Is this Roger?

"I don't quite understand this sentence. Abolition is not a modern perception of morality?"

It means that the idea of abolition of slaves was around to at least to 1776 and moral and ethical feeling against slavery still exists today. In other words, before your time, my time, and their time; it is not a modern ideal but an old ideal carried over.

"Of course, only radical abolitionists in the nation considered the EP "watered down" or not far reaching enough. For the majority of Americans (North and South), the EP was quite significant as it was and for what it proposed.
Lincoln was careful to craft this EP to fit the political and legal realities of the time. "

Thanks for adding the obvious information.

"Which federal officials pressed Congress and Lincoln for immediate emancipation right after he was elected?"
I said, "Once he got in, they came back out" don't change my words. This means "after the event". The biggest pushers were certain governors, abolitionist, and the certain publishers. Lincoln was extremely hard pressed as early as 1862.

"Your position seems to be jumping around. In an earlier post I said basically the same thing ("in 1860 only a small population of radical abolitionists supported a sweeping national ban against slavery.") and you said that you "totally" disagreed with that statement. Just above you said that many people in power wanted immediate emancipation. Now you claim that the "Northern Government" (which I assume included "many people in POWER") didn't want emancipation. "

My position is not jumping anywhere. I was disagreeing with on how you where making a mental picture that the Northern government did not contemplate abolition early on, you were making the case that abolition was an after thought to the crisis and was not a moral or legal issue with that body. I should have quoted the entire post not just the small passage. Don't you see what I'm doing? My argument is…

If the Northern government, the men in power, Lincoln, congress, really, truly wanted slavery to end, they could have made steps much earlier to do so. They chose not to (for what ever reason, either they could not or would not). This is not a modern moral judgment on 19th century actions. Why, because it is been misrepresented by historians, politicians, writers, movie makers, since Lincoln's death. The North was not fighting the war to free the slaves; it had serious problems with doing so, even with Northern men in power pushing for emancipation early on. Lincoln was not the great emancipator. Lincoln really had the backing and power to free slaves, but he didn't act on that, not immediately or very forcefully.

"One could argue that the "opportunity" to end slavery had existed for decades (even centuries). Northern states voluntarily ended slavery during and shortly after the American Revolution. During that period, the rest of the South had the opportunity to end it too. Virginia and Maryland seriously considered gradual emancipation, but ultimately decided against it. If not embracing immediate abolition was "inexcusable," I wonder how you feel about the generations of Southerners who not only failed to end slavery, but defended it and promoted its expansion! "

I have a lot of inexcusable actions in the Civil War; don't make me make a list. For the most part historical people are neither evil, good, bad, saints or sinners for their actions but they can be historically stupid or brilliant, that transcends time no matter what. The exception to the rule would be those historical people whose victims or benefactor of their actions that are still alive.

"Did anyone during this era feel that emancipation was "anti-climactic"? The power and importance of an historical event relies more upon how it affected the people and societies of its time...not how you or I or someone else 140 years later may "find it."

Well, slavery in the South went away very peacefully into this new era compared the great upheaval that was predicted. I have to give my ancestors and the old slave's great credit for not making situation much, much worse. The end of slavery came with a great exhaustive depression, not a major turn over of cultural destruction and social reform. An attempt was made to make it a great reconstruction of the entire order in the South but the North didn't really have the money or the heart to continue the experiment. It was very anti-climatic, no great black politician or leader took over the South, the whites were not exterminated, and the abolitionist movement faded with disinterest and new challenges with western expansion.

"There is a difference between learning from history and judging people of the past according to personal feelings."

Would you please tell me how I judged and who I judged on my personal feelings [i.e. modern ethical feelings]? We must certainly judge actions and choices of the past, but, on the other hand, we should not give modern ethical judgments to past ethical beliefs. For instance, General Bragg is one that I can constantly find fault, even today, his actions transcend time when it comes to his military abilities. The same goes for political maneuvers and strategies. Emancipation of slaves can be looked at as a political tool, a military tool, and a law to help people or a law to fill the Northern armies ranks. Many of my fellow Southerners have very strong feelings on the 19th Century actions of General Sherman, are they wrong in doing so because they are products of a 21st Century world? No. But I do disagree with putting modern ideals and "isms" (those formulated after the period in question) on the past. You seem to be accusing me of doing that and I don't see where I am.

"I imagine many people on this website are glad that slavery is gone, and wish to never see an institution like it in the United States again. I also imagine these same people are not ready to curse or condemn their Southern ancestors for accepting (even defending) slavery when it was a legally established institution. "
"I imagine many people on this website are glad that slavery is gone"

I bet they are too considering what would be the cost of owning slaves today.

" also imagine these same people are not ready to curse or condemn their Southern ancestors for accepting (even defending) slavery when it was a legally established institution"

So why can't Southerners be ready to condemn their ancestors for owning or selling slaves even if it were legal? What if they beat them, mistreated them, stole them and killed them with dogs when they ran away or other legal or illegal acts? What if slavery was against their ancestor's religion or creed and was against slavery, could we praise them? Oh wait that would be a modern judgment on 19th Century ideals, can't do that…. Hogwash.

Many Southerners of 1865 were most probably very unhappy that the legal institution of slavery was gone so they could not relate with your statements, that's why many left to South America were the practice of slavery still existed. On the other hand many Southerners were relieved that slavery was gone along with the patrols, slave markets, and middle-class economic stagnation that went with it.

_____________________
David Upton