about abe linclon

[akira]

I need you guys to help me out with a bet.
If you can please provide a source, IE book, website etc..

Why did Abe linclon free the slaves?

To keep this gun related, What kind of gun did Booth use to assassinate linclon?


Any help would be great.

[kjm]

1. Because human slavery is wrong, dehumanizing to both the slave-holder and slave, and probably his biggest reason is that he was elected by Northern industrialists and I suppose all that cheap labor in the south was making them angry (especially since the South didn't do much trading with the North).

2. There are a few problems as you probably know about Abe Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. Abe didn't free a single slave. Not one. A careful reading of the EP will demonstrate that Abe only freed the slaves in the Confederate states of America, not the United States. This is the equivelent of GW Bush signing an executive order stopping the Mexican government from subsidizing tortillas. It is a political stunt but it doesn't do anything.

The Slaves weren't freed until the 13th amendment a few years after the war of Northern aggression.

[USP45]

Booth used a derringer IIRC...

He freed the slaves in an attempt to break the back of the Confederate Army (which was kicking the snot out of the Union Army) economically. Quite simply there weren't enough people to both work and fight the war without the slaves.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/L...mancipate.html

[akira]

Thank you for your info.

Looks like I won the bet.

I read in college about Linclon and remembered that his efforts in freeing the slaves(admirable yet not his intention) was not his main intention but to cause civil unrest in the south.

Looks like my friend is buying me a beer.

[johnbt]

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/featured-.../emanproc.html

"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory."

The why is still being argued, but one argument is that he wanted to encourage the slaves to resist and enlist, but only in the South. John


http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln10.html

.44 cal. single-shot derringer made by Derringer.

[Cactus]

USP45,

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared the slaves being held in the Confederate States of America to be free. Some northern states also allowed slavery and these states were not effected by Lincoln's decree. Since Lincoln had no authorization over the Confederate States, in reality he freed NO slaves.

The reason that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, was to get England to stop supporting the CSA. Up until this proclamation, England was a major supplier of war materials and manufactured goods for the CSA. England had abolished slavery several years prior to the War Between the States and by proclaiming the slaves free, Lincoln convinced the British to stop supporting the CSA.

Anybody know what kind of derringer?

[akira]

I am humbled at the wealth of knoledge you good folks share with us.

thanks again.

[Apple a Day]

Someone help me out, since we are on the topic.
Two questions:
1. I remember reading a letter from Lincoln to a newspaper published in either New York or Chicago early in the conflict or immediately before stating that his intention was to re-unite the country with or without the abolition of slavery. Can someone help me out with the actual reference?
2. Military rifle questions- what was the Union's first standard small arm and what was its first rifled weapon? I was having a debate with a friend of mine who is anti- about the rules of war and the topic of using a rifle versus a musket during the Revolutionary War came up... roundabout logic but it got me wondering.

[RHC]

Lincoln apparently did not leave a clear record of his
thoughts, but some historians have suggested that, in addition to the reasons mentioned above, he wanted to keep the Abolitionist section of his party happy.

The only reason given in the proclamation itself is as follows:

"as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion..."

Towards the end of the proclamation he also says that:

"...this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity..."

[akira]

Just wondering,
Was slavery abolished in the north before the the Emancipation Proclomation?

[Payette Jack]

It would be untrue to say he opposed it. He kept Maryland in the Union by promising them they could keep theirs. He also had a plan in the works to ship slaves back to Africa when he was assassinated. It may sound strange, but Lincoln's death was probably a blessing to the slaves.

[RHC]

Before the 13th Amendment in 1865 slavery was a state, not a federal question, which in a way is what the war was about. So individual states, north or south, could decide for themselves. (Caveat: territories sometimes had this decided for them before they entered the Union as states.)

[Jim V]

The pistol used by Booth to kill Lincoln was a percussion derringer made in Philadelphia by Henry Deringer (note: no double "R" in Deringer). The double "R" as added by persons who copied his pistol and led him on a merry chase to preserve his trademark. Deringer produced pistols and rifles at his Philadelphia shop.

As to slavery, slavery in the south was dying out due to the costs involved, it was and is cheaper to hire someone and have him/her pay for their own clothing, housing, medical treatment and food than it was/is to buy them and then have those expenses. Besides, if someone is hired and leaves there is no expense involved in replacing him/her. A slave represented a large expense and people had to be hired to assure that they did not flee.

The war between the states was not to eradicate slavery but to help keep the northern factories working and prevent the markets in the south from leaving the Union. At the start of the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/The Late Unpleasantness started the nation was in a major recession and there had to be a way to bolster the economy.

Did you know, and I'm sure that this has not been taught in today's highschools, that there were several Black units in the south that formed to fight the northern invaders? They were fighting to preserve their home and homeland as much as anyother "Reb".

[Mike Irwin]

Apple,

I believe the letter you're talking about had the quote to the effect of

"If I could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would. If I could preserve the Uion by freeing some slaves, and leaving others in bondage, I would. And if I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that."

Check Bartlett's Quotations online and see what it has to say.

Jim V,

Actually, there were TWO slavery systems at work in the South, one that was unprofitable, and one that was HIGHLY profitable.

The unprofitable slave holder was one who held generally fewer than a dozen slaves, and had a relatively small amount of land to be worked.

Where slavery was HIGHLY profitable, on the other hand, was on the large cotton, rice, and indigo plantations, as well as the large multi-product plantations.

These plantations generally held 100 or more slaves, and had sufficient land for the slave population to be, in many ways, self sufficient, supplying the lion's share of their own food.

Slavery had, by and large, been dying out as unprofitable to the large slave holders in the South, until one invention changed that - the cotton gin. The gin was invented around 1800 or so, IIRC, and allowed a single slave to clean (remove the seeds from) upwards of 500 pounds of cotton a day, whereas before it took a slave nearly a full day to clean a full pound of cotton.

Even had the Civil War not happened, it is likely that the Southern slave economy would have crashed in the 1870s/1880s for two reasons:

1. The exhaustion of the ground in many cotton growing areas. You can't keep growing the same crop over and over again for years on end if you don't condition the soil, which by and large wasn't being done.

2. The creation of the long-staple cotton plantations in Egypt and India.

England's mills were the largest consumers of Southern cotton in the years just prior to the Civil War. The Civil War hit the English economy VERY hard, and they were determined to not have it happen again.

[kjm]

Mike,
Good points all. I might add that cotton would suffer the ravages of the boll weavil and drive most of the cotton plantations belly-up. That is the reason behind the second or third wave of immigrants to Texas. They were fleeing the South of reconstruction fame, and boll weavils.

GBT

[folkbabe]

Akira, slavery continued in many of the "border states" until either very late in the war or after it. In most cases, the states abolished it in a rush of anti-confederate patriotism but I believe it persisted in some until the 13th amendment.

By the way, Baltimore, and therefore Maryland, had a little help in its decision to remain in the union in the form of cannons on Federal Hill facing towards the city. Oh, and Lincoln throwing the Mayor of Baltimore and the editor of the leading daily into jail. Units from Maryland fought on both sides of the war, though most sentiments today are very much on the side of the Union (I'm shocked every time I visit my friends in Virginia and see so many confederate stickers on cars).

[Mike Irwin]

KJM,

I believe that the boll wevil and the exhaustion of the ground go hand in hand.

The way it was explained to me was that cotton, being given the proper mix of nutrients so that it grows well and is not physically stressed, is pretty resistant to boll wevil infestation.

The combination of the two destroyed what was left of the rapidly dwindling cotton economy in the South.

[4V50 Gary]

I'm inclined to think it's John Hall's breechloader which featured a tilt up breechblock. Patented on May 11, 1811, it was adopted by the War Dept. in 1819. Besides being rifled, the breechloading feature made it much quicker to load (obvious). Some of these rifles were converted to percussion and used by Confederate calvary units during the Wah-oh.

The first percussion rifle adopted by the US was the Model 1842 (.54 Cal).

[Arizona Fusilier]

Those of us well versed in history are familiar that individuals of color, some slave, some not, volunteered for service with the Confederacy, and for the reason that you mentioned.

Entire units though?

Please provide unit designations (i.e., regiments, state of origin, etc.).

This slipped completely underneath my Civil War radar screen. Given the treatment of black regiments of the North by the likes of Nathan Bedford Forest, etc., I find this hard to comprehend.

[BigG]

the "Late Unpleasantness" was the Clinton Presidency.

[Dave P]

For those of us that were taught (yankee style) that Lincoln was fair and righteous in his perception and treatment of Negroes, take a look at this speech of his during the Lincoln/Douglas Debates:

". I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality"

taken from:
http://www.debateinfo.com/hall_of_fa...ouglas/04.html

[folkbabe]

Um, I was educated "yankee style" and we weren't taught "that Lincoln was fair and righteous in his perception and treatment of Negroes." Making Lincoln a hero is a mainstay of traditional "America does no wrong" curriculums, not of "yankee" ones.

[Dangus]

Let us not forget that Honest Abe's original plan was to free slaves over a period of some 40-50 years, using a gradual withdrawl system that he had devised. The Civil War was a blunder. A HUGE blunder, and Lincoln did bear some of the fault for it. I believe he was a good guy at heart, but he was in WAY over his head from day one.

[cheapshot]

Please forgive me but I just can't resist the temptation of inserting a truly tasteless joke in here, (we all like dark humor don't we?):

Lincoln, while groggily waking up from a three day drunk says, "I freed the what?"

[RON in PA]

RE: the first US rifle and musket, we are talking about standardized patterns here, the Rifle, Model 1803,cal..54 and Musket, Model 1795, cal..69. During the Revolution the Americans used anything they could get ther hands on, but primarily used British Brown Besses and copies of the Brown Bess(Committie of Safety Muskets). Dutch and German muskets were also smuggled in. When the French decided to assist the Americans they sent cal..69 muskets of various patterns and in fact the US M1795 musket was a copy of a French musket.

Contrary to common belief the Americans did not defeat the British with rifles but by fighting in the approved method of the day, shoulder to shoulder, linear tactics with smooth bore musket and bayonet. The Brits usually carried the day, the Americans ultimately won the war because of French help and by sheer stubburness. They lost many battles but would not stop fighting. Much like the Vietnamese.

Rifles were used, but not much liked by more traditionaly minded officers. They were privately owned and not of any set pattern. The 2 battles that rifles had a major effect on were Saratoga(the American victory helped bring in the French) and Cowpens.