Posted on 08/27/2006 9:13:18 AM PDT by smug
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
>>>But that is the southron way, isn't it?<<<
If you were telling the truth the blacks who are claiming ancestry in the Confederate Army would be liars. Are you calling them liars? Of course you are. You are a Jesse Jackson, Southern Povery Law Center, NAACP loving race-baiter. Admit it.
free dixie,sw
Sorry, I left my English-watie, watie-English dictionary at work.
No, I'm not because I'm not aware of any of them making the claim that slaves were promised freedom in exchange for military service. You are, in spite of all evidence showing that to be wrong. So what does that make you?
You are a Jesse Jackson, Southern Povery Law Center, NAACP loving race-baiter. Admit it.
Another popular southron tactic. When all else has failed miserably try and brand you opponent with unpopular figures. Can the Hitler and Stalin connections be far behind?
you've always KNOWN that 90% of what you post is simply evasions, deceit, half-truths & outright NONSENSE. NOW everyone else knows that you are a PROPAGANDIST for the DAMNyankee cause,too.
free dixie,sw
I pointed you to General Order #14, but you completely ignored the part about conferring on the slave the "rights of a freedman", as follows:
General Order 14, Section IV
... No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman, and which will be filed with the superintendent...
You would have been a target of Union forces because of your screaming & yelling to break up America, one slave the other free.
Give it a rest, after looking at your photo on the other thread you are a real pale face. What shade of neo-confederate are you this week?
>>>You would have been a target of Union forces because of your screaming & yelling to break up America, one slave the other free.<<<
For the record, Lincoln originally had no problems with slavery. And it was not the intent of the Emancipation Proclamation to emancipate slaves in the Union states, only those in rebellion. Four Union states (Maryland, Deleware, Kentucky, and Missouri) continued holding slaves after the 'Emancipation'. Another slave state, West Virginia, was admitted to the Union after the war began. Certain slave-holding counties of Texas and Louisiana that were not in rebellion were permitted to continue to hold slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, and the notion that, without the war, there would have been two nations -- one free and the other slave -- is a myth. We would have had two nations alright, but one 'slave', and another with some slave states and some free states.
Wrong. Lincoln always felt slavery to be morally wrong. What he had problems with was the constitutionality of ending it where it already existed. There are plenty of Lincoln quotes to support this. Here's one from the first Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858:
"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
You also make the standard Lost Causer statement about the EP not doing this or not doing that, ignoring the fact that Lincoln also advocated passage of the 13th amendment, which DID end slavery in those areas not in rebellion, and doing it through the proper legal mechanism.
to "Mr SPIN": buzz off, FOOL. (i bet you look REALLY god in your robe & hood.)
free dixie,sw
>>>Wrong. Lincoln always felt slavery to be morally wrong.<<<
Maybe my wording could have been different. I should have stated that ending slavery was not Lincoln's original goal. In his first inaugural he stated:
"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. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them..."
A year-and-a-half later, in August, 1862, in a letter to Horace Greeley, he confirmed that ending slavery was still not a priority, as follows:
"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."
>>>Here's one from the first Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858<<<
Since you introduced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, how about this racist statement by Lincoln during first debate:
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment."
And this one from the 4th debate.
"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, [applause]-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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing."
But Douglas called him a hypocrit (e.g., a 'politician') in the 5th debate:
"Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurraing for Lincoln and saying that he did right, when in one part of the State he stood up for negro equality, and in another part for political effect, discarded the doctrine and declared that there always must be a superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up north are expected and required to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the equality of the races, holding that by the Declaration of Independence the white man and the negro were created equal, and endowed by the Divine law with that equality, and down south he tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians, Virginians, and Tennesseeans, that there is a physical difference in the races, making one superior and the other inferior, and that he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro."
Now, if Lincoln was a hypocrit (e.g., politicking) on the matter of equality, it is also possible he was politicking on the matter of his views on slavery.
Since you introduced the Lincoln-Douglas debates, how about this racist statement by Lincoln during first debate:
I have to give you credit for giving longer excerpts. Usually when the Lost Causers throw them out they leave out the part that says,
" I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
Now, if Lincoln was a hypocrit (e.g., politicking) on the matter of equality, it is also possible he was politicking on the matter of his views on slavery.
Except that you cannot find a single quote anywhere where Lincoln says something good about slavery. I'll let Lincoln answer Douglas with the same words he used in that debate:
When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will be put in print and read North and South. I knew all the while that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality between the white and black races, which justifies us in making them slaves, we must then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us to make them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the speeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking two parts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said, that in their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil,—slavery. I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all error in the opinions I advance.
Lincoln's positon is consistent, whatever Douglas tries to convince the crowd: blacks were equal to whites not socially, not mentally, not physically, not economically, not etceterally. But they were supposed to be equal under the law, endowed with the same unalienable rights as a white man. Do we look at this today and say that he's a racist? Yes. But given that Douglas is constantly trying to paint him as a radical miscegenist, it's pretty clear that his views on race were well ahead of most.
What does that mean "...coferring as far as he may"? If the slave was granted freedom then why not say it? Why refer to him as a slave further down in the paragraph? Constitutionally the confederate congress could not pass a law emancipating slaves, and the legislation makes it clear that they were not doing so. Constitutionally none of the southern legislatures that I am aware of had the authority to pass laws of emancipation. This section you so proudly wave does not come out and say it frees slaves that served. Why was it so hard for someone, anyone down there to come out and free someone?
Legally he could not free slaves in those states not in rebellion.
>>>Lincoln's positon is consistent, whatever Douglas tries to convince the crowd: blacks were equal to whites not socially, not mentally, not physically, not economically, not etceterally. But they were supposed to be equal under the law, endowed with the same unalienable rights as a white man. Do we look at this today and say that he's a racist? Yes.<<<
Well, you at least admit he was a racist (I know that was hard for you to do). He was not only a racist, but he preferred white supremacy, as in this statement:
"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
In other words, Lincoln would have been a good candidate for the Klan.
>>>What does that mean "...coferring as far as he may"? If the slave was granted freedom then why not say it?<<<
Everyone (except you) understood what the the General Order was saying. For example, the following appeared in Petersburg's "The Daily Express" soon after the General Order was issued:
"The commanding General deems the prompt organization of as large a force of negroes as can be spared, a measure of the utmost importance, and the support and co-operation of the citizens of Petersburg and the surrounding counties is requested by him for the prosecution to success of a scheme which he believes promises so great benefit to our cause...To the slaves is offered freedom and undisturbed residence at their old homes in the Confederacy after the war. Not the freedom of sufferance, but honorable and self won by the gallantry and devotion which grateful countrymen will never cease to reward."
Get a clue, 'Non-Sequitur'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.