so he was sensitive to abolitionist -- there are scholars who says lincoln staged managed events which lincoln himself contra ticket contradicts. this is giving a bit away next week especially. lincoln came to the conclusion that the union war, his chief aim to preserve the union ultimately meant that he had to abolish slavery. that the abolitionists' discreet aim of a war to end slavery really converged with lincoln's chief aim which was a war to preserve the union. you can't have one without the other. in order to preserve the union you have to end slavery. in order to end slavery you have to preserve the union. because you need blacks on your side to preserve the union. and we'll elaborate on that today and especially next week. but douglass made that very clear.

was there another question? now, to go back to lincoln's inaugural address, now, what you might not know is lincoln had actually drafted it. that he labored over, and when he arrives in washington, he circulates the draft to some advisers. and -- and in the draft that he circulates, he opposes efforts to amend the constitution. in his draft, he says i'm for the old -- he opposes -- in his draft he knew congress was debating this new 13th amendment. they hadn't passed it. he vows to reclaim the federal forts that had been captured rather than simply preserve those that remain in federal hands.

and in his draft, it's a much firmer ending. his draft, he ends by saying, with you, and not with me, shall be peace with the sword. your choice. he circulates this draft to william stewart in particular who thinks it is way too strong. plus some other republican advisers, orville browning, frances blair. based on their recommendations, he changes it. now he supports the 13th amendment. now he vows only to protect federal courts under control. now he has this memorable -- truly brilliant, softer ending. misty cords of memory stretching from every battlefield, to every living heart stone, all over this broad land will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched as surely they

will be by the better angels of our nature. the language actually comes pry marlly from william seward who suggest this is for the ending. the mystic chords which -- it didn't have the musical ear lincoln did. he suggests the mystic chords but in a clunky phrase. lincoln as a literary person develops it into the last stanza. so the southern response to the inaugural, southerners interpret it as a declaration of war. here's one quote from south carolina. racializes lincoln saying he's an orangutan, to battle. which is the signal of our freedom. a virginia editor says -- many southerners characterize lincoln's vice president hannibal hamlin as a mulato. so some of them would joke around, we'd like to assassinate

lincoln, but if we do that, he's in mulato's presence. but they hated it, they hated it because he calls slavery evil. and remember that southerners, the very idea that one calls slavery evil is a threat to southern honor. it's also -- southerners understand that the laws depend on morality to a certain degree. higher law proliferates because northerners believe in slavery's evil. so when lincoln i think brilliantly summarizes the central debate of the war. one side believes slavery is right and nought to be -- the other side believes it is evil. no one disagrees. they are just outraged that he would call slavery evil. they're also outraged lincoln

says secession is treason. it's insurrection, a revolution, it's anarchy. and from the southern perspective he's thumbing his nose at the supreme court, particularly the dred scott decision. lincoln says in his address, the candid citizen must confess if the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be fixed by the decisions of the supreme court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having resigned their government into the hands of that tribunal. yet southerners understood the supreme courts and most americans at one level to be the highest degree on the land. in a sense this passage is denying the validity of judicial review. the idea the supreme court can overturn acts of legislature. how did -- the southerners, this summarizes the confederate view of secession.

this is from vice president alexander stevens. our new government rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man. this is the first in the history of the world based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth. to contradict this acceptance, this notion is inflammatory. what's the northern response? most republicans and democrats liked it. it's profoundly subtle. in a sense it has something for everyone. i think it's actually in many respects a brilliant document. it's both progressive and conservative, as i've suggested. although abolitionists hated it. because of lincoln's conciliatory posture to slave owning southerners. in fact, frederick douglass, here's what he says. little better than our worst fears.

a little bit of his response. he refers to lincoln as double-tongued. because he's elected on a platform to confine slavery where it is. where the public mind shall rest in the belief of its ultimate extinction, and in his essay, frederick douglass is quoting lincoln. yet he is endorsing the constitutional amendment that guarantees slavery in the slave states forever. for douglass and other abolitionists, it's courting the favor of rebels. douglas swrn s certainly agrees that confederates are rebels. that's a term that was used. in fact, lincoln never dignifies the confederates by even referring to them as such. he always calls them rebels. the closest he'll come is saying throughout the war's so-called confederacy, so-called confederates. to use the term confederates or confederacy legitimates the

secession of the government. douglas swrns says, you're courting the favor of the rebels. as close as duglass comes to abandoning his faith in national ideals, articulated in the declaration is immediately after reading lincoln's inaugural address. he plans a trip to haiti. he plans to see if, in fact, it is the black republic he's read about. if it is he's going to move there, settle there and encourage other blacks to do the same. with lincoln as president there is no way the nation can come close to achieving national ideals. now he doesn't go to haiti. doesn't go on this trip. anyone know why? ft. sumter. captured in "harper's weekly," and this is from the perspective of confederates. i think, so lincoln right after he gives his inaugural address

goes to the white house. like the first sight of a business is this memo from major robert anderson. he's the commander of ft. sumter, with a dispatch saying that supplies at ft. sumter are going to last only another week or two. my men are going to starve to death. they're going to have to surrender unless you send us supplies. so lincoln is faced with this profound choice. ft. sumter is in the heart of the confederacy just off of charleston, south carolina. in a sense he has three options. he can try to shoot his way in. send gun boats and arms. but if he does that, he's going to be accused of starting the war. he's going to outrage southerners. he could just give up ft. sumter and say, okay, take it. we don't need it, take it.

if he does that, he's going to divide the north. northerners will be outraged he's not defending federal property. or he can do what he did which is to send a boat with provisions only. no guns, no arms. notify the south carolina governor in advance. hey, just to let you know, we're sending food because our men are starving. this is not an act of belligerence. they're starving to death. they're in this federal fort. and that way if south carolinians do anything then the onus is on them for starting the war. it's a brilliant ploy. and south carolinians refused to allow this aid of food to reach ft. sumter. on april 12th at 4:30 a.m. they

begin bombing ft. sumter for 33 hours until the surrender. here's a perspective from the fort, itself, by a with t"harpe weekly." they had sketch artists, the precursors of photojournalists on site. they draw the sketch. send it to the headquarters. they were cutting from the sketch. lincoln calls for 75,000 troops for 90 days. northerners and southerners both thought the war would last no more than three months. both sides thought the war would end quickly. southerners felt because of their long tradition of martial ideas of fighting which was one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the south. duels were common. southerners thought it would

take ten northerners to defeat one southerner. northerners felt because of their manpower, their industrial base they would just destroy the south in three months. very few people thought the war would last more than six months. lincoln, the desire for revenge and the unity among most northerners is such lincoln could have easily raised 400,000 troops. he, in fact, had to turn many away. it unites northern whites as never before. frederick douglass acknowledges it. the government has aroused. the dead north is alive. abolitionists, one of the fascinating aspects of abolitionists is when lincoln gives his inaugural the self-described abolitionists are still a minority, tiny mi r minori minority, and they're still despised. what transforms abolitionists into respected prescient critics of the american scene is fort sumter.

they are respected as never before. now there are more people attending abolitionist meetings than ever before. because essentially the war proves the abolitionists' right. and the greatest reason for why abolitionists were excoriated is now no longer on the table. that is they threatened to divide the country. they threatened to incite this union. ft. sumter because of lincoln calling for troops leads directly to the second secession between april and early may. and, in fact, lincoln suspends habeas corpus and imprisons some maryland politicians in an attempt to prevent maryland from seceding. from the outset the reason why douglass stays and doesn't go to haiti is he understands that as do other abolitionists that this

military war is a golden opportunity to end slavery. from the beginning. from ft. sumter frederick douglass is really emblematic. he's by this point, if not the most respected, one of the most respected abolitionists and probably the most famous because of his brilliance as an orator and a writer. here's for douglass on how to end the war. you end slavery immediately, you arm blacks. 10,000 black soldiers could be raised in the next 30 days. they would be thrilled to fight. in fact, he says by preventing whites from being soldiers, which lincoln's call for 75,000 troops does, he says, you're only fighting with your right hand. by ending slavery and arming blacks, you can tap into this

vital black power and quickly and easily vanquish the confederacy. yeah? >> one thing i noticed especially in the douglass reading from this week and how it contrasted with the other douglass reading we did, he's taking on much more of a national identity. >> yes, very much. does that happen only after secession? >> yes, that's a great -- douglass becomes kind of national spokesperson for the abolitionists and for the north, really, during the civil war. he's already a household name on the eve of the civil war. but the civil war makes douglass far more famous than even he had been before. in fact, in the wake of the war becomes an elder statesman. he becomes a republican insider. and he is very closely involved. he -- through every newspaper he

devotes the entire paper to coverage of the war and his views and other views and takes on those of lincoln, other republicans. he gives -- his speeches now are to more people than ever before. he -- i think that's a great way to summarize it. he's a kind of national mouthpiece. i think it's a great way to summarize it. he calls for repealing the fugitive slave law, which made sense. i mean, after all, the confederacy, they're insurgents. why should we dignify law to belligere belligerents, to insurrectionaries? by repealing the slave law,

arming blacks -- blacks constitute a third of the south in terms of population. they know the landscape, the rivers. they can be indispensable sources of aid. the fifth reason is if you right upfront make this an abolition war, it means england in particular, there's no way they can recognize us, the confederacy. because england is leading the western world in seeking to perpetuate this wave of emancipation. and although england is losing money because immediately after the war the union creates a blockade around the south preventing southerners from sending their cotton to england to be turned into finished goods and cloth, so the textile workers and owners in england are suffering profoundly. but if the war is an abolition war, england is not going to recognize the confederacy. and until then, it's up for

grabs. other thoughts on douglass' response to lincoln and douglass' review of the war? you had a number of pieces from douglass. yeah? >> i'm just interested in england's motivation in not recognizing the confederacy. because if the union is preventing england from getting goods that it needs -- >> right. >> -- it seems that england would seem more of an enemy in the union than it would in the confederacy. >> that's a great question. i mean, you're right. from an economic standpoint, the union is more of an enemy than it is a friend to england. but england when it emancipated slavery in the british west indies and emancipation more generally is when people made a decision that went against their pocketbook.

when england passed its emancipation act they knew it was costing them immense amounts of money. they specifically made the decision in which their moral vision outstripped their economic desire. and they were proud of that. they were proud of that. they also felt that by convincing everyone else to also emancipate slavery there would be a level playing field economical economically. they were proud of that and by, as i mentioned before, by 1860, most of the new world had abolished slavery. and slavery was the west's first big business. england is sensitive to the fact their moral claims and desire to realize them will trump economic incentives. now that was debated. england ultimately comes close to recognizing the confederacy.

according to james mcphearson, had lincoln not presented his emancipation proclamation, antietam. had england officially recognized the confederacy, essentially that would have meant a confederate victory because now england could break the blaockade. the confederacy could receive gun, ships, armaments from the powerhouse of england. yeah? >> i was going to say aside from the moral reasons for england not being involved in the war, on a practical level, the opportunity never came up where it made sense because the union navy was much stronger than, like, it's not as if the confederacy had a navy equal to the navy of the union. so it would have just been the british navy against the union

m navy which to be fair the navy was strong but they're in enemy territory. moreover, it's kind of like in the american revolution where french involvement didn't come until there was a turning point in the war, where the colonists had already demonstrated enough victories. to kind of be like a sure thing. i feel like the confederacy never got it together, was always kind of a tug-of-war between the union and confederacy. >> right. that's a good point. there's a relatively new book that argues the union blockade was not that effective. and so having recognized the confederacy would have just blown apart that blockade. and the cotton could have easily been shipped to england. yeah? >> i think what douglass recognizes is the union actually needed the ideal of fighting for slavery to become more efficient in its war practices. >> that's right. that's very good. >> up until that point, up until ending the fugitive slave law,

up until emancipation, there was also the question of compromise. >> yes. >> i think douglass declares how this creates inefficiency, weak heartedness. >> yes. >> there's always the lingering question of, well, if the south will compromise, we will give up certain elements. and douglass saw what many northerners weren't willing to accept which is that the south viewed the north as enemies while the north had not yet given up the south as sort of brotherly states. >> that's right. >> with the addition of, like, the slavery ideal, we are fighting to end slavery, the war can't end if the south compromises. the south has to give in. and i think this -- i think that that put the war into an entirely new terms. the only way that the war was going to end in the north's favor was if they fought wholeheartedly against an enemy and not just for reuniting with

compromise. >> that's a great point. i mean, douglass -- those are great points. douglass recognized what many people didn't until near the end of the war and that is to win the war and to preserve the union, you had to completely vanquish the south and it had to lead to an unconditional surrender. because southerners, all they have to do is hang on. they can suffer as many military defeats as you want, but as long as they remain a confederacy, as long as they don't surrender unconditionally, no matter how destroyed their territory is, they can remain a separate nation. and slavery was the centerpiece of that nation. yeah? >> we see this whole, this england, the importance of england, making the moral point

about ending slavery with john stewart mill, when he talks about america. he basically argues, he's a liberal, he supports people's rights, you know, sometimes insurrection revolution can be okay. he makes a distinction where he says on 142 he says, secession may be laudable and so many of the other kind of insurrection but may also be an enormous crime. it's the one or the other according to the object and the provocation. and basically then argues that the rebels, the confederates, they're basically, though they're trying to fight for their independence, they're enemies of mankind. on the page before, he says they're not in rebellion for civil slavery. they're in rebellion for the right of burning human creatures alive and argues there is this moral distinction, like there's some people who are good for fighting back and some people who are not. in this case, like these people are just straight-up evil. >> that's very good.

>> and we need to get -- we can't support them. >> that's a great point. that's a very good point. in fact, let's jump to the -- to the england's dilemma. caught -- the people who suffered the most in england were the working class textiles, the mill workers. they were literally starving to death. even before the civil war, you can't really call them free in the way most political theorists define freedom in that individual freedom is the freedom of mobility. the mill workers didn't have a choice of getting a job elsewhere. they were truly exploited and with a blockade and with the secession of cotton being imported, textiles, the factories either shut down or they had work stoppages. and it reached a point by mid 1862 in which throughout england there are massive drives for

food, for money, that will prevent the deaths, literally the deaths of the mill workers. this is from the front page of "illustrated london news." it's somehow blurry. the time has gone by for any nice measurement of the extent to which destitution prevails in the cotton district. that was no exaggeration. absolute destitution. here's another full page from "illustrated london news" showing a soup and food drive. the thousands of people who are making food just to prevent these mill workers from starving to death. now, mill, in a sense, represents the -- john stewart mill represents the mill workers' voice. the cotton spinners, in england, were among in many respects the heroes of the civil war. because although they were being

exploited, they refused to encourage england to recognize the confederacy. why? because although they were exploited working class mill workers, they understood that slavery, they believed that slavery threatened their own dignity and identity as free laborers. that they were proud of being free labors even though they weren't making that much. that slavery threatened that. they were the staunchest supporters of the union, of the opportunity to end slavery. mill in his essay in a sense is voicing that view. workers, they're starving to death because of the union blockade. and mill spoke for them. workers refused to recognize the confederacy, break the union blockade, and they truly should be seen as among the great heroes of the war collectively. marks, carl marks who wrote a column for horace greeley's "new york tribune" in the 1850s and

followed the war passionately because he saw the war as a step in his vision of communism and believed that the war reflected the unity of the working classes internationally and here he essentially says as much. he says the misery that the stoppage of the factories and the shortening of the labor time motivated by the blockade of the slave states has produced among the workers in the northern manufacturing districts is incredible. so on the one hand, they're facing total misery. working class is conscious that the government is only waiting for their cry from the pressure. now, marks is off base, in my view, in thinking that social change always occurs from the margins. that if the working classes just actually come together, that's going to produce a revolution. historically, it's a dialectic between what goes on in the margins and what goes on in the seats of power.

but he's right in noting that they're refusing to call for the working -- the working classes in england are refusing to call for a recognition of the confederacy, and, in fact, they're supporting the united states. so this is a brilliant proof of the indestructible excellence of english classes. mill and marks understood what was going on. yeah? microphone. >> i was just going to say that it seems like the working class in england recognized maybe deeper motives that haven't been that much discussed in southern government which is that as much as they discuss states rights and democracy, there were elements of an oligarchy about the type of government they set up. it's interesting that marks actually describes the civil war as partially a social war, and a