an uproar. Some historians have echoed Democratic opinion that they were "venemous" and "slanderous". Most disagree. In any case, Seward's insinuations enraged Taney. He later said that had Seward been the Republican candidate instead of Lincoln and been elected in 1860 (as could easily have happened as we shall see), he would have refused to give the oath of office. Ironically, Taney did eventually give the oath to Lincoln, who made the exact same charge. (But Lincoln was less well known at this time, so his charge wasn't as publicized.)

Lincoln repeated the charge in speech after speech, including his nomination speech for Senator for 1858. He had decided, against great odds, to run against Stephen A. Douglas. This speech, which was considered much too radical by Lincoln's law partner, Herndon, was made on June 16, 1858, and included a line that would become famous: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" said Lincoln paraphrasing Jesus. "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." The opponents of slavery hoped to stop the spread of the institution and "place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." But advocates of slavery were trying to "push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States...North as well as South." How could they do this? "Simply by the next Dred Scott decision. If, per the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution protected the right of property in a slave, noted Lincoln, then "nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave."

This was the message that Lincoln carried to Illinois voters in dozen of speeches during that summer of 1858. Douglas traversed the same territory branding Lincoln a Black Republican whose abolition doctrine would destroy the Union and flood Illinois with thousands of thick lipped, bullet headed, degenerate blacks. Lincoln "believes that the Almighty made the Negro equal to the white man," said Douglas at Springfield in July. "He thinks the Negro is my brother. I do not think the Negro is any kin of mine...This government was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity, to be executed and managed by white men."

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Part One

Desiring to confront Douglas directly, Lincoln proposed a series of debates. Douglas agreed to seven confrontations in various parts of the state. These debates are deservedly the most famous in American history. They matched two powerful logicians and hard-hitting speakers, one of them nationally eminent and the other little known outside his region. To the seven prarie towns came thousands of farmers, workers, clerks, lawyers, and people from all walks of life to sit and stand outdoors for hours in sunshine or rain, heat or cold, dust or mud. The crowds participated in the debates by shouted questions, pointed comments, cheers, and groans.

The stakes were higher than a senatorial election, higher even than the looming presidential election of 1860. The theme of the debates was nothing less than the future of slavery and the Union. Tarrifs, banks, international improvements, corruption, and other staples of American politics received not a word in the debates. The sole topic was slavery.

Like so many other topics we will be discussing in this thread, there are literally dozens of books, some of them quite thick, devoted to these debates as the sole topic. They comprise one of the most studied events in American political history. Even giving a synopsis that will take up several posts, as I have planned, will only scratch the surface of this topic. But I think it's vital to do so, for two reasons: the first is, obviously, the historical importance. More than any event which led up to them, these debates served to finally sever the Democratic party between North and South, and thus destroy it's chances of re-election.

The other reason is that, for all of those people who have forever debated Abraham Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery and toward black people, these debates provide the closest we are ever going to get into the mind of this remarkable man with regard to these issues.

Synopsis coming shortly.

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Continued

In the fashion of debaters, Douglas and Lincoln opened with slashing attacks designed to force the other man to spend his time defending vunerable positions. Lincoln's main thrust was the accusation that Douglas had departed from the position of the Founding Fathers, while the Republicans were upholding that position. Lincoln:

(Like the Founding Fathers) Republicans insist that slavery should as far as may be, be treated as a wrong, and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. (The country) cannot exist forever half slave and half free; it had existed so far only because until 1854 most Americans shared the Founders' faith that restricting slavery's growth would put it on the path to ultimate extinction. But the Senator (Douglas) not only looks to no end of the institution of slavery, he looks to its perpetuity and nationalization. He is therefore eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people.

In one respect Lincoln's celebrated Freeport question was a departure from this strategy of linking Douglas to the slave power. Was there any lawful way, Lincoln asked at Freeport, that the people of a territory could exclude slavery if they wished to do so? The point of the question, of course, was to nail the contradiction between Dred Scott and popular sovereignity. Folklore history has portrayed this question as the stone that slew Goliath. If Douglas answered No, he alienated Illinois voters and jeopardized his re-election to the Senate. If he answered Yes, he alienated the South and lost their support for the presidency in 1860.

The problem with this thesis is that Douglas had already confronted the issue many times. Lincoln knew how he would answer the question. Lincoln:

He will instantly take ground that slavery can not actually exist in the territories, unless the people desire it, and so give it protective territorial legislation. If this offends the South he will let it offend them; as at all events he means to hold on to his chances in Illinois...He cares nothing for the South- he knows he is already dead there because of his opposition to Lecompton.

The above quote is from a letter by Lincoln to his friend Henry Asbury, dated July 31, 1858. What's noteworthy here is that it reveals a politically shrewd Lincoln who understand the nuances of power politics much better than his legend, both then and now, portrays.

Lincoln asked the question anyway; Douglas answered as expected. His answer became famous in retrospect as the Freeport Doctrine. It did play a role in prompting the southern demand for a territorial slave code- an issue that split the Democratic party in 1860. But this would have happened anyway. Lincoln did not press the question in subsequent debates, for its tendency to highlight Douglas's differences from southern Democrats ran counter to Lincoln's effort to highlight their similarities.

(The last few paragraphs I have posted here are from McPherson, and once again he cites Fehrenbacker as his source. Other historians place a much greater emphasis on the "trap" nature of Lincoln's question at Freeport and agree more with what McPherson seems to discount as "folklore history". I can't tell you who is right or wrong in this apparent disagreement between historians, except to say that Fehrenbacker's books are relatively new.)

Douglas's counterattack coming up...

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it took 8 pages...

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Continued

Douglas's counterattack smote Lincoln's house-divided metaphor. Douglas:

Why cannot the country continue to exist divided into free and slave States? Whatever their personal sentiments toward slavery, the Founding Fathers left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject. If the nation cannot endure thus divided, then he (Lincoln) must strive to make them all free or all slave, which will inevitably bring about a dissolution of the Union. To talk about ultimate extinction of slavery is revolutionary and destructive of the existence of this Government. If it means anything, it means warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall and become the victim of the rapacity of the other. No, I would not endanger the perpetuity of the Union. I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that ever existed.

Lincoln's inclusion of blacks among those "created equal" was "monstrous heresy,". Douglas:

The signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro...or any other inferior and degraded race when they spoke of the equality of men. Did Thomas Jefferson intend to say in that Declarationthat his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, were created his equals by Divine law, and that he was violating the law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves? (Crowd: NO! NO!)

Douglas hit his stride in exploitation of the race issue. He considered it a sure winner in southern and central Illinois. To cheering partisans he shouted:

The negro must always occupy an inferior position. Are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? (Crowd: NO! NO!) Do you desire to strike out of our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the State...in order that when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send 100,000 emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters on an equality with yourselves? (Crowd: NEVER! NO!) If you desire to allow them to come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote...then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the Negro. (Crowd: NEVER! NEVER!)

How did Douglas know that Lincoln favored these things? Because black speakers were campaigning for him in the Yankee districts of northern Illinois, that's why. Douglas:

(This demonstrates) how much interest our colored brethren feel in the success of their brother Abe. (Crowd: Laughter) Why, in Freeport I saw a handsome carriage drive up to a Lincoln meeting. A beautiful young lady was sitting in the box seat, whilst Frederick Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver...if you, Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so...Those of you who believe that the negro is your equal...of course you will vote for Mr. Lincoln. (Crowd: DOWN WITH THE NEGRO! NO! NO!)

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Continued

Douglas's harping on this theme exasperated Lincoln. "Negro equality! Fudge!" he wrote privately. "How long...shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougeism?" But try as he might, Lincoln could not ignore the issue. As he emerged from his hotel for the 4th debate at Charleston in southern Illinois, a man asked him if he was "really in favor of producing a perfect equality between negroes and white people." Placed on the defensive, Lincoln replied defensively:

Anything that argues me into his (Douglas) idea of a perfect social and political equality is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I admit that I believe black people to be entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily have her for a wife. (Crowd: Cheers and laughter.)

Lincoln then spelled out his position with clarity:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. (Crowd: applause) I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

So far Lincoln would go in concession to the prejudices of most Illinois voters. But no farther:

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man- this race and that race and the other race being inferior. Instead, let us unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. Whether or not the black man is equal to the white man in mental or moral endowment, in the right to eat bread, without 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. (Crowd: great applause). As for political rights, intermarrying, and the like, these are matters for the State Legislature, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature where he can fight the measures. (Crowd: Uproarious laughter and applause.)

(I want to note that the above sentence, "So far Lincoln would go in concession to the prejudices of most Illinois voters" is McPherson's, and it suggests that Lincoln did not really mean what he is quoted as saying in the middle paragraph of this thread. On the other hand, modern day disparagers of Lincoln harp on those words, in order to suggest that Lincoln really was very racist in his thinking.)

jwb said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it took 8 pages...

Click to expand...

It follows from Yankee's argument that it is ALWAYS wrong to break the law. Since everyone seems to KNOW the Nazi's were wrong, according to Yankee logic breaking the laws the Nazi's put in place or worse, killing them, should be punishable and seen as wrong on its face.I don't make the rules.

Gigantomachia said:

jwb said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it took 8 pages...

Click to expand...

It follows from Yankee's argument that it is ALWAYS wrong to break the law. Since everyone seems to KNOW the Nazi's were wrong, according to Yankee logic breaking the laws the Nazi's put in place or worse, killing them, should be punishable and seen as wrong on its face.I don't make the rules.

Click to expand...

Show me where I said it is "always" "wrong" to break the law. And be careful, because you've already failed the challenge presented.

timschochet said:

The Lincoln/Douglas Debates, Continued

Douglas's harping on this theme exasperated Lincoln. "Negro equality! Fudge!" he wrote privately. "How long...shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougeism?" But try as he might, Lincoln could not ignore the issue. As he emerged from his hotel for the 4th debate at Charleston in southern Illinois, a man asked him if he was "really in favor of producing a perfect equality between negroes and white people." Placed on the defensive, Lincoln replied defensively:

Anything that argues me into his (Douglas) idea of a perfect social and political equality is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I admit that I believe black people to be entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily have her for a wife. (Crowd: Cheers and laughter.)

Lincoln then spelled out his position with clarity:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. (Crowd: applause) I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

So far Lincoln would go in concession to the prejudices of most Illinois voters. But no farther:

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man- this race and that race and the other race being inferior. Instead, let us unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. Whether or not the black man is equal to the white man in mental or moral endowment, in the right to eat bread, without 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. (Crowd: great applause). As for political rights, intermarrying, and the like, these are matters for the State Legislature, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature where he can fight the measures. (Crowd: Uproarious laughter and applause.)

(I want to note that the above sentence, "So far Lincoln would go in concession to the prejudices of most Illinois voters" is McPherson's, and it suggests that Lincoln did not really mean what he is quoted as saying in the middle paragraph of this thread. On the other hand, modern day disparagers of Lincoln harp on those words, in order to suggest that Lincoln really was very racist in his thinking.)

Click to expand...

DEcent synopsis so far so I won't add anything to make it longer. It is intersting to note, however, the method of these deabtes has taken over the lexicon of the debate. When people think of a debate they think of waht amounts to a modified version of Lincoln Douglas. We have people complain every 4 years or so that Presidential debates aren't debates any more because they don't fit our idea of what the Lincoln Douglas method as modified today would be. Or, they simply want an argument of back and forth questions - which never really gets anywhere.People would travel miles to listen to these guys for hours. Each speech was an education on American history, politics, society, law and policy that is just so far above and beyond what we get today that it is extraordinary. Not only do politicians today lack the ability to debate/speak in this manner on such important and difficult policy questions for such a long time, but the public lacks the ability to understand or stand for the time necessary to absorb the information. What took Lincoln and Douglas over a combined 20 hours to discuss, would be broken down today into reciprocal 30 second adds void of any of the lengthy but vitally important backdrop and context for the positions and arguments raised.

Perhaps one day we can demand of our leaders a more intellectual Lincoln Douglas style debate of national policy when choosing who to vote for. First, we need to demand it from ourselves.

Yankee23Fan said:

DEcent synopsis so far so I won't add anything to make it longer. It is intersting to note, however, the method of these deabtes has taken over the lexicon of the debate. When people think of a debate they think of waht amounts to a modified version of Lincoln Douglas. We have people complain every 4 years or so that Presidential debates aren't debates any more because they don't fit our idea of what the Lincoln Douglas method as modified today would be. Or, they simply want an argument of back and forth questions - which never really gets anywhere.People would travel miles to listen to these guys for hours. Each speech was an education on American history, politics, society, law and policy that is just so far above and beyond what we get today that it is extraordinary. Not only do politicians today lack the ability to debate/speak in this manner on such important and difficult policy questions for such a long time, but the public lacks the ability to understand or stand for the time necessary to absorb the information. What took Lincoln and Douglas over a combined 20 hours to discuss, would be broken down today into reciprocal 30 second adds void of any of the lengthy but vitally important backdrop and context for the positions and arguments raised.Perhaps one day we can demand of our leaders a more intellectual Lincoln Douglas style debate of national policy when choosing who to vote for. First, we need to demand it from ourselves.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's rather mundane to say because it's been said so many times, but Lincoln never would have been elected in the modern era. Not flashy enough, not good looking enough, not trained with a soundbite. Also, he had a point of view.

The 1858 Illinois state election results are interesting. That state really was in many respects a microcasm of the entire country, without the actual bloody confrontations that consumed Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska.

Almost every single Eastern & Northern District of Illinois went to Lincoln men. And almost every Southern & Western District went to Douglas men. The split is almost in the exact geographic center of the state. There are about 3 outlying counties that went the opposite direction or split their vote. Of the 7 debate sites, Lincoln won 4 of them.

The Illinois General Assembly in 1858 had 100 members: 25 senators and 75 representatives. Only half of the State Senators were up for election: 13 Senators were in the middle of their term so not running, and 12 were up for election. With the seats of 75 representatives and 12 senators, there were 87 members of the General Assembly (out of its 100 members) who were being elected. Democrats won 46 of these seats, and Republicans won 41 of the seats.

The outcome of the election for the House was 35 Republicans and 40 Democrats, 75 in total. The outcome of the election for the Senate was 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats, 25 in total. As a result, the General Assembly would have 46 Republican members and 54 Democratic members, 100 in total. The new General Assembly convened on January 3, 1859. Two days later, to no one's surprise, Senator Douglas was re-elected by a straight party-line vote of 54 to 46.

If the votes in all House districts across the state were combined, Republican candidates received 190,468 votes; Douglas Democratic candidates received 166,374 votes; and 9951 votes went to Buchanan Democrats or write-ins. The same happened in the twelve open State Senate districts: Republican candidates received 53,784 votes; Douglas Democratic candidates received 44,750 votes; and Buchanan Democrats/others received 1308 votes. Then as now, apportionment was a volatile political issue, and the apportionment of districts within Illinois in 1858 was complicated by the fact that it was now eight years since the last census, covering a period in which Illinois had significant population growth in the northern half of the state which tended to be more Republican. One Republican newspaper claimed that Republican districts by 1858 had an average population of 19,655 while Democratic districts averaged 15,675, which would enable the Democrats to gain more seats with fewer total votes. The Republican Party had not even been in existence when the apportionment was done after the 1850 census, and had

competed only in one prior state election, in 1856.

It was also an off-year election for state wide offices and as a result even though it was a hot button issue campaign with national attention, the voting numbers were lower then what would have been expected in a Presidential/Governor year.

(Yes I quoted a ton of that from an online source - I can't be expected to remember every number from 150 years ago, can I?)

Yankee, when you use the term "Lincoln men", were these men beholden to Lincoln himself? Or were they simply fellow Republicans?

I know that in Pennsylvania when Simon Cameron decided to switch to Republican, he took his entire powerful party machine with him. (Cameron is a colorful character who we will discuss later.) Was it the same in Illinois?

timschochet said:

Yankee, when you use the term "Lincoln men", were these men beholden to Lincoln himself? Or were they simply fellow Republicans?I know that in Pennsylvania when Simon Cameron decided to switch to Republican, he took his entire powerful party machine with him. (Cameron is a colorful character who we will discuss later.) Was it the same in Illinois?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. My sense is that they were loyal to Lincoln more then just the Republican to be named later. Many of them won and got the chance they did specifically because of Lincoln and the effect he had on the party and the national recognition he gave it.

Dixie

Around the same time as the Lincoln/Douglas debates, a member of the blackface singing group Bryant's Minstrels, based in New York City, named Daniel Emmit, was looking for a new tune to please audiences. The group, made up of Irishman who blackened their faces in order to pretend to be Black, was quite popular, and Emmitt, who was born in Ohio, has been credited with writing some of the most famous songs in American history, including "Old Man Tucker" and "Turkey In The Straw" (though the claim of having composed "Turkey" has been challenged by some music historians.)

But no song was to become as famous as the one first performed by Bryant's Minstrels on April 4, 1859, at Mechanic's Hall in New York City. The song was in response to the abolitionist movement; it was supposed to be sung by a freed black man who wishes he could return to the south, where he was happier. The suggestion is that slavery was a positive for blacks. The first verse made this clear:

I wish I was in de land of cotton,

Old times dar am not forgotten;

Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land whar I was born in,

Early on one frosty mornin,

Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

There are actually 32 verses to this song. And my characterization of it as being written by Emmitt has been challenged by several others who claim ownership of this song. But this version is the one typically accepted.

How this song, first performed in New York, would within two years become the anthem of the Confederacy is a fascinating topic which I shall relate later on.

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Yankee, when you use the term "Lincoln men", were these men beholden to Lincoln himself? Or were they simply fellow Republicans?I know that in Pennsylvania when Simon Cameron decided to switch to Republican, he took his entire powerful party machine with him. (Cameron is a colorful character who we will discuss later.) Was it the same in Illinois?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. My sense is that they were loyal to Lincoln more then just the Republican to be named later. Many of them won and got the chance they did specifically because of Lincoln and the effect he had on the party and the national recognition he gave it.

Click to expand...

IMO both the Blair family and the Cameron family had a lot of power; prior to 1860, Lincoln needed them a whole lot more than they needed him.

The Lincoln/Douglas Debate, Concluded

Despite Lincoln's wit, Douglas scored points on the race issue. The Little Giant also backed Lincoln into a corner on the matter of slavery's "ultimate extinction." More than once Lincoln had said: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." "Well, if he is not in favor of that," said Douglas, "how does he expect to bring slavery in a course of ultimate extinction?" (Crowd: HIT HIM AGAIN!) With such obfuscatory rhetoric, charged Douglas, the Black Republicans tried to conceal thier purpose to attack slavery and break up the Union. Licoln replied that when he spoke of ultimate extinction, he meant just that. Lincoln:

I did not mean it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years in the leaast; but it will occur in the best way for both races in God's good tie, I have no doubt. (Applause.)

Like the abolitionists, Lincoln refused to be drawn into discussion of a "plan" for ending slavery. He hoped that southerners would one day come to regard bondage as evil, just as Washington, Jefferson, and the other founders had regarded it. Lincoln (in from the last debate):

...And just as the (Founders) had limited its expension as a first step toward ending the evil, I have no doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we but re-adopted the policy of the Fathers.

In any case the questions of a perfect social and political equality upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy are false issues. The true issue is the morality and future of slavery. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles- right and wrong- throughout the world...from the beginning of time...The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings...No matter in what shape it comes, whether from a king who seeks to betstride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

In the judgment of history- or at least the judgment of historians, Lincoln won the debate. But as Yankee23fan notes, he lost the election. However, he had become famous: liked in the North, feared and hated in the South.

Next up: Harper's Ferry and John Brown.

Yankee23Fan said:

Gigantomachia said:

jwb said:

Gigantomachia said:

Yankee23Fan said:

There really isn't any debate. Brown and his "men" murdered people and broke other laws as well. He was at best a criminal.

Click to expand...

Same could be said for anyone that protected Jews during the 1930's as well. And yes, some killed Nazi's to protect the Jews, which according to your logic would be murder and against the law.But we should wait, this is coming.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it took 8 pages...

Click to expand...

It follows from Yankee's argument that it is ALWAYS wrong to break the law. Since everyone seems to KNOW the Nazi's were wrong, according to Yankee logic breaking the laws the Nazi's put in place or worse, killing them, should be punishable and seen as wrong on its face.I don't make the rules.

Click to expand...

Show me where I said it is "always" "wrong" to break the law. And be careful, because you've already failed the challenge presented.

Click to expand...

Ok yankee.I will address this when I have time, but don't fool yourself. Well, it might be too late for that.

Gigantomachia said:

Ok yankee.I will address this when I have time, but don't fool yourself. Well, it might be too late for that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I figured. Stick to philosophy. You aren't very good at this when there are actual answers.ETA: How's the bar going by the way? Haven't heard any updates on that in awhile....

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Yankee, when you use the term "Lincoln men", were these men beholden to Lincoln himself? Or were they simply fellow Republicans?I know that in Pennsylvania when Simon Cameron decided to switch to Republican, he took his entire powerful party machine with him. (Cameron is a colorful character who we will discuss later.) Was it the same in Illinois?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. My sense is that they were loyal to Lincoln more then just the Republican to be named later. Many of them won and got the chance they did specifically because of Lincoln and the effect he had on the party and the national recognition he gave it.

Click to expand...

IMO both the Blair family and the Cameron family had a lot of power; prior to 1860, Lincoln needed them a whole lot more than they needed him.

Click to expand...

I thought he was referring to the state legislature in Illinois in 1858 and not the contestants in 1860?

The Pattern 1853 Enfield

Interpersed throughout this thread we will try to have some discussion of the weaponry used in the Civil War, along with other details that might interest people. I decided, since we're approaching 1860 in the timeline, this was as good a time as any to discuss the rifle which, until 1861, was the most widely used by the United States Army, and which remained the most popular on the Confederate side throughout the war.

The Enfield was a miuzzle-loading rifle-musket, which had been developed in England and used by the British effectively in several wars and conflicts, including the Crimean War and Indian mutiny. The term “Rifle-Musket” meant that the rifle was the same length as the musket it replaced, as a long rifle it was thought necessary so that the muzzles of the second rank of soldiers would project beyond the faces of the men in front, ensuring that the weapon would be sufficiently long enough for a bayonet fight, should such an eventuality arise.

The 39" barrel had three grooves, with a 1:78 rifling twist, and was fastened to the stock with three metal bands, so that the rifle was often called a "three band" model.

The rifle's cartridges contained 68 grains (4.4 g) of black powder, and the ball was typically a 530-grain (34 g) Pritchett or a Burton-Minié, which would be driven out at about 850-900 feet per second.

The Enfield’s adjustable ladder rear sight had steps for 100 (the default or “battle sight” range), 200, 300, and 400 yards (370 m). For distances beyond that an adjustable flip-up blade sight was graduated (depending on the model and date of manufacture) from 900 to 1,250 yards (1,140 m). British soldiers were trained to hit a target 6 foot by 2 foot (with a 2 foot diameter bull's eye - counting 2 points) out to 600 yards. The target used from 650 to 900 yards had a 3 foot bull's eye, with any man scoring 7 points with 20 rounds at that range being designated a marksman.

In 1861, the American Springfield rifle was produced in Massachusetts, and this rifle quickly became the weapon of choice for the Yankees, principally because they could manufacture it and did not have to import it. When the time comes we will examine that weapon, and then compare the two.

A few more facts about the Enfield:

With a length of 55 inches, it weighed 9 1/2 pounds unloaded. That's actually lighter than the M-14, the Army standard issue rifle until 1970, which weighed 11.5 pounds. But it's more than an M-16, which is under 8 pounds, and it may be significant that the Springfield was slightly lighter at 9 pounds.

In terms of loading and firing, a competant infantry man could fire off 3 rounds in one minute, given the elaborate procedure involved of reloading after firing. Of course, when you're in the middle of a battle with smoke and screaming and people dying all around you, the ability to perform these tasks vary wildly depending on the individual soldier. Some averaged 2 rounds per minute instead of three, and obviously this was significant to both sides.

Harper's Ferry, Part One

Like Dred Scott, John Brown lived the first 50 odd years of his life in obscurity. Unlike Scott, he attained notoriety not through the law but by lawlessness. Except for a brief reappearance in the Kansas wars, however, Brown's activities for 3 years after 1856 were more mysterious than notorious. He made several trips east to raise money for the freedom fight in Kansas. As he shuttled back and forth, Brown evolved a plan to strike against slavery in the heartland. Like the Old Testament warriors he admired and resembled, he yearned to carry the war into Babylon. He studied books on guerilla warfare and on slave revolts. Fascinated by the ability of small bands to hold off larger forces in mountainous terrain, Brown conceived the idea of a raid into the Appalachian foothills of Virginia. From there he would move southward along the mountains attracting slaves to his banner. In May 1858 Brown journeyed with 11 white followers to a community of former slaves in Chatham, Canada. 34 blacks met secretly with Brown's group to adopt a "provisional constitution" for the republic of liberated slaves to be established in the mountains. The delegates elected Brown commander in chief of the army of this new nation.

John Brown had never shared the commitment of most abolitionists to non-violence. Not for him was the Christ-like martyrdom of Uncle Tom. Brown's God was the Jehovah who drowned Pharoah's mercenaries in the Red Sea; his Jesus was the angry man who drove moneychangers from the temple. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin," was his favorite New Testament passage (Hebrews 9:22). Bondage was "a most barbarous, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war" of masters against slaves, declared the preamble of Brown's Chatham constitution. Victory over these "thieves and murderers" could be won only by a revolution. "Talk! talk! talk!" exclaimed Brown in disgust after attending a meeting of the New England Anti-Slavery Society. "That will never free the slaves. What is needed is action- action."

Events during the 1850s had converted some abolitionists to Brown's view. Violence had won the Southwest from Mexico; threats of violence by southerners in Congress had opened most of it to slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act did more than anything else to discredit nonviolence. Before 1850 Frederick Douglas had been a pacifist. "Were I asked the question whether I would have my emancipation by the shedding of one single drop of blood," he said in the 1840s, "my answer would be in the negative...The only well grounded hope of the slave for emancipation is the operation of moral force." But a month after enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act he changed his tune and advocated "forcible resistance" to the law. "Slaveholders, tyrants and despots have no right to live," said Douglas now. One of his favorite sayings became "who would be free must himself strike the blow."

I want to stop here in the narrative to examine what has been written so far and comment, because the subject fascinates me. This nation, and civilization in general, is supposed to be about settling differences between people through lawful means, without unlawful violence. Yet the fact remains that many of the most important social changes in our history were a direct result of violence, and might not have occured without violence, including, of course, the emancipation of the slaves. I am unable to solve this contradiction, and I'm unsure it can be solved.

On the other hand, there is a moral difference, IMO, between Douglas's notion of using force to resist evil, even when the evil is the law, and John Brown's willingness to murder innocent people, which for me puts him in the position of a terrorist. But it may be that to differentiate between the two is pointless, since if we grant Douglas or someone like him the moral right to use force outside of the law, we are making a John Brown inevitable.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'll continue telling the story of John Brown shortly, but I would like to get some comments.

Yankee23Fan said:

BobbyLayne said:

Yankee23Fan said:

timschochet said:

Yankee, when you use the term "Lincoln men", were these men beholden to Lincoln himself? Or were they simply fellow Republicans?I know that in Pennsylvania when Simon Cameron decided to switch to Republican, he took his entire powerful party machine with him. (Cameron is a colorful character who we will discuss later.) Was it the same in Illinois?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. My sense is that they were loyal to Lincoln more then just the Republican to be named later. Many of them won and got the chance they did specifically because of Lincoln and the effect he had on the party and the national recognition he gave it.

Click to expand...

IMO both the Blair family and the Cameron family had a lot of power; prior to 1860, Lincoln needed them a whole lot more than they needed him.

Click to expand...

I thought he was referring to the state legislature in Illinois in 1858 and not the contestants in 1860?

Click to expand...

:roseanne roseannadanna:

timschochet said:

A few more facts about the Enfield:

With a length of 55 inches, it weighed 9 1/2 pounds unloaded. That's actually lighter than the M-14, the Army standard issue rifle until 1970, which weighed 11.5 pounds. But it's more than an M-16, which is under 8 pounds, and it may be significant that the Springfield was slightly lighter at 9 pounds.

In terms of loading and firing, a competant infantry man could fire off 3 rounds in one minute, given the elaborate procedure involved of reloading after firing. Of course, when you're in the middle of a battle with smoke and screaming and people dying all around you, the ability to perform these tasks vary wildly depending on the individual soldier. Some averaged 2 rounds per minute instead of three, and obviously this was significant to both sides.

Click to expand...

Quite a few stories abound of soldiers coming out of a battle with 8-10 balls jammed down the barrel. Thousands of muskets and rifles, cannon balls exploding, can't hear anything, minnie balls whizzing around, guys wouldn't even realize the gun hadn't fired. They would forget something simple like putting the primer cap in - or worse, forgetting to remove the ramrod (which makes a rather distinctive sound as a projectile).

timschochet said:

Dixie

The song was in response to the abolitionist movement; it was supposed to be sung by a freed black man who wishes he could return to the south, where he was happier. The suggestion is that slavery was a positive for blacks.

Click to expand...

I've read various stories on the origins of the song and even who wrote it, but I don't think I've ever read that it was in response to the abolitionist movement.Here's one story on its origins from 1893

www.civilwarhome.com

snip

It was Saturday night in 1859, when Dan Emmett was a member of Bryant's Minstrels in New York. Bryant came to Emmett and said: "Dan, can't you get us up a walk-around? I want something new and lively for Monday night." At that date all minstrel shows used to wind up with a "walk-around." The demand for them was constant, and Emmett was the composer of all the "walk-arounds" of Bryant's band. Emmett of course went to work, but he had done so much in that line that nothing at first satisfactory to him presented itself. At last he hit upon the first two bars, and any composer can tell how good a start that is in the manufacture of a tune. By Sunday afternoon he had the words, commencing: "I wish I was in Dixie." This colloquial expression was not, as most people suppose, a Southern phrase, but first appeared among the circus people of the North. In early fall, when nipping frosts would overtake the tented wanderers, the boys would think of the genial warmth of that section for which they were heading, and the common expression would be, "Well, I wish I was down in Dixie."

Click to expand...

We close each SCV meeting by joining hands and singing Dixie. I don't know if it was a frosty morning, but I was born around 2am in mid February, so it was early and I like to think was frosty.

Mjolnirs said:

timschochet said:

Dixie

The song was in response to the abolitionist movement; it was supposed to be sung by a freed black man who wishes he could return to the south, where he was happier. The suggestion is that slavery was a positive for blacks.

Click to expand...

I've read various stories on the origins of the song and even who wrote it, but I don't think I've ever read that it was in response to the abolitionist movement.Here's one story on its origins from 1893

www.civilwarhome.com

snip

It was Saturday night in 1859, when Dan Emmett was a member of Bryant's Minstrels in New York. Bryant came to Emmett and said: "Dan, can't you get us up a walk-around? I want something new and lively for Monday night." At that date all minstrel shows used to wind up with a "walk-around." The demand for them was constant, and Emmett was the composer of all the "walk-arounds" of Bryant's band. Emmett of course went to work, but he had done so much in that line that nothing at first satisfactory to him presented itself. At last he hit upon the first two bars, and any composer can tell how good a start that is in the manufacture of a tune. By Sunday afternoon he had the words, commencing: "I wish I was in Dixie." This colloquial expression was not, as most people suppose, a Southern phrase, but first appeared among the circus people of the North. In early fall, when nipping frosts would overtake the tented wanderers, the boys would think of the genial warmth of that section for which they were heading, and the common expression would be, "Well, I wish I was down in Dixie."

Click to expand...

We close each SCV meeting by joining hands and singing Dixie. I don't know if it was a frosty morning, but I was born around 2am in mid February, so it was early and I like to think was frosty.

Click to expand...

I got the part about the abolitionist movement from Wiki:Emmett's lyrics as they were originally intended reflect the mood of the United States in the late 1850s toward growing abolitionist sentiment. The song presented the point of view, common to minstrelsy at the time, that slavery was overall a positive institution. The pining slave had been used in minstrel tunes since the early 1850s, including Emmett's "I Ain't Got Time to Tarry" and "Johnny Roach". The fact that "Dixie" and its precursors are dance tunes only further made light of the subject.[12] In short, "Dixie" made the case, more strongly than any previous minstrel tune had, that slaves belonged in bondage.[13] This was accomplished through the song's protagonist, who, in comic black dialect, implies that despite his freedom, he is homesick for the plantation of his birth: