THE ISSUE: Whether the abolition of slavery was a byproduct of the Civil War or the cause.
***
“Abe’s Ticking Clock” (Allen C. Guelzo, PostOpinion, April 12) is a great article, full of historical value and information.
It makes you think of the price paid by people who didn’t fully think a situation through. The South thought that Abe Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery immediately and made a decision to secede, which was exactly what made Lincoln truly annoyed to the point of escalating force on Americans.
Somewhere in our future we could see this happen again, especially with our current White House and its progressive passion to change our great country.
Marc Buonomo
Holmdel, NJ
***
Thank you, Allen Guelzo, for bringing the truth to the forefront.
As great a president Lincoln was, he was not an anti-slavery zealot.
He saw it for what it was — an abomination to mankind that was, unfortunately, protected by the Constitution.
Lincoln, as Guelzo states, merely wanted to prevent future states from being allowed to enter the Union while practicing slavery.
Lincoln himself once proposed exporting all former slaves back to Africa.
While what Lincoln did, in securing the abolition of slavery, through the winning of the Civil War, was great, it wasn’t his initial focus.
That was preserving the Union — with half of it with slavery and the other half without.
Charlie Honadel
Staten Island
***
Lincoln denied the constitutionality of secession, but he also believed that the Union created the states, which is akin to believing that the baby created the parents. He was wrong on both cases.
Of course, the South provided 80 percent of federal reserves — a potent influence on Lincoln’s desire to keep the Union intact.
There is no constitutional concept of a perpetual or indissoluble union. The Constitution was a contract between the member states, which retained the right to withdraw at their discretion.
New York was one of three states that put an actual secession clause in its ratification documents.
V. Protopapas
Huntington Station
***
If you do the math, you can understand what caused the southern states to secede. The bulk of federal-tax revenue was being raised by way of tariffs on goods produced in the South, and the bulk of the federal spending was done in the North.
The North used a population majority to bully the South in terms of dollars and cents and appeared to be bent on controlling the lifestyle of the southerners.
It wasn’t so much a devotion to slavery. A very small percentage of southerners were slaveowners, and by the time of the Civil War, the enterprise of slavery was only marginally profitable. What slavery really represented was an unmistakable attempt of exercise of control of the North over the South.
Herb Nicholson
Canton, Ga.
***
Guelzo seems to believe that the only reason the South seceded was over the slavery issue.
Slavery was already doomed and most of the educated people in the South, including Jefferson Davis, realized this and were looking for a peaceable way to eradicate it. Every other country in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without warfare.
To claim that the war was fought only for the abolition of slavery is a gross distortion of the facts.
Guelzo also ignores any action by Lincoln that may be looked upon in a bad light.
Prof. Guelzo, please include all the pertinent facts in your next article.
R. Joyce
College Point
***
The Civil War was fought over money.
Allen Guelzo does not mention tariffs in his article. The CSA would not have had tariffs on tobacco or cotton.
The North passed laws that hurt the South. Lincoln should have let the South secede.
Joe McNiesh
Staten Island