Posted on Dec 27, 2015
We have Lincoln wrong: Our greatest Lincoln historian explains his real Civil War motivations
3.62K
20
42
3
3
0
Father Abraham to the rescue.
"Lincoln’s decision to resist Southern secession and fight a war to maintain the American Union was motivated primarily by his belief that the nation was founded on the idea that this country “proposed to give all a chance” and allow “the weak to grow stronger.” The toxic combination of secession together with an unending commitment to unpaid human bondage by a new and separate Confederate nation, he calculated, would be fatal to the American Dream. It posed a direct threat to a self-sustaining middle-class society and to the promise of America leading the way to spreading the idea of opportunity and upward mobility throughout the world.
“I hold the value of life is to improve one’s condition,” Lincoln declared just three weeks before assuming the presidency, reiterating a lifetime of similarly expressed commitment to what historian Gabor Boritt brilliantly calls the uniquely American “right to rise.” Seven slaveholding Southern states had already declared by their independence the converse: the right to establish a nation of their own based on the denial of opportunity. Lincoln believed that the American nation based on the credo of opportunity for all was worth fighting for. “Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, so far as my judgment will enable me to judge of a correct thing, I am for that thing,” he said in 1861. In the face of unimaginable casualties and devastation, he remained for “that thing” for the rest of his life."
"Lincoln’s decision to resist Southern secession and fight a war to maintain the American Union was motivated primarily by his belief that the nation was founded on the idea that this country “proposed to give all a chance” and allow “the weak to grow stronger.” The toxic combination of secession together with an unending commitment to unpaid human bondage by a new and separate Confederate nation, he calculated, would be fatal to the American Dream. It posed a direct threat to a self-sustaining middle-class society and to the promise of America leading the way to spreading the idea of opportunity and upward mobility throughout the world.
“I hold the value of life is to improve one’s condition,” Lincoln declared just three weeks before assuming the presidency, reiterating a lifetime of similarly expressed commitment to what historian Gabor Boritt brilliantly calls the uniquely American “right to rise.” Seven slaveholding Southern states had already declared by their independence the converse: the right to establish a nation of their own based on the denial of opportunity. Lincoln believed that the American nation based on the credo of opportunity for all was worth fighting for. “Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, so far as my judgment will enable me to judge of a correct thing, I am for that thing,” he said in 1861. In the face of unimaginable casualties and devastation, he remained for “that thing” for the rest of his life."
We have Lincoln wrong: Our greatest Lincoln historian explains his real Civil War motivations
Posted from salon.com
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
Slavery. The Civil War was fought to end slavery. The Republican Party was established from the ashes of the Whigs to end slavery. Abraham Lincoln was their candidate and he won the White House. The South seceded to avoid his anticipated campaign to end slavery. Lincoln overcame the objections of his own cabinet and Congress to wage war against secession so that he could end slavery. If the South formed an independent nation, he could not end slavery. He had to draw them back into the Union so that he could end slavery. Slavery was a cancer killing the young nation. We are still suffering the lingering effects of it more than a century following its end. Attempts to divert attention from this simple fact only serve to keep the wound festering. Indeed, some politicians and political activists keep picking at the scab to keep the old wound alive, using divisiveness to further their agenda. It's an agenda that will destroy America just as well as slavery almost destroyed it.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
I just browsed the article but hardly saw anything new. This is not a new argument. Based on everything else I've read, no one saw slavery as the final straw that led to the Civil War. Just another thing about the South that was annoying to Washington... If anything, while people might have been opposed to it, there wasn't enough support or unity among them to do anything about it, much like the major issues at hand in America today.
I suspect that the issue that tipped the scales towards emancipation was the fact that to do so was a way Lincoln could strike a fatal blow to the southern infrastructure. Without slaves the south could not support the agrarian base to their economy as it would be decades before the industrial revolution would begin.
This is not to say that people might not have been opposed to slavery. Many were. However it was never the central issue. Lincoln was a genius to topple the south while ending the one thing that had been a hot potato issue for decades in the United States.
Most people are ignorant about the factors and biased authors and historians bent on sensationalism take things out of proportion. There are also many on either end of the spectrum who want to rewrite history to support their claims.
I suspect that the issue that tipped the scales towards emancipation was the fact that to do so was a way Lincoln could strike a fatal blow to the southern infrastructure. Without slaves the south could not support the agrarian base to their economy as it would be decades before the industrial revolution would begin.
This is not to say that people might not have been opposed to slavery. Many were. However it was never the central issue. Lincoln was a genius to topple the south while ending the one thing that had been a hot potato issue for decades in the United States.
Most people are ignorant about the factors and biased authors and historians bent on sensationalism take things out of proportion. There are also many on either end of the spectrum who want to rewrite history to support their claims.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"Issueg assertions based on statements made 3-5 years after the start of hostilities, after a progressing narrative of the issue of Slavery as a motivator, and likely result, had evolved, hold less weight as to motivations than statements made prior to, and when hostilities commenced."
Then we are back to the Cornerstone speech of 3/21/61.
The Cornerstone is Slavery.
Walt
Then we are back to the Cornerstone speech of 3/21/61.
The Cornerstone is Slavery.
Walt
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Capt Walter Miller - But as Lincoln wrote in his editorial to Horace Greeley, (which I posted above, in 1862, it was NOT the cornerstone. Instead, he cites the preservation of the Union as his Casus belli, with the outcome of the Slavery issue being a non-issue, regardless how things worked out. He clearly tells us he would readily preserve the union, with slavery, without slavery, or with a combination thereof. That doesn't sound like a man who chose the primary issue of slavery to provoke the war between the States, as so many seem to wish to contend.
Regards.
Regards.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
.
"But as Lincoln wrote in his editorial to Horace Greeley, (which I posted above, in 1862, it was NOT the cornerstone."
And you know better than Alexander Stephens - Vice President pf the So-called CSA, who said it was.
Lincoln's letter to Greeley doesn't say what you suggest what you say it does any way.
Yes, Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union, because insurgent elements threatened to rend it for the purpose of maintaining slavery.
Walt
"But as Lincoln wrote in his editorial to Horace Greeley, (which I posted above, in 1862, it was NOT the cornerstone."
And you know better than Alexander Stephens - Vice President pf the So-called CSA, who said it was.
Lincoln's letter to Greeley doesn't say what you suggest what you say it does any way.
Yes, Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union, because insurgent elements threatened to rend it for the purpose of maintaining slavery.
Walt
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As Shelby Foote said, any understanding of the history of this country must be based in the Civil War.
After Trump's totally racist and illegal trial balloon of banning all Muslims garnered so much support on RP, I knew quoting President Lincoln would draw a bunch of scurrying cockroaches.
Proverbs 28:1
Walt
After Trump's totally racist and illegal trial balloon of banning all Muslims garnered so much support on RP, I knew quoting President Lincoln would draw a bunch of scurrying cockroaches.
Proverbs 28:1
Walt
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury - Don't let the virtual door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Capt Walter Miller Sir, I've only done this once before, but you've earned my second down vote , not for anything you've said to me, but for being grossly rude to another RP member who was engaging in polite debate. "I can't believe how stupid you are", is not an argument, but rather a personal attack lacking both issue and substance. Regards.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Capt Walter Miller - Are Muslims a race? Clearly, they are not. Instead they are members of Islam. There are Muslims of EVERY race, to the best of my knowledge. Now, that doesn't mean to condone wholesale discrimination based on religion is acceptable either, but I would respectfully put it out there that it might be prudent to use words that actually mean what one is trying to say in order to communicate more effectively, and to not make the issue more nebulous or hyperbolic.
As always, Regards.
As always, Regards.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The Muslims that Trump intended to block/remove are not Caucasian, so let's not fool ourselves.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google