"Yes, moral opposition to slavery dated well before the Civil War. Do you believe that justifies modern-day Americans condemning 19th century Americans who did not believe slavery was immoral?"
Excuse me? Don't recall saying that.
"If it was obvious to you that the EP was quite significant in its time and place, then how are you justified in proclaiming it to be "watered down"? "
It was only significant as a political tool for the radicals, It was by no means what they wanted, but they would take anything they could get.
"I have argued that most people in Congress had no intention of challenging or ending slavery at the beginning of the war. Many of them opposed slavery, but were unwilling to take the radical step of national emancipation at that time. You can't seem to decide whether you agree with that point or not, partly because you seem to have misread my posts. In an earlier reply, you said: "
"Your thesis is an assumption is these Congresses would not have ever been exposed to the idea on a nation wide ban on salvery, therefore they never would have thought of proposing it, until sometime around 1865."
If they really wanted to end slavery in 1861-62 they could have, they didn't want to.
"I have not disputed the fact that men in Congress were quite familiar with the slavery debate. That does not change the fact that few wanted to take the radical step of emancipation at the outbreak, or even the first year or so, of the war. In fact, you acknowledge this with your statement, "No, I'm observing that the Northern Government wasn't that crazy about freeing slaves."
Yeah.
"You also said: "It only takes one to bring it to the floor for debate. The point being they knew that the question must be asked. Asking the question was simple. It was not done for what ever reason. I explained the reason...abolition was a significant step, and one that many people were not ready to take until they became convinced that such a step was necessary for the Union's interests. "
out of context...it was an answer to...
{"Do you have statistics of how many senators or congressmen were placed into office specifically or primarily by abolitionist groups?}
What was the question I was referring too? I never said. It was a retorical remark used for persuasive effect.
"After trying to disagree with me with points that, ultimately, agree with me, you made a comment that does not reconcile with your earlier arguments:
"The problem with this many people in POWER wanted immediate emancipation, forcing Lincoln to address their needs. Radicals shelved their emancipation movement, just before the election, to help get their man in the White House. Once he got in, they came back out."
You have not explained who these people were, nor is it clear where they fit into your previous assertion that "it only takes one to bring it to the floor for debate. ...Asking the question was simple. It was not done for what ever reason." So, on one hand you say abolitionists who supported immediate emancipation were quite active in politics, but then you turn and say that no one brought up immediate emancipation when they could have. "
Out of context, I did not say it like that.
As for a list it is quite large, he are a few.
The Committee on the Conduct of the War.
Governor Andrew of Massachusetts
Thaddeus Stevens
General Fremont
General Hunter
Horace Greeley-A few weeks after the election, near the end of November 1861, some fifty old Barnburners gathered in New York and appointed a committee to promote abolitionist for Lincoln's cabinet- Salmon P. Chase, David Dudley Field, and James Wadsworth. Their vision...a Republican administration dominated by Free-Soil, Barnburning, Old Bentonian abolitionist.
"Men who "really, truly wanted slavery to end" did take some important steps for that end. Emancipation in Washington DC was achieved in 1862. Pressure was also put on the border states, particularly West Virginia, to enact their own emancipation laws. Now everyone in power was as enthusiastic about aggressive abolition plans, and many people who opposed slavery were cautious about the steps to go about it.
"You complain that it took too long for Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Based on the political, social, and economic realities of the time, when do you think that everyone in Congress should have abolished slavery? This question does not ask when you would "like" to have seen slavery abolished, but when you believe that, given the historical realities in the early 1860s, these men could have and should have taken the ultimate step of enforced national abolition."
Why do you want my opinion? I make 21st Century judgments on 19th Century actions.
"Recognizing that most in Congress did not want to forcibly abolish slavery is not a modern moral judgment. Saying that it was "inexcusable" that they didn't do it sooner, that emancipation was "anti-climactic," and that the EP was "watered down" are modern judgments."
Wrong, wrong and wrong. The radicals at the time knew the EP was by no means what they wanted, but they would take anything they could get..i.e. "watered-down". Radical abolitionist Massachusetts Governor Andrew said about the E.P. "The Proclamation is a poor document, but a mighty act." Then went on to say to his fellow republicans to go out and say we endorse the act and take full credit for it. I believe any person at the time could have had the same "judgments".
"Okay, can you give some examples."
"The practice of slavery was offically outlawed in the Unites States of America as of January 1, 1863 with the "Emancipation Proclamation" by President Abraham Lincoln."
http://www.civil-war.ws/slavery/
"The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, did in fact apply only to areas then in rebellion against the United States and freed few slaves on the day it was issued. But as Union troops advanced into the South, the proclamation brought freedom to bondsmen in all conquered regions not specifically exempted from it." No mention of the nearly 400,000 slaves in bondage under Union control.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DF1F3BF93BA35752C1A961948260
"Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
and so on and so on.
"This is exactly what I have been saying...yet you disagreed. Why?"
I don't know why your not picking up on what I'm saying, I told you I disagreed with you on how you presented your argument, I believe "if" (see quotes) the North wanted to free the slaves, early on or earlier, than 1865 they could have, if they wanted to, "but" it is obvious they didn't want to. This statement covers everything you were saying but with one huge exception; you believe they couldn't have until the time it actually happened. I believe Lincoln did not want to support the radicals even though he certainly could have if he believed in immediate emancipation, which he did not. It is not popular to promote Lincoln other than an emancipator or abolitionist who did everything he could to free the slaves. Everytime a general started freeing slaves he would reverse their orders. He allowed slavery to continue in areas not in rebellion. He allowed the Army to buy and trade in slaves. He allowed slaves to be used to gather cotton in Mississippi to be sold by treasury agents for profit.
"Hundreds of thousands (actually, probably millions) of slaves believed Lincoln was the great emancipator. Were they wrong? Did they not understand the significance (or lack of significance) of his actions?"
Which ones? I bet they would have been a lot happier to be free a year or two earlier. How about the slaves he sent to their deaths in the Caribbean? I bet they wished they never heard of him. In the end yes, give him some credit, but he did not do what they say he did, not in a modern view.
"I understand your point. Many Americans do not understand the moderate approach Lincoln took to emancipation. The image of Lincoln leading a moral army to stamp out slavery is present in some places (largely boosted by celebrations after the war and Lincoln's death) despite the fact that historical reality was not quite so dramatic. Nonetheless, Lincoln's EP was quite significant. He knew it and other Americans knew it. The fact that he did not end slavery across the nation with one blow does not diminish the significance of his act given its context. The EP did more to end slavery than any single act in American history to that time. Had a more conservative or cautious man been in office, such an act may never have been taken at all. Heck, McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 practically opposed to emancipation and painted Lincoln as a radical abolitionist in order to get conservative votes. "
"We can recognize the actual limits of the EP without trying to dismiss it as "anti-climactic" or "watered down." To take such a position, really, does not dismiss the image of Lincoln the great emancipator, but because it actually EMBRACES it. To say the EP was "watered down" works from the belief that it was (or was supposed to be) quite radical and complete. In short, it appears that you have accepted the myth while trying to knock it down. "
"I would point again to your comments like the EP being "watered down," that it was "inexcusable" for Congress to wait until 1865 to successfully pass the 13th Amendment, and that emancipation was "anti-climactic." These are your personal feelings about historical events outside of their actual context. The EP was considered quite significant as it was introduced, and you later acknowledged that as "obvious." Thus, the belief that it was "watered down" is a personal (and hindsight) observation based on your assumptions of what it should be, according to the later myth. Emancipation was not "anti-climactic" to Americans at the time. And the argument that Congress' performance regarding slavery was "inexcusable" projects a clear personal judgment. "
"Oh, they can condemn their ancestors if they wanted to voice their opinion on the subject. But, do they want to? Do people here regularly portray their ancestors as evil traders in human flesh, who defended an immoral institution well beyond the time when most of the civlized world have voluntarily given it up? Some people in the 19th century thought this. But, I have not seen many people today who take pride in their Confederate roots accept such an assessment of their ancestors."
"People can make judgments of historical figures, but such judgments are really only valid when they consider the realities of their day."
I'm not buying it. I'm not judging any issue that is out of order. If I called a mid 19th century man something like r*cist or f*scist, yes that would be a modern ethical judgment that would not apply to them. For "watered down" I read what the radicals thought of it. For "inexcusable" and "anti-climactic" those are my opinions on those actions and events. Just like your given your 21st century opinion of events. I have never experienced anybody having a problem with opinions like your having. Take them for what there worth.
____________________
David Upton