Lincoln "Unfreed " Slaves In Kentucky?

[Neo]

I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]

Careful now my friend , or else you will shot a lot of holes in the dem/lib, misguided history that has been taught rigorously in the public education system hard and heavily since the 1960's..
Giving any ammunition to the people that claim the Civil War was about far more states right rather than slavery is tantamount to heresy, even here -methinks.-Tyr

[Gunny]

I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]

The US Civil War was about power/control and money. Slavery was a handy excuse. Lincoln freed slaves only in states in rebelliion to avoid the very thing you pointed out ... alienating the border states.

[Neo]

The US Civil War was about power/control and money. Slavery was a handy excuse. Lincoln freed slaves only in states in rebelliion to avoid the very thing you pointed out ... alienating the border states.

The issue of slavery only came to a head in 1863, when the war was not going well for the North, due to the ego & ineptness of McClennon's command. Lincolns top priority was to keep the Union whole.

Question: Was it a war of Northern or Southern aggression? My view? Southern aggression.

[Gunny]

The issue of slavery only came to a head in 1863, when the war was not going well for the North, due to the ego & ineptness of McClennon's command. Lincolns top priority was to keep the Union whole.

Question: Was it a war of Northern or Southern aggression? My view? Southern aggression.

Depends on how you want to look at it. Legally, Southern states had every right to leave a union they voluntarily joined. There was no legal ruling nor law that precluded secession until 1868, 3 years after the war was over and in typical fashion, it was to get the Union out of paying a debt. In Texas v White, WHite sued the State of Texas for back wages during the war. It went to the Supremem Court and they ruled states never had a Right to secede so the debt was invalid. It is of course a BS ruling.

As far as to who was the aggressor? Plenty of blame to go around. The North, who would be today's left, controlled the media and all its reasons for engaging in a war were just propaganda.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move out of desperation. He hoped it would cause an uprising of slaves in the South that would draw Southern troops out of the main battle lines to go protect their homes. It was a tactical failure. It was a propagandist's wet dream. Abolitionists were a small minority in the North and were only "right" because the Union won the war. You left out the NYC riots because Irishmen didn't want to go fight a war to free blacks when they were treated no better than by Northern industrialists. What's the REAL difference between living in squalor in a tenement and working under slave-like conditions and owing the company store upon threat of incarceration or being a slave in a shack working in the fields?

The Union -- specifically Lincoln and his idealism -- was the aggressor. The South fought against being told what to do by a bunch of idiot yankees in DC.

[Neo]

Depends on how you want to look at it. Legally, Southern states had every right to leave a union they voluntarily joined. There was no legal ruling nor law that precluded secession until 1868, 3 years after the war was over and in typical fashion, it was to get the Union out of paying a debt. In Texas v White, WHite sued the State of Texas for back wages during the war. It went to the Supremem Court and they ruled states never had a Right to secede so the debt was invalid. It is of course a BS ruling.

As far as to who was the aggressor? Plenty of blame to go around. The North, who would be today's left, controlled the media and all its reasons for engaging in a war were just propaganda.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move out of desperation. He hoped it would cause an uprising of slaves in the South that would draw Southern troops out of the main battle lines to go protect their homes. It was a tactical failure. It was a propagandist's wet dream. Abolitionists were a small minority in the North and were only "right" because the Union won the war. You left out the NYC riots because Irishmen didn't want to go fight a war to free blacks when they were treated no better than by Northern industrialists. What's the REAL difference between living in squalor in a tenement and working under slave-like conditions and owing the company store upon threat of incarceration or being a slave in a shack working in the fields?

The Union -- specifically Lincoln and his idealism -- was the aggressor. The South fought against being told what to do by a bunch of idiot yankees in DC.

Fascinating analysis.

With all due respect.......Just exactly what "idealism" did Mr. Lincoln suffer from?


Can you point out to me where it says succession by a member of the Union is allowable, and thus legal in our founding documents?

If memory serves, we announced our independence as "the 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", it wasn't temporary, a commitment had been made.

What the South fought for was their ill perceived belief in their "right" to profit off of the sweat of another mans brow, as well as the other ill perceived belief that they could "own" another human being and treat them like chattel.

As for the proclamation, he sat on it for months, awaiting a decisive Union victory, which he got at Antietam. Up til then, the war wasn't going well, which is why he sat on it. Too bad McClellan didn't go after Lee, he blew it, letting him escape.

You call it desperation, I call it smart. Timing is everything ya know...

[Gunny]

Fascinating analysis.

With all due respect.......Just exactly what "idealism" did Mr. Lincoln suffer from?


Can you point out to me where it says succession by a member of the Union is allowable, and thus legal in our founding documents?

If memory serves, we announced our independence as "the 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", it wasn't temporary, a commitment had been made.

What the South fought for was their ill perceived belief in their "right" to profit off of the sweat of another mans brow, as well as the other ill perceived belief that they could "own" another human being and treat them like chattel.

As for the proclamation, he sat on it for months, awaiting a decisive Union victory, which he got at Antietam. Up til then, the war wasn't going well, which is why he sat on it. Too bad McClellan didn't go after Lee, he blew it, letting him escape.

You call it desperation, I call it smart. Timing is everything ya know...

Lincoln believed that destroying a Nation was justified so long as it held together on paper. The VERY SAME geographical divides exist today as did then. Changing the names doesn't change the facts.

It is regrettable that a REALLY small minority of Southerners got to speak for the South. The rich ones. The ones that could afford slaves. The rest of the South was fighting to keep DC and yankees from dictating how we live down here from up there.

The North wanted to force the South to sell their goods to the North at lower than market prices. The South wanted to sell in Europe where they made money. Slavery was just an excuse, as there always is one for one side of a disputer to force its will on the other.

If I join a gym freely, am I required to stay for life simply because its the owners' beliefs I should but no legal documentation supports it? It would be laughed out of court. There also is some wording about mutual benefit? When that no longer exists, neither do the original parameters of the deal.

When Jackson appeared McClellan would have had his ass kicked had he pursued Lee. He didn't actually win anything. He just managed to not lose. Lincoln was definitely desperate to claim victory and free slaves he had no power to free at the time. Then he fired McClellan. Again.

Again I will point out, calling something by a label is wonderful. When you practice slavery yet come up with a different label it is no less what it is ... slavery. Telling me I have "Rights" that exist on paper but not in practice unless I can afford them means to me we have evolved little during our existence as a Nation. Remember, the Nation was founded by rich people for rich people because they didn't want to pay their taxes.