Taking this thread back from the folks who eat Trump news for breakfast:
Did Lincoln cause the Civil War by getting elected?
Lincoln said many times that he could not act against slavery - and did not want to - and would not do so - even after Dred Scott, even in his first inaugural (much wordier than his better later writings):
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; ...
* *. *. *. *
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. ...."
*. *. *. *. *
And yet, there was secession and war despite the promises about protecting slavery.
In the same speech, Lincoln also said THIS:
"Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave?"
Paraphrasing - "you slaveowners talk about your liberty and property rights - which you also argue should not protect a slave - so shouldn't you fight just as hard to make sure a free man is not wrongly enslaved or re-enslaved - shouldn't due process be allowed to make that decision - you hypocritical bastages?"
Slavery was going to be protected - and the South knew it. Again and again it had been - by compromises that preserved their numerical stand-off, and by federal law, and by Constitutional enshrinement, and by Dred Scott. The Secesh were tired of being deemed immoral. They just didn't want to be a part of the "United" States anymore, and they thought they could secede and get away with it because Northern people wouldn't allow a war - or not for long enough.
Does that mean slavery was "the" cause? Yes. It was the foundation stone for ALL causes.
Did Lincoln cause the Civil War by getting elected?
Lincoln said many times that he could not act against slavery - and did not want to - and would not do so - even after Dred Scott, even in his first inaugural (much wordier than his better later writings):
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; ...
* *. *. *. *
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. ...."
*. *. *. *. *
And yet, there was secession and war despite the promises about protecting slavery.
In the same speech, Lincoln also said THIS:
"Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave?"
Paraphrasing - "you slaveowners talk about your liberty and property rights - which you also argue should not protect a slave - so shouldn't you fight just as hard to make sure a free man is not wrongly enslaved or re-enslaved - shouldn't due process be allowed to make that decision - you hypocritical bastages?"
Slavery was going to be protected - and the South knew it. Again and again it had been - by compromises that preserved their numerical stand-off, and by federal law, and by Constitutional enshrinement, and by Dred Scott. The Secesh were tired of being deemed immoral. They just didn't want to be a part of the "United" States anymore, and they thought they could secede and get away with it because Northern people wouldn't allow a war - or not for long enough.
Does that mean slavery was "the" cause? Yes. It was the foundation stone for ALL causes.
