Did President Lincoln believe Slavery caused the Civil War

FOR MORE GEORGE FOX TALKS
Main site: georgefox.edu/...
Podcast: georgefoxtalks...
Study with us: georgefox.edu/...
GFD on KZbin: / georgefoxdigital

[@lachlanbowden1323]

Interesting; never thought about this situation in those terms before.

[@scarecrow953]

Lincolns earliest discussions with his cabinet regarding emancipation was shot down. They believed Lincoln would look desperate because the north was losing the war. Lincoln began the first drafts of the EP as we read it today in July 1862. But, after the battle of Antietam in September of 1862, a major union win, Lincoln put forth the EP to all confederate governors and gave them a deadline of January 1, 1863 to rejoin the union, they could keep their slaves, or the EP would be put forth. No governors agreed.

[@judithsaunders3634]

Why didn’t Lincoln free the slaves in the Northern states before, during or after the war or even with the Emancipation Proclamation? It wasn’t until the 14th amendment passed that northern Slaves were freed.

[@randykcarr]

Fun fact that only freed southern slaves

[@ricksamericana749]

I am surprised this short of Dr. Guelzo does not mention Lincoln's delayed advocation for emancipation out of concerns for keeping Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri in the Union.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Dude, it's a 60 second short.

[@ricksamericana749]

​@@aaronfleming9426The key part of the question was "the day after Fort Sumter fell?" Concern over the seceded states was of primary concern at that point. According to the Jornal of the Abraham Lincoln association volume 13 issue 1 in a piece called Abraham Lincoln and the Border States by William Gienapp. Lincoln said in April of 1861, "I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky". Border state strategy is widely acknowledged to have been a major motive on Lincoln's early strategy so I'm curious about the omission... Dude.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@ricksamericana749 I'm surprised at how many people comment on these shorts and seem outraged that they don't include this or that fact or nuance. Just seems like we're setting some pretty high expectations for how much information we're going to get in a 55 second video.

[@ricksamericana749]

@@aaronfleming9426 Outraged?

[@f1y7rap]

@@aaronfleming9426 you clearly are incapable of seeing things from another vantage. Ricks clearly laid out his issue with the lack of an answer. Particularly when he was replying to a clearly arrogant individual... dude... that is on its face incapable of formulating an answer and so provided a flippant response in order to fill his ego. The video wants you to believe that slavery was at the core of the disagreement, while ignoring the recruitment/draft riots in NYC the day after the issuance of the proclamation. The reason for the riot is the POPULACE really didn't give a whit about slavery. It was the high-minded elites that cared about it. A very small percentage of the population owned slaves in the south. Because a black slave cost more than 2 or 3 houses. In today's terms it would be like buying a brand new combine harvester (they're over $1M for the simple ones)

[@henrycarlson7514]

So wise , Thank You

[@billmcleangunsmith]

I would like to hear the good doctor explain why Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves held in Northern states. If Lincoln was so compassionate about the plight of the slaves, why did the Emancipation Proclamation only apply to Southern states (where he was not President) and only those parts of Southern states that were not controlled by the Union army?

[@aaronfleming9426]

Go back and watch the video again. You missed it the first time. Also, maybe go read some Allen Guelzo books. He can explain a lot more in a book than he can in a 55 second short.

[@jacoboreyes3160]

He was president of those secesh states. They were just rebels.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@jacoboreyes3160 Good point.

[@owensomers8572]

Blah blah blah. Did you even watch the short?

[@Quantrills.Raiders]

@@jacoboreyes3160 he had no power in those states during the civil war, he was not the president

[@brianhannan8030]

Hell yeah Abe 😎

[@JayLeePoe]

It goes back to Calhoun and The Amistad-- John Quincy was the man to famously argue that case which was centrally motivating to Calhoun and his Rebels in moving on Ft. Sumter etc. _Brown sits on the Abolitionist side of Inevitability_

[@portrrbeeson3754]

Calhoun was a Democrat. Democrats fought tooth ans nail to keep slavery. Even after the civil war Democrat did every thing to keep former slaves from becoming citizens and keeping them from voting. Democrats still to this day do everything to keep them dependent on them.

[@owensomers8572]

You do realize that J. C. went to hell in 1850.

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

He could unilaterally free them all as an "official act" as president & it would be okay with some Supremes

[@gorkyd7912]

The law which prevents prosecution of a president for official acts has nothing to do with whether the president would have the legal authority to commit those acts in the first place. It seems like the same people confused by this also think that making gun-free zones prevents shootings in those areas, as if the law actually prevents people from doing things.

[@richardmoss620]

When will we tell the truth

[@allencollins9951]

Explain please

[@f1y7rap]

@@allencollins9951 While lawmakers and elites were concerned with slaves (keeping or abolishing) the average American didn't much care. It was only certain ethnicities, like the Irish, that were caught up in the morality of the cause (and yet still not all Irish were willing to fight over slavery). For MOST Americans it was about if they held the right to abandon what their forefathers died for. This is the reason that New England sought to secede for 14 yrs but never actually left. They had neither the funds or the forces to leave, but the real reason New England states sabre-rattled secession was to get more voice in Congress. Moreover, Lincoln pushed for the fight. VA asked for union forces to evacuate Sumter and the commander agreed to a timeline. Near the end of the timeline the Union reinforced the fort with men & material. They forced the fight. Same thing happened with the USS Maine in the Spanish American War. The govt put things in a hairy predicament and when it went sketchy, they used the propaganda win. Every Time. Go look at the navy ship that got us into Vietnam. Rarely does media tell the truth. Kinda like with Biden the past 4+ yrs.

[@jagaberdeen]

The heart of the civil war was not about slavery.. It was about states rights.. Then you will say well what did states rights mean?? And yes it was about slavery but that's not all it was about .. Now if you look right around when the civil war started, the North had the biggest tax ever imposed on the south .. And they were charging them fines and fees and taxes when they would buy things from the north.. And then when they would sell to the north they got more taxes and fees and fines.. So what the South did they decide to go to England and get the stuff they needed through England as opposed to going through the North.. Abraham Lincoln did not like this!! So now we start talking about fort Sumter.. Now we have a northern aggression on the shore making sure no ships would come to the South from England without paying tariffs! Well this was a problem!! The south felt like they shouldn't have to pay all these fees taxes and tariffs to the federal government.. This was the very same reason they just had a war with England.. And the South believed correctly.. that the federal government did not have that type of power.. Now Abraham Lincoln did not think this way.. Now we're going back to fort Sumter.. Being on the shore of Southern Carolina.. and we have an aggressive army of the north now arming fort Sumter.. and they were there for one reason to make sure that they were paying their fines their fees and not receiving anything from England.. Now England complained about this.. They even said in their newspapers that the North is doing exactly what they just had a war for 2 x against England.. And even they said it wasn't a correct war.. This had nothing to do with slavery.. So the emancipation proclamation.. Comes around 1863... The war has been in progress for quite some time... Abraham Lincoln knows this is an illegal war.. He is now trying to justify it.. So he makes the emancipation proclamation.. and let's remind everybody this was only for the states that were seceding from the Union.. the north could keep their slaves and everybody that was part of the Union. But because the South was breaking away they were not allowed to keep their slaves.. This was a power struggle .. Abraham Lincoln felt that the federal government had more authority than it should... And everybody during the civil war felt that this was the new revolutionary war.. this is about making sure that one person didn't have dominion or power over all of the states... The federal government did not have this much power.. But trust you me after 1865 it did.. Are union will be changed forever!! Now you wernt told a lot of this.. For a couple different reasons.. Because during the civil war, Abraham Lincoln made it illegal to oppose the civil war.. and he started locking people up in the thousands... Then he suspended habeas corpus.. which means he can arrest anybody he wants and they have no right to a speedy trial no right to a lawyer no right to anything.. family members would just disappear.. What you weren't told either is that Abraham Lincoln destroyed dozens and dozens of printing presses.. anybody that printed anything against the war.. that printing press was destroyed and burned to the ground.. sounds like a problem with the first amendment doesn't it!! Kind of like they're doing today.. So the reason why the story was never told in full you weren't allowed to... So yes slavery did have something to do with it but that's not what it was about.. Abraham Lincoln was not for slavery obviously.. But that's not what the starting of the war was about..

[@greyghostdesigns]

Why did he only free the slaves in the south with the Emancipation Proclamation, and not the ones in the north? And why were the slaves in connecticut and new jersey emancipated until 1866? Maybe because it wasnt about slavery at all, and it was really an excuse to expand federal power and diminish state militias. Oh well, I guess CRT and DEI will help us learn about this in a historical manner without any radical bias!

[@Quantrills.Raiders]

bingo, lincoln even told maryland they could keep their slaves if they joined the union

[@owensomers8572]

Wow Cletus, read a book. Lincoln didn't have the authority to emancipate slaves in states that hadn't seceded. Yet it did happen in 1866, I suppose you think that was purely random. Bless your heart!

[@owensomers8572]

@@Quantrills.Raiders Blah, blah, blah, yet that didn't keep the majority of slave dependent areas of Maryland from forming the "Maryland Line" in the ANV.

[@greyghostdesigns]

@owensomers8572 excuse me? He had the authority to free them in the south, but not the north? That makes zero sense. How about shut your trap and keep yourself from looking like a jackass on the internet.

[@greyghostdesigns]

@owensomers8572 your argument makes no sense. How did Lincoln have the authority to free the slaves in the south but not the north? Also Lincoln didn't free those slaves in 1866. He was kind of dead then. Andrew Johnson did. And he was a southern Democrat. So...

[@theknob1]

SLAVERY WAS NOT AT THE ROOT OF THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION! GREED WAS. GREED FOR SOUTHERN TAXES.

[@Silky4ever]

So funny you call it war of Northern Aggression when the South was the first to attack. Go and read the succession documents of the states, slavery is clearly in many of them.

[@owensomers8572]

Nonsense, Confederate scrip was worthless!

[@owensomers8572]

Blah, blah, blah, the southern economy was agriculture based, and not taxed. The bulk of the Federal budget came from duties collected at the harbors of New York (by a significant majority), then the harbors of Boston, and finally the harbors of New Orleans. As today, the south was a net drain on the Federal budget.

[@jasonwiggins]

​@@owensomers8572I'm not agreeing with the original post, but your rebuttal is complete nonsense. Two-thirds of all Federal revenue came from cotton, tobacco, and rice from Southern States. Over half was from cotton and rice alone. This is verified through transcripts of the debates of Congress.

[@owensomers8572]

@@jasonwiggins I think you are conflating domestic production with Federal revenues. Nearly 95% of the Federal revenues collected in 1860 were from tariffs on imported manufactured goods. There were no Federal revenues collected from domestically produced agricultural commodities at that time.

[@RobertBrown-eb4co]

A much wiser man than Donald Trump.

[@Quantrills.Raiders]

biden poops his pants

[@branko4033]

Lincoln was an ardent abolitionist. But he would never have broken the Union over slavery. Or over any other issue, for that matter. In a nutshell, Lincoln did not start the Civil War.

[@scarecrow953]

I wouldn't say he was an ardent abolitionist, Lincoln did not think much of Africans as people, but agreed enslavement was wrong, as I. Early in his administration he worked on plans to repatriate Aficans back or at least out of the US. So, he wasn't in a hurry to cut them loose. Ultimately he freed slaves as a military strategy to undermine the souths ability to wage war.

[@branko4033]

@@scarecrow953 Agree.

[@ricksamericana749]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He won the Republican Party's nomination because he was the compromise politician between the abolitionist wing and the compromise wing of the party.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Lincoln was free-soil and anti-slavery, but not an ardent abolitionist. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but an important one.

[@Quantrills.Raiders]

@@scarecrow953 he also convinced slave rebellions to disrupt supply lines in the south

[@Coolrunning.]

That's why he was murdered

[@chewycooking9013]

I mean... He was assassinated because of a lot of the animosity by slave owners wanting to force human beings to do labor, yes