People sometimes wonder why the Civil War was ever allowed to happen, and why it dragged on for four, long, bloody years.
In fact, Scott Jennings - a CNN political consultant - suggested in 2024 that the American Civil War could have been avoided if the politicians had just bothered to sit down and negotiate.
I think that politicians could have negotiated an end to slavery without the bloodshed. Maybe they could have settled it and gotten the South to agree – Lots of politicians did try to settle it, and never got compromises and punted. And then obviously we had the Civil War for the very obvious reason of eradicating slavery.
No, that was NOT the reason we had the Civil War. That's the fallacy.
Here's the real story.
First, let's start with a premise: Abraham Lincoln abhorred slavery.
About that issue, he made no apologies. However, Lincoln was also a pragmatist. He knew that slavery was a “hot button” issue for southerners because it involved their livelihood – their ability to make big money with labor-intensive crops like cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo.
So, from the get-go, Lincoln ran on a political platform of appeasement / compromise – NOT to eliminate slavery where it already existed – but to PREVENT THE SPREAD OF SLAVERY to any new states being admitted. He made that loud and clear during his run for the U.S. Senate in 1858 – which he lost to fellow Illinoisian Stephen Douglas – and during his run for the presidency two years later.
He promised the South that he would leave slavery alone where it currently existed to die “a natural death.”
I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the states, and perhaps to liberty itself . . . to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death [by finding] new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old.[1]
By the election of 1860, the country was in constant turmoil over the issue of slavery and the right of the new states to decide whether they wanted it or not. The voters understood that the next president would determine the future of our country. And lucky for all, there were four candidates for the job that year:
- Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was the candidate of the recently formed Republican Party that was an “antislavery or antislavery expansion” party.
- The Democratic Party split into two wings: The Northern Democrats’ candidate was Senator Stephen A. Douglas – also of Illinois – who wanted a “popular sovereignty policy” (let the people of the territory decide whether they want slavery or not).
- The Southern Democrats picked the current Vice President, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, whose campaign was based on the demand for federal legislation and intervention to protect slavery and to allow the expansion of slavery.
- Last – but not least – Senator John Bell of Tennessee was the candidate of the new third party, the Constitutional Union Party. This was the party of former Whigs [the party replaced by the Republicans] and other moderates who rallied to support staying together as a country and keeping the current Constitution without doing anything about slavery.
Lincoln captured less than 40 percent of the popular vote, but he won a majority in the electoral college (180 electoral votes) by dominating in the Northern states, plus Oregon and California to become president.
When the results were final, and BEFORE Lincoln was ever inaugurated, Southern states began leaving the Union (a slang term for the United States) and setting up their own country – the Confederate States of America.
Still hoping to prevent this split, President-elect Lincoln left Illinois for Washington several weeks early, to do a “whistle-stop” train tour of the Northern states. He had two reasons for this – 1. To let the people of the North see and hear him since TVs, radios, and computers didn’t exist back then, and 2. He also wanted to keep telling the South NOT to leave the Union and reassure them that he would NOT touch slavery where it existed at that time.
Even as late as his inaugural address in March of 1861, Lincoln promised:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that [because] of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension . . . I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.[2]
But as Lincoln reassured them, he also drew a line in the sand:
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one – ‘to preserve, protect and defend’ it.
I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.[2]
Despite all of Lincoln’s pleadings, promises, and offers to compromise, the South refused to bargain. It was caught up in the heady experience of essentially “flipping off” rules, laws, and traditions, as well as forming local military units with cool names like the Continental Guards and Crescent City Rifles – each with their own style uniforms – and doing marching drills to thrill the ladies.
In the end, the South wanted separation and the right to expand slavery – regardless of Lincoln’s offers. So on April 12, 1861, they bombarded a federal military post called Fort Sumter, situated in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. It surrendered the next day.
At that point, Lincoln had no recourse, so he “took off the gloves” and went to war. His reason? To save the Union – NOT to free the slaves.
After two years of watching a revolving door of incompetent generals command the Army of the Potomac in losing battles, Lincoln and the North finally hit a stretch of wins – BIG wins! A key Confederate stronghold at Vicksburg, Mississippi fell after a forty-six-day-siege, opening the entire Mississippi River to Union control, and Lee’s second invasion of the North was stopped in a three-day battle at “a place where all roads meet” – Gettysburg, PA.
At this point, the South began to see the handwriting on the wall, so the Confederate government made an “official” overture to Lincoln to hold peace talks. However, this offer to negotiate was NOT on an offer to reunite the Union; it was only to end the fighting. Both sides would continue as separate nations, and of course, slavery and the slave trade would continue - unabated.
President Abraham Lincoln took some time to think about it. After his decision was made, Lincoln – who accepted almost no public speaking invitations once he became president – accepted the offer to give “a few appropriate remarks” after the main speaker, Edward Everett, at the dedication ceremonies for the new National Cemetery at Gettysburg on November 19, 1863.
This simple, cemetery-dedication speech – the shortest speech Lincoln ever gave – grabbed the attention of the entire world. Ranked as one of the greatest speeches of all time, memorized by countless students over more than 150 years, and extensively quoted by scholars and writers in just about every field, this magnificent address is actually just a reply to the Confederate States’ offer of “peace without reunion“ and the continuation of slavery. [The highlighted part below is his answer - and his reasons.]
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[3]
Remember, Lincoln wanted to end slavery because he abhored it in the first place, but he was willing to endure it where it already existed - IF the South remained in the Union. But when the South said “screw you” and left – violently, Lincoln saw it as an opportunity to right a grievous wrong. As he said in this dedication speech –
“. . . this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom” [both the end of slavery and the reunification of the country] “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
In sum, Abraham Lincoln DID attempt to settle the war – BEFORE it even started. And Lincoln WAS open to peace offers during the war, IF the South came back into the Union. But it was the South's greed, racism, and intractability that prevented any possibility of a “settlement”.
Then Jennings gave his opinion of the entire topic:
“I mean, look, it’s sort of irrelevant, historical meandering . . it’s sort of esoteric or irrelevant historical kicking around what could have been, might have been, should have been, but . . . it’s not a conversation I think is useful.”
Yes, that 'historical meandering', as he calls it, is relevant. Look at the inaccuracies Jennings espoused. They can't be corrected if no one sees the past as relevant to the present. And the lessons of the past, can't be learned if the past is ignored or - worse yet - falsified and covered-up.
Remember, the past is a prologue to the future because humanity's traits - love, hate, greed, sharing, morality, immorality, grift, honesty - never change - and haven't since caveman days. And in 2025, this very same thinking from 1861 – a growing disregard for the laws and traditions of our country – is now threatening to end “that government of the people, by the people, for the people” again.
To save it, we, the people, “must be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us” to prevent that from happening.
Lincoln - a man who gave his life for his principles - expects no less.
This is another lesson about our future from Abe Lincoln, Storyteller.
Mac
Works Cited
[1] “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1 [1824-Aug. 28, 1848].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln1. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.
[2] “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4 [Mar. 5, 1860-Oct. 24, 1861].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln4. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.
[3] Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 7 [Nov. 5, 1863-Sept. 12, 1864].” In the digital collection Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln7. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 19, 2024.
