Does anyone doubt that slavery in the South would have been abolished without the Civil War? One can reasonably debate the time frame, but not the outcome.
The formal structure of slavery was abolished. But after a failed period of reconstruction, the South was not a reformed culture that acknowledged equal rights. And this was not limited to the South. Discriminatory restrictive covenants were in place across fashionable Northeast suburbs and redlining practices by banks were a nationwide phenomena well into the 20th Century.
The war may have been won and the 13th & 14th amendments passed, but the peace was lost. The 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation are a clear demarcation of the failures of the Civil War to have achieved the goal of racial equality among American citizens.
States, like Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, still lag on most educational, poverty, and health measurements reflecting the economic destruction that was a consequence of the battle.
Lincoln was prevented from leading the post-civil war Reconstruction so it is impossible to judge how this reflects on his legacy.
Let's not kid ourselves that the Civil War was an unqualified success.
Lincoln started the civil war for one reason: to keep the Southern states from leaving the Union. And he was willing to tread over the Constitution and let hundreds of thousands of Americans die to achieve his cause. He was no lover of liberty. We are suffering from the aftermath of the Civil War even today, as we deal with a centralized federal govt that has eviscerated the original founding scheme of this country of a federal government limited by enumerated powers and all other powers reserved to the states, or to the people.
Friend, seven states had seceded before Lincoln took the oath of office as President. Had he taken no action to restore the Union, Lincoln might well be remembered as the President who opened the door to the balkanization of the former United States and associated territories. To think that the remaining states in the Union and the CSA would have separated, and remained at peace is folly. There would have been a headlong race to settle and claim the Western territories by both "nations". Think Bloody Kansas across a larger geographical expanse.
Wow. That Douglass was one wise and brilliant fellow!
What gets me is he quality of the writing and public speaking strikes me as better than what I see today.
Does anyone doubt that slavery in the South would have been abolished without the Civil War? One can reasonably debate the time frame, but not the outcome.
Yes, I for one doubt that it would have been abolished without the Civil War.
Well slavery in the South would have had to withstand:
+Agricultural industrialisation;
+Hostility from the rest of the Anglosphere;
+Cash crop competition from eg India;
+Changes in the status of fugitive slaves;
+Offers of compensation for abolition;
...
I can't think of a !9th century example to support the long-term continuation of slavery in the Christian world.
The formal structure of slavery was abolished. But after a failed period of reconstruction, the South was not a reformed culture that acknowledged equal rights. And this was not limited to the South. Discriminatory restrictive covenants were in place across fashionable Northeast suburbs and redlining practices by banks were a nationwide phenomena well into the 20th Century.
The war may have been won and the 13th & 14th amendments passed, but the peace was lost. The 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation are a clear demarcation of the failures of the Civil War to have achieved the goal of racial equality among American citizens.
States, like Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, still lag on most educational, poverty, and health measurements reflecting the economic destruction that was a consequence of the battle.
Lincoln was prevented from leading the post-civil war Reconstruction so it is impossible to judge how this reflects on his legacy.
Let's not kid ourselves that the Civil War was an unqualified success.
Keeping an entire human race enslaved for another generation or two would be morally unacceptable.
peacefully so everywhere else in the western hemisphere. certainly not at the cost, destruction, and redistribution of 1861-1877.
all of that set up animosity and resistance that in some ways lasts today.
you cannot legislate or force the human heart.
Lincoln started the civil war for one reason: to keep the Southern states from leaving the Union. And he was willing to tread over the Constitution and let hundreds of thousands of Americans die to achieve his cause. He was no lover of liberty. We are suffering from the aftermath of the Civil War even today, as we deal with a centralized federal govt that has eviscerated the original founding scheme of this country of a federal government limited by enumerated powers and all other powers reserved to the states, or to the people.
Friend, seven states had seceded before Lincoln took the oath of office as President. Had he taken no action to restore the Union, Lincoln might well be remembered as the President who opened the door to the balkanization of the former United States and associated territories. To think that the remaining states in the Union and the CSA would have separated, and remained at peace is folly. There would have been a headlong race to settle and claim the Western territories by both "nations". Think Bloody Kansas across a larger geographical expanse.
Maybe. But I have history on my side, not speculation.
Would that such walked the halls today.
Thanks for reminding us of one of our many blessings.
Should have called it Thinkin’ ‘bout Lincoln.
Abraham Lincoln Was a Man of his time. And so should be judged by those times.
And so should all be judged-in the context of their times. A little Grace goes a long way.