Skip to main content

View Diary: Lincoln: The trajectory of a politician (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well Lincoln is a long story (14+ / 0-)

    so fair enough :)

    So much complexity

    i wish i could say that i felt his trajectory on issues of race was as clear -- see of course Forced into Glory and Race: The Power of an Illusion Part II (amongst other works) re his consultation with the eugenicists of the day..

    The failure to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation in Union -occupied territory also remarks a blotch on the record

    And then of course there is that dangerous loop-hole - except as a punishment for crime--  in the 13th Amendment that gives rises to endless, on-going trouble

    Good  Diary though -- thank you

    Tipped and rec'ed  - though that hardly matters on the FP,  does it ???? :)

    •  Appreciate the links (9+ / 0-)

      But especially appreciate the sharing of views.

      •  One clarification would be valuable. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bobeau, MKinTN
        Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. From that position, he was deeply critical of the Mexican War and a perpetual supporter of the Wilmot Proviso, which called for the prohibition of slavery from any territory acquired as a result of the Mexican War.

        The main economic point of the Mexican War was to overthrow Mexico's prohibition against slavery. The Mexican government was more than happy to have immigrants come in and do ranching and farming,

        What the Texans wanted was to use East Texas for cotton. This Free Market enterprise of the day ultimately depended on buying male slaves from the older slave states such as South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia and transporting them west and then quite literally working them to death.

        Cotton exports amounted to 70% to 80% of all American foreign exchange earning from 1850 to 1861. Money swears.

        Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

        by vets74 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 04:50:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and because of cotton slavery was strengthening (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vets74, andgarden, soothsayer99

          It was not dying out. cotton changed the equation - slaves were becoming more valuable.

          At the time of the country's founding, slavery may have been becoming uneconomical, but that was no longer true after the cotton gin was invented.

          We have to be careful, this is not a small point. New South political spin argued that the Civil War was not really about slavery, since it would have died out. The Civil War was about stopping the growth and spread of slavery, not just in the US but further south as well.

          •  Mexico eradicated slavery despite the cotton gin. (0+ / 0-)

            Meanwhile I'm sure our John Birch "Tea Party" Society righties would reestablish slavery and expand it to whites, today, if they could.

            White trash always think they're going to be the slavers.

            Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

            by vets74 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 05:56:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  More to the point, if slavery couldn't expand, as (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vets74

          Clay rightly pointed out, it would die.

          Most of the "Old Confederacy" made money, not by exporting cotton, but by exporting slaves to the "New Confederacy."

          Preventing them from finding markets for their slaves (e.g. new slave states) would have killed their profits in two ways: 1) they weren't making all that much money from cotton (cotton depletes the soil fast, as does tobacco), and 2) their electoral power would be greatly diminished within the Senate (and Congress with the 3/5 rule) if there weren't more slave states as more free states came into the Union.

          Clay managed to postpone the war from ~1824 to 1860.  He •tried• in 1850 to postpone it again, but that was not to be.  What would have been a minor regional conflict in ~1824 and the splitting off of a soon-to-be non-viable country turned into the deaths of 600,000 Americans.

          The Great Compromiser.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 06:44:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Emancipation Proclamation EXCLUDED areas (0+ / 0-)

      under Union control.  To wit, Kentucky/Maryland/Delaware/ and Occupied Territories in Texas.  It was an Act of War to cause unrest in the labor force for the Confederates.

      It was not intended as a "release everybody right now."  That came later.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 06:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lincoln had no power to eliminate slavery (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, Linda Wood

        in states not in rebellion.  The view that slavery was protected by the Constitution was widely accepted by both the supporters and opponents of slavery.  This is why Garrison called the Constitution a pact with Hell.  The Emancipation Proclamation (and the preceding congressional action) were based on the notion of war powers--that is, the President could confiscate "property" used in support of war against the US.  Only a constitutional amendment could eliminate slavery everywhere in the US, and that was ultimately what Lincoln supported, as Armando explains.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site