MovieChat Forums > Gods and Generals (2003) Discussion > What if the Confederates won the Civil W...

What if the Confederates won the Civil War ?


QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE:


1. How do you feel about the month of April possibly becoming "Confederate History Month" ?


2. If the Confederate Army defeated the Union Army and won the Civil War in 1865, How do you think the time line would be different today?


3. What are the major difference that you can think of if the Confederates won the Civil War ?


4. Should it be called Civil War History Month instead ?

reply

1. I am a History buff from Virginia, but I am ashamed of this Confederate History Month nonsense.

2. Great question, don't have an answer!

3. I assume slavery would be abolished by now, but legalized segregation would still be in place in some places I would guess.

4. Yes

reply

[deleted]

1. I'd be pissed off, as a Southerner by birth, a Yankee by choice, and a historian by intellectual leanings (got my start at the age of 4 with a trip to Shiloh).

2. Not sure how that would be possible in 1865; by then Georgia had suffered the March to the Sea, the Army of Tennessee had obliterated itself at Nashville, the total Union Army probably topped a million men including support roles, etc. Probably their greatest opportunity would have been 1862. Read Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191, as I genuinely see that as the most realistic depiction of "What-If".

3. See Turtledove indicated above. Or, the United States would have diminished into/stayed a regional power, with Britain, Russia, and possibly China as the Great Powers.

4. Yes, most definitely.

---------------------
I'm going to grab a stepladder so you can jump up my butt.

reply

Dear Cypher Angel (again),

You are, by far, THE worst example for unity as a culture. I truly hope you grow some balls/tits, or whatever you have, and think bi-partisan instead of douchebaggerish.

Your Friend in Christ,
Your Mom's Vagina

reply

Well, that was random. Do I even know you? Was there a point to this? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

---------------------
If I am elected, Dib's head will be removed and filled with salted nuts!

reply

And bipartisan-what the HELL are you even talking about? Do you even KNOW what you're talking about? This is not a partisan question. Not at the national level, certainly, as I can't see too many Republicans in Ohio or Alaska or freaking KANSAS lining up to demand Confederate History Month. But let's just pretend - I know, that makes me an enabler to your psychosis, but whatever - let's pretend that this is a big huge partisan issue (which it's not). Let's further pretend that I belong to either party (which I don't). Exactly how does one be bipartisan on a yes or no question? Should April be Confederate History Month? Seems pretty straight forward. Really the only compromise would be to opt for the neutral "Civil War" label...WHICH I SAID YES TO! Is English not your primary language, or do you just keep an open can of varnish at your computer?

---------------------
If I am elected, Dib's head will be removed and filled with salted nuts!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

1. Part of me feels there's nothing wrong with celebrating heroic men who died for a cause they believed in, but the Yankee part of me sees the Confederate cause as evil and unforgivable. And a whole month!?! Why do I suspect this is just a "politically incorrect" answer to Black History Month more than anything?

2 and 3. The United States would probably have never become the world's pre-eminent power. The Confederacy would have aggressively spread slavery West and South, possibly invading Mexico and Cuba. Possibly slower industrialization/settlement of the West - good for Native Americans. Slavery probably would have died out eventually but it would have taken much longer unless another North-South war was provoked.

4. I don't have a problem with a celebration of Civil War history, but on the other hand we already have Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day and Veterans' Day.

"You know what else isn't cool, Bobby? Hell."

reply

The Confederacy's plan was to strangle the Midwestern states through control of the Mississippi -- and to take over all of the Western United States -- and to gradually control the entire Caribbean basin -- islands, Mexico, Central America and the norther tier of South America.


MEK

Analyze only when necessary.
fortune cookie, 4-24-2010

reply

[deleted]

All you really need to know...

“History is written by the victors.” - W. Churchill

In school I was taught about the Emancipation proclamation, and how Lincoln was basically a hero to all black people.

IMO, this is complete and utter bs. the entire war was completely unjustified and both sides committed horrendously unjustified acts of violence. Both sides participated in slavery and the emancipation proclamation permitted slavery in the northern states, AFTER the war was over.

I personally do hold Lincoln responsible for the war, based on my own interpretation of history. Every other country in the world that had slavery, got rid of it without a Civil War. He was a violent Tyrant, like most political leaders, who wanted to grow the power of the state over it's citizens.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery." - Lincoln

"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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln

reply

the emancipation proclamation permitted slavery in the northern states, AFTER the war was over.


A non-sequitir as the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery altogether.

I personally do hold Lincoln responsible for the war


Lincoln did pretty much everything within his power to avoid war. It wasn't until Fort Sumter that he acted at all, and with a US Army installation under enemy fire he was well within his right to act.

based on my own interpretation of history


At least you're being honest.

He was a violent Tyrant


Bollocks.

I'm not impressed by randomly-googled quotes either.

"You know what else isn't cool, Bobby? Hell."

reply

"A non-sequitir as the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery altogether. "

You need to look up the term non-sequitur, this is a blatant misuse of the term.

In regards to the point, the 13th Amendment was ratified after lincoln's death. It didn't come into play until over a year after the Emancipation Proclamation.

The EP, which he issued in the middle of the Civil War, only declared freedom in specific parts of the nation that were waging war against the union. It did not free the slaves in places that were still loyal to the Union or were under the control of Union troops.

Regardless, the war was clearly not over slavery, or freeing the slaves. Every other country in the world abolished slavery without a civil war.

"Lincoln did pretty much everything within his power to avoid war. It wasn't until Fort Sumter that he acted at all, and with a US Army installation under enemy fire he was well within his right to act. "

I don't want to do your homework for you but, let me provide a few clues!

The republican party(Lincoln's) was compiled of powerful northern business men, northern indsutrialists and northern shippers. This party made it NO secret that they intended to impose heavy taxes on the South, if they won the election in 1860. WHY??? Well, to finance all of the northern rail systems, infrastructure and ports facilities... so the republican industrialists could build their empires.

How did the North get away with taxing only the South? There were no incomes tax back then, so the only way the state could impose it's will on the south, was to levy tarriffs on all imported goods.

The Union imposed heavy taxes on the south, and if hte south refused to pay them, the union would send armed men in uniforms with guns after them. This is why the south finally decided to take up arms and fight back.

"Bollocks.

I'm not impressed by randomly-googled quotes either."

Randomly googled quotes? Perhaps you should try a little intellectual honesty and google the sources. The first one shows up in standard encyclopedia's and history books. It's straight out of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The second one is from a letter to an editor of the new york times, which still exists today. Here, go ahead and read the whole letter if you want.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.


It's obvious that you refuse to look at this with an open mind, and ignorantly idolize a blatant and unapologetic tyrant.

reply

It's obvious that you refuse to look at this with an open mind, and ignorantly idolize a blatant and unapologetic tyrant.
I like how you call a man who brought about the Abolition of Slavery a tyrant. By the same logic, Jefferson Davis should be viewed as a liberator :)

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

1. "How do you feel about the month of April possibly becoming "Confederate History Month" ?"

Against it. They lost.

2. "If the Confederate Army defeated the Union Army and won the Civil War in 1865, How do you think the time line would be different today?"

Not sure. I could see them joining Hitler during World War 2 which could have lead to his victory.

3. "What are the major difference that you can think of if the Confederates won the Civil War ?"

I think the relationship with the U.S.A. would be almost like it's relationship with Canada and England. I think there'd be a friendship, but there'd be bitterness of course among the people. Heck, there's bitterness now, but it'd probably be a little worst and more hate there because the North and South would be two different countries.

I think the 22nd of December could very well be the C.S.A.'s 4th of July. Of course it being so close to Christmas, I can't see that happening. Perhaps they would pick a date in April to be it's country's birthday.

No clue about slavery. I'd like to think it would fade away on it's own and perhaps the C.S.A. could buy the slaves. What would be done with them, I do not know. I honestly think the rights of the black people would be limited and the C.S.A. would probably be the KKK's wet dream. I doubt too many non-whites would be welcome and this would be pretty much a white nation.


4. "Should it be called Civil War History Month instead ?"

I think people should study the Civil War all they want. They don't need a month to tell them when. No other wars have their own month, so why start now?

reply

1. How do you feel about the month of April possibly becoming "Confederate History Month?"

Virginia's Confederate History month doesn't really bother me. After all, the state makes a lot of money in tourism dollars all year from visitors to its battlefields and CW sites. Basically, I'm fine with CHM as long as they state that slavery was the principal cause of secession and the Confederate war.

Recently, I watched the telecast of the Virginia Sesquicentennial Conference at Norfolk State University on American History TV (see link below). Someone mentioned that professional historians long ago settled the question that slavery was THE cause of the war. But they said many in the public still believe otherwise. This is definitely true, from what's all over the internet. It boggles my mind that some anonymous people on an internet forum believe they know more than PhD scholars who have spent decades researching primary documents of the CW Era.

2. If the Confederate Army defeated the Union Army and won the Civil War in 1865, How do you think the time line would be different today?

That's such a broad question. Could you be more specific on what you're asking? Time line in terms of a) would we be two or more separate nations? b) how long slavery/apartheid segregation would have existed? c) impact on the rest of the world (eg. 20th century events)?

3. What are the major difference that you can think of if the Confederates won the Civil War?

Again, the major factor would be the issue of slavery and race in America. By 1860, there was more capital in slavery than all the banks, railroads and factories combined. It was far from dying. I really think had the South won, many slaveholders would have attempted to go after their runaways who had fled north (maybe even to Canada) during the war. But this could have been a very ugly situation. but I think the many black men who were combat trained by the war would have continued the fight to protect themselves and their families.

4. Should it be called Civil War History Month instead ?

I think so. "Civil War History Month," along with an honest acknowledgment of slavery as the cause of the Confederacy (indeed, the very lifeblood of the CSA) would have avoided all of the controversies that occurred.

http://www.virginiacivilwar.org/2010conference.php

reply

bryanac-You're not very good at viewing things within a historical lense. Stick to watching MTV.

reply

My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuse....We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...you cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be." -Confederate States President Jefferson Davis, 1861

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Savannah, GA 1861

When the President and VP of a country make official, clear-cut statements like these (and never ever rescind these statrements), I think it's pretty easy to understand what the secession of the southern states and what the war they fought for was really all about. If you don't get that, it's not really my problem.

reply

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." -United States President Abraham Lincoln, Charleston, Ill, 1858.


Yes.......yes....Abraham Lincoln was ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL about equality. So was slave holding Ulysses Grant. If you want to live in your dream world where you can shape history to fit whatever it is you've been brainwashed to believe----be my guest. But don't cast judgment on my ancestor's cause as being nothing more than keeping the black man down. 6% of southerners owned slaves. You think the over 200,000 men who died for the Confederacy would have fought just to keep the slaves for the rich planters? Please....use......common.....sense.

reply

If you want to have a discussion on this, that's fine. But is it really necessary to continually resort to insults to make it? What does "MTV" or whatever have to do with this subject? I respect your point of view, even if I don't agree with it. And if you want to make your point, it's always better made without insults. All that does is make you look desperate, juvenile and insecure.

Anyway, I'm well familiar with the Lincoln quote you cited. I know about Grant's ownership of slaves. However, I disagree with your 6% southern slaveholders figure. That number seems to get smaller every year. It's calculated by counting only the male head of the household and not his entire family as slaveholders. In my opinion, the entire white supremacist south benefited from black inferiority/slavery.

Sorry, but I'm just not about getting out a measuring stick and trying to figure out which side was more racist. The south had slavery, segregation, lynchings sundown towns and the Ku Klux Klan. The north had all of those things, too. In 1857, SCOTUS Justice Taney said whites had no need to respect the rights of black people. Northern Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) said "thick-lipped, bullet-headed, degenerate" blacks were the lowest form of humanity. And of course, the New York Draft Riots of 1863. But I'm just not caught up in where these things happened. Northern racism is just as bad as southern racism.

I don't know who you are or who your ancestors were. But I will tell you the same thing I told a girl I used to go to Church with. She also said her ancestors were Confederates. She felt very ashamed. I'm African-American and I guess she felt the need to confess to me. I gave her a hug (besides, I always thought she was kind of cute) and I told her she has every right to be proud of who she is and she's not responsible for whatever her ancestors did. They probably weren't thinking of her when they did the things they did anyway.

It's absolutely clear to me through the quotes I sent you and other things I've read that the south fought was to preserve their interests in slavery and white supremacy. By 1860, there was more equity in plantation slavery than banks, railroads and factories combined. And it was about white superiority. By 1860, no white person was to be a slave. And whether they owned slaves or not, how many southerners believed in equality with blacks at that time? Who in the south was an abolitionist? Who didn't own slaves but really wanted to? And if your 6% figure is correct, if slavery was really dying by 1860, than I blame the other 94% for not getting its house in order and doing something about the minority that tore the country apart and brought on a death and destruction that killed 700,000 people.

I don't say these things because I'm an angry black man with a chip on his shoulder against white people. I say them because I'm a historian and I've spent many years researching the subject matter. I'd like to look back and see acceptance and equality, but it's just not there.

reply

As far as placing blame on who was responsible for starting the war---it was Lincoln and his tyrants up north that cared NOTHING for your ancestors--merely increasing the federal stranglehold on power. It was two seperate economic systems that were as seperate and different from each other as capitalism and communism.

The Confederates fought for the same EXACT principles that my ancestors fought for in the American Revolution--liberty. Slavery would not last forever, and in other countries throughout the world, slavery was abolished peacefully. The case of the United States had the potential to be exactly the same.

The Civil War began because of the North's desire for wealth and power. The fact of the matter is that the Abolitionist movement was founded by people who had no understanding of slavery or the southern economy. You're correct, there was much equity in slaves. The north proposed no acceptable solution whatsoever to compensate southern slaveholders. It would be akin to someone trying to convince the owner of a trucking company to abolish the use of tractor trailers without providing any compensation for the owner to do anything else with.

It appears you have a problem with the South because they owned blacks. The fact of the matter--is they would have owned anyone regardless of race to do the work that was neccessary to be completed. There were indentured servants who financed their voyage to America via indentured servitude--and they were white.

You seem to care alot about the whites maintaining superiority--but what country doesn't do that? Look at South Africa now that Apartheid is gone. Mandela's front of equality was a complete farce. Now whites are being offed and there is a mass-migration of whites from their homeland. But I suppose that fits your definition of "equality".

reply

As far as placing blame on who was responsible for starting the war---it was Lincoln and his tyrants up north that cared NOTHING for your ancestors--merely increasing the federal stranglehold on power. It was two seperate economic systems that were as seperate and different from each other as capitalism and communism.

The economic system was the same- capitalism/free enterprise. Whether it was a New England merchant or a Carolina planter, they both produced goods and services and then sold them on the open market for as much money as they could get for them. Granted, it may be hard for us to see their idea of what the workplace should look like, through our realities of payroll deductions (FICA, etc), labor unions, workmen's comp, income taxes and so on.

Do I think the federal government today has too much power? I think it does. but I get to live in this country as a free person. I can go where I want, read what I want, watch what I want and do things like talk to you on this message board. However, none of us are really free, at least not according to Thomas Jefferson's idea of republican liberty. I have to work on a job, do what I'm told to do to keep the job, pay taxes based on my income and obey the laws of my state and federal government. But we have much more freedom than most others in the world today.

The Confederates fought for the same EXACT principles that my ancestors fought for in the American Revolution--liberty. Slavery would not last forever, and in other countries throughout the world, slavery was abolished peacefully. The case of the United States had the potential to be exactly the same.

Liberty for who? What rights did black people have in the Confederacy? And no, the north was not much better. What makes American slavery appear so bad compared to other historic/current enslavements (which are also certainly bad):

1)Forcing a foreign people from their own homeland;

2)Making slavery synonymous with race;

3)And doing this in a land where "All men are created equal" and "With liberty and justice for all."

Not to mention the discrimination of 1865-1965, which just makes the period of slavery look worse.


The Civil War began because of the North's desire for wealth and power. The fact of the matter is that the Abolitionist movement was founded by people who had no understanding of slavery or the southern economy. You're correct, there was much equity in slaves. The north proposed no acceptable solution whatsoever to compensate southern slaveholders. It would be akin to someone trying to convince the owner of a trucking company to abolish the use of tractor trailers without providing any compensation for the owner to do anything else with.

What were abolitionists supposed to understand? If somebody writes and signs a letter telling me to kill them, I still don't have the right to do so. The cruelties and inhumanities of slavery can never be justified. Regardless of their understandings, I think they were more wholly right than those who sought to enslave people.

It appears you have a problem with the South because they owned blacks. The fact of the matter--is they would have owned anyone regardless of race to do the work that was necessary to be completed. There were indentured servants who financed their voyage to America via indentured servitude--and they were white.

You seem to care a lot about the whites maintaining superiority--but what country doesn't do that? Look at South Africa now that Apartheid is gone. Mandela's front of equality was a complete farce. Now whites are being offed and there is a mass-migration of whites from their homeland. But I suppose that fits your definition of "equality".


Eventually, blacks were singled out for slavery because some people believed it was the will of God. Certainly in an age before fingerprints and photography, blacks were more easily identifiable in white society.

What I care about is a country that lives up to its promise of equality (equal justice under the law). And I believe sincerely in racial reconciliation. Our American past is certainly not all bad. But trying to see things the way they were not is not reconciliation to me.

As I told you, I have friends whose ancestors owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy. I also have friends whose ancestors were in the KKK. They are not guilty for someone else's sins. Neither are you. the difference between us is that I just cannot see the Confederacy and a southern region you're seeing. I see an attempt at freedom based on someone else's bondage and second-class citizenship.

Again, where was the southern abolitionist movement? If slavery was dying, why didn't the non-slaveholding 94% do something about it and avoid the war?

reply

Hey Bryanac,

I sent you a PM...please read it.


It's time to fish or cut the bait

reply

[deleted]

1. First I heard or read of it.

2. There would be at least 4 countries right now where the continental US is, and no territories or states like Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico. My guesses would be The United States (Northeast and Midwest east of the Mississippi), a country of Southern States, Deseret (Utah, Southern California, Nevada, Northern Arizona, and Eastern Idaho), the Pacific States (Northern California, Oregon, and Washington), the Republic of Texas, and Native American countries on the frontier from the Mississippi to the Rockies. I don't know when slavery would become discontinued, but the times were already shifting to it in other European-based countries. Brazil was the last to discontinue it in the 1890s, and they were also an agricultural superpower who accumulated more land than they knew what to do with. The Southern US and Brazil, I think, have much in common, yet this is overlooked and they are often given the generic "Latin America" banner today.

The southern states would eventually consider the practice obsolete and wrong and find a way to deal with it. Keep in mind slavery was inherited, not invented by the south, and they just happened to have a cotton-heavy economy that couldn't afford a 180 spin in the workforce without an alternative being offered. As the industrial revolution progressed, it would be only a matter of time before cotton's grip on the economy would wane, and plantation owners would have to find another way to maintain their wealth with cheap labor and exploitive practices, like tycoons do today...

3. States would be more autonomous, and less cookie-cutter, in addition to about 4 or 5 national bodies. (BTW, what is the difference between question #2 and #3?)

4. Doesn't make much difference to me. Without the "Confederate" rebellion, there would be no "Civil War".

Personally, I would like it if North America was more like South America with many smaller countries and more options for immigrants to the land. The United States is the 3rd largest "nation" (more like an empire in terms of scale) population-wise. It would be cool for the south to govern herself, the North, and the west to all function much like Canada does - a comfortably-sized country with a unique identity that can be managed. The only weakness would be a weak military, but that's nothing a few alliances couldn't fix.

reply

It is impossible to peer into the brain of another human being and know with certainty his or her inner thoughts and motives. The best I can do is infer President Lincoln's intentions from his words and actions. I cannot prove all doubt that President Lincoln believed in the perfect equality of all people, and I cannot claim to know Mr. Lincoln's mind as fully as Mr. Lincoln did.

After a close analysis of President Lincoln's words and deeds, I believe there is much to suggest that President Lincoln did in fact believe in the equal rights of all human beings, even if he often presented those beliefs in an esoteric manner. Mr. Lincoln's rhetorical strategies reveal much about his statesmanship as he constantly adjusted his language in order to gain an audience and win their support, while subtly reminding them of equality, without offending them.

I believe the more closely one inspects President Lincoln's words (unlike politicians today, Mr. Lincoln did not rely on speech writers and chose his words carefully) the more evidence condemning President Lincoln as a racist seems to evaporate.

When President Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he stated nothing but a political fact.

From the time he reentered national politics in 1854 until his 1860 campaign for president, Mr. Lincoln had in fact never proposed to "introduce political and social equality between the white and black races."

The core of his political platform was the proposal to prohibit slavery from spreading into the federal territories; in terms of policies related to slavery and race, President Lincoln only advocated repealing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and restoring the Missouri Compromise.

On face value then, Mr. Lincoln's words are not a statement of racial supremacy; they only describe his campaign platform. Further, while he said it was not his purpose in 1858 to "introduce political and social equality between the white and black races", President Lincoln never denied that he believed in their political and social equality, and he never said that he would not support policies of racial equality in the future should public opinion become more receptive to them.

"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."

It is true. At that time, President Lincoln never endorsed policies to make jurors or voters or officeholders of black people or to make them eligible for marriage with white people, and he was proposing no such policies in 1858.

In the context of his many other statements insisting on the equality of white and black people, it seems likely that his refusal to advocate such policies was more a matter of strategy then principle on his part: Mr. Lincoln knew that there was no possibility at all of getting such policies enacted into law, so why destroy his political career by proposing those polices to an audience that wanted nothing to do with them?

Nowhere did Mr. Lincoln suggest that such policies would be wrong. Nor did he deny that he might support such policies in the future, perhaps when the American mind had cleansed itself of some of the racial prejudice and was better prepared to entertain the full implications of human equality.


"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."

Is there a physical difference between black and white human beings? Of course: black is black, and white is white. And while this simple difference of skin color, in itself, does not imply or require political and social inequality, the distinction of color in the United States of America at that time had become deeply entwined with slavery and questions of racial hierarchy. Mr. Lincoln was offering a sound sociological observation when he predicted that differing skin colors would "forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

If the long and sad story of race relations in the U.S.A. teaches anything, it is that many people of different skin colors have a VERY difficult time seeing one another as equals, as fellow citizens, and as potential friends or spouses rather then as members of separate racial groups.

Unlike in the ancient world, where neighboring tribes and cities enslaved one another through warfare and thus masters and slaves often looked quite similar to one another, slavery in the United States of America corresponded in large measure with color for the most part. By the time of the American Civil War, virtually all slaves were black; none were white.

When a human being looks at another human being, color is among the first sensory perceptions that strike the beholder, and when skin color is so closely tied to political and social status as it was with American Slavery at that time, moving society beyond color-consciousness to color-blindness becomes a daunting challenge.

President Lincoln was concerned that when American white people saw African-Americans, they would immediately associate them with slavery, and therefore assign to them an inferior social rank; When American black people saw whites, they would immediately associate them with the masters who oppressed them. Thus, President Lincoln feared that widespread manumission might lead to a terrible race war in the United States of America.

Fearing that black and white people would never be able to live together freely and peacefully, President Lincoln looked to some kind of plan for colonization to solve the American race problem that slavery had created. If slavery could be eliminated from the United States of America, then colonization would be necessary for two reasons:

1. It would protect White-Americans against possible retaliation from former slaves seeking revenge.

2. Colonization would offer security for Black-Americans, who as free people might not be protected in the U.S.A. to the extent they were when they were consider to be valuable property as slaves.

The only colonization plan President Lincoln actually sponsored was an 1863 expedition to the Caribbean in which black people participated voluntarily and which the U.S. Congress funded fully. When after only a few months it turned into a debacle, President Lincoln sent a ship to bring the colonists back to the United States. And after seeing over 200,000 African-American men volunteer and fight for the United States Military during the American Civil War, President Lincoln fully dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves. Never again did he speak seriously about colonization for black people, pressing instead for white and black people to learn to live together in the United States as free Americans.

Thankfully, President Lincoln was wrong in his prediction - The United States of America has not suffered a genocidal war in which one race has exterminated the other, but it is also true that some Americans, both white and black, have found it tremendously difficult to get beyond race and to see one another as fellow citizens without regard to color.

Today, more then one-hundred and forty-five years after the American War between the States, many Americans continue to wrestle with the question of whether the laws should judge a human by the color of their skin or the content of their character.

"And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

President Lincoln did not endorse a political hierarchy based on race, but indicated that such hierarchy may be a "necessity" - an inescapable result of widespread racial opinions and assumptions.

In such a case, anyone of any color, when presented with a choice of having his or her race assigned a superior or an inferior position in a given society, with no option of equal citizenship, would choose to have his or her race in the superior position.

President Lincoln's assertion is the flip side of the obvious statement that no human being would wish to be enslaved. That in no way proves that President Lincoln did not believe in the equality of rights of all humans of all colors or that he did not hope American opinion would someday move in the direction of equal citizenship of all people of all colors. It simply demonstrates that so long as necessity required that there be an unjust hierarchy based on color, and as long as the American people rejected color-blindness, President Lincoln, like anyone else, would rather be on top then on bottom if forced to choose.


Thomas Dilorenzo, and those who share his critique of Mr. Lincoln are modern-day versions of abolitionists. Mr. Dilorenzo's frustration with President Lincoln springs from his insistence that President Lincoln should have demanded immediate emancipation for all slaves and full social and political equality for all African-Americans at that time, with no reservation, hesitation, compromise, or concern for obtaining the consent of the governed.

Thankfully, Mr. Lincoln understood better then the Thomas Dilorenzo's of our day, and the William Lloyd Garrison's and John Brown's of his own day, that preserving the rule of law, placing slavery on the course to ultimate extinction, and protecting the equal rights of all humans of all colors were all inseparable aspects of one supreme goal: a free and just society.

Getting American audiences to listen and then persuading them of the equality of black people would require great, and perhaps unprecedented, rhetorical skills. No one, however, was more calculating in crafting his speech then President Lincoln as he attempted to refute the new pro-slavery arguments while moving public opinion, without insulting the public, back in the direction of the founding principle of human equality.

President Lincoln was a master of misdirection. He deliberately used his rhetoric on race matters to hide his own belief in equality yet appear to appease those who did not believe in equality while manipulating them toward acceptance of racial polices.

President Lincoln's challenge was to move opinions back toward the principles of the United States Declaration of Independence while avoiding the fanaticism of abolitionism, and to uphold the rule of law and protection of property rights while avoiding the fanaticism of the pro-slavery camp. In this, Mr. Lincoln's skill was unmatched.

Please consider President Lincoln's qualification of his position. If Mr. Lincoln could move public opinion to grant this basic precept of political right, that black people have the right to own and acquire property, the other precepts of civil society and civil liberties could then be argued.

If President Lincoln could persuade Americans of all black people's equal humanity and natural rights, and if Americans were to act consistently with the terms of their own social contract, justice would demand either equal citizenship for black people or the right to freely emigrate from the United States. In either case holding black people as chattel slaves violated the first principle of the American's social contract - human equality.

reply

1. I'm not from the USA, so I have no say.

2. Probably many unions among the states. Less involvement or maybe even no involvement in WWII by the new unions. Soviet would have taken over all of Europe. Japan would be an asian/pacific empire.

No Manhattan project... probably. The soviets would have taken all the german scientists working on the atom bomb, so they would've been first with nuclear powers. Japan would've followed. Cold war between them maybe.

No space race. No man on the moon. After that it's hard to tell. Maybe Japan would have invaded the Western states and the Soviets after gobbling up South America would have come after the southern states.

3. Less democracy in the world. But in the end the new order would have crumbled, because man wants to be free.

4. Don't know.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." - Roy Batty, Blade Runner

reply