Skip to comments.Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, Republicans
Posted on 08/10/2010 5:52:22 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1863, Frederick Douglass (R-MD) met with President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) for the first time. Senator Samuel Pomeroy (R-KS) escorted Douglass to the War Department building. On arrival, Douglass urged Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to allow equal pay for African-American soldiers in the U.S. Army. Though sympathetic, Stanton said that would require congressional approval, which he supported.
Next, Douglass was introduced to the president at the White House. Lincoln stood and shook his hand "just as you have seen one gentleman receive another," Douglass later recounted. "I at once felt myself in the present of an honest man on whom I could love, honor and trust without reserve or doubt... Mr. Lincoln was not only a great president, but a great man too great to be small in anything. In his company I was never in any way reminded of my humble origin, or of my unpopular color."
... Frederick Douglass said Lincoln's name "should never be spoken but with reverence, gratitude and affection," and he knew him to be "the greatest statesman that ever presided over the destinies of this Republic."
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
"We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters.
When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter."
Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
Michael, I met you in Loudoun County about 2 years ago - you spoke to our GOP Committee. I bought your book and have referenced it many times, as well as recommended it to friends. I am currently reading Frederick Douglas’ autobiography and it is fascinating - thanks for post this piece!
Thanks very much, Cathy. Has it been two years already! There’s a photo from the event at Grand Old Partisan.
So far, I’ve given speeches to Republican organizations in thirty states. The news about Ted Stevens brings to mind meeting him in Fairbanks four years ago. Sarah Palin bought two copies of my book from me then.
Fighting the good fight,
The history of the last 150 years has shown that Lincoln was indisputably correct. It took over 100 years for "the great mass of whites" to reach a point where they were willing to make blacks "politically and socially (their) equals." Sad but true. In a democratic society it is not possible for any policy to move forward faster than it is accepted by "the great mass" of voters.
As is turned out, "a system of gradual emancipation" was adopted, though it didn't really hit its stride till the 1940s/1950s, when the unacceptable comparison between previously generally accepted "white supremacy" and Nazi racial doctrines became unavoidable.
Had Lincoln proclaimed racial beliefs that are widely accepted today among conservatives, he could never have been elected to any office during his lifetime, much less President.
His later comment in the same speech is also highly relevant. "Well I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principlethe sheet anchor of American republicanism.
While Lincoln was not in favor of full political and legal equality for blacks, he was totally opposed to the institution of slavery and in particular its spread. Doubtless why Douglass respected and revered him.
Well stated, Sherman Logan! People who fault Lincoln’s views on race ignore the fact that, in comparison, the mainstream Democratic Party position was that African-Americans were to be chained and whipped. Stephen Douglas (D-IL), for example, owned a slave plantation in Mississippi.
I saw the picture from the LCRC - I’ll keep checking your blog, and we will continue to fight the good fight too!
Thank you, Cathy. Has it been two years? I think theres a photo from that event at Grand Old Partisan.
So far, Ive given speeches to Republican organizations in thirty states met Ted Stevens in Fairbanks four years ago.
SarH Palin bought two copies of my book from me the.
Fight g the good fight,
Veritas. Well written sir.
The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed."
Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
"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."
Lincoln's Inaugural Address
I quite agree.
Lincoln was very plain that his goal was to put the peculiar institution back on the road to eventual oblivion, not to enforce immediate emancipation. I don’t know anyone who ever claimed otherwise.
I’m really not sure how this supports your theory of Lincoln as the Antichrist whose primary goal in life was to destroy the South.
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave." - April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce.
" I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling." - April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges
"The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves." - August 15, 1855 - Letter to George Robertson
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak." - October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria
"When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong." - October 13, 1858 Debate at Quincy, Illinois
The butcher was for slavery before he was against it. He’d fit right in the politics of today. Two faced liar is really what he is. Can anyone really know who the real Lincoln is? He is all over the place. Slimy.
Sort of like Butcher Davis was for the union before he was against it?
Or like Butcher Lee thought the union indissoluble before he joined those who wanted to dissolve it?
But it's not really that fair a comparison, because in the context of his day, Lincoln was never pro-slavery.
Then again, maybe slimy liars Davis and Lee were really against the union all the time they professed support for it -- that would explain a lot.
Anyway, changing circumstances force people to reconsider their previous assumptions, and circumstances were changing very quickly at the beginning of the 1860s.
Plenty of people in the South as well as in the North found themselves taking positions they wouldn't have dreamed of years before.
Lincoln was neither the most nor the least consistent of his contemporaries.
They all couldn't be consistently for something, like Davis and Lee were for slavery all their lives. Regardless, Lincoln's opposition to slavery and he desire to restrict it to where it already existed was long term.
Two faced liar is really what he is.
Can anyone really know who the real Lincoln is?
Tommy DiLorenzo thought he did. But he was wrong, too.
I am sorry, for someone to support a regime whose policy was to execute all Black prisoners of war to call someone who opposed that regime a butcher is laughable. Imagine if the Federal forces executed all white Confederate prisoners of war, that would be butchery.
Actually the official policy was to sell the black soldiers into slavery and shoot the white officers. The unofficial policy was to execute all black prisoners of war.
I’m sure you’ll have a bunch of neo-wannabe-Confederates-KKKers showing up here sooner or later.
Well, maybe when the shift changes at McDonald’s or something.
Judging by the character of the neo-Yankee Nazi's who regularly trash the republic and the south on FR, I can see why a power hungry butcher, slimy, two faced, racist fraud of a president like honest 'Abe' has such an appeal to the "coven". Honest Abe, BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. LOL!
The reader of Lincoln Unmasked is in for a great many mischievous pleasures. Consider: Harry Jaffa, the dean of what DiLorenzo calls the "Lincoln cultists," has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitlers Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed both his support for Lincolns war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincolns fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.
In Germany, Hitler promised that the Nazis "would totally eliminate states rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power." Thus the "mischief of individual federated states
must cease and will some day cease
. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries." Which side was the Nazi one again, Professor Jaffa?
That made about as much sense as your posts usually do.
When they have nothing more to play they haul out the Nazi card. But when you get right down to it there are more parallels between the confederacy of Jeff Davis and the Germany of Adolf Hitler. Both where run by men who had little or no respect for their constitution, who both launched wars which they eventually lost and which resulted in destruction among the civilian population, and who both ruled countries whose wartime economies were dependent on slave labor.
What’s clear is everyone needs a hobby, especially those that romanticize people who held slaves. Which makes it clear, to me, that you either don’t truly believe any of the crap you spout (likely) or you do but you don’t actually portray it outside of your postings on FR and StormFront.
|[Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, instead writing that black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.]
Robert E. Lee letter -- "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."
|December 27, 1856|
|Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories.||January 1860|
|Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party||May 18, 1860|
|Abraham Lincoln elected||November 6, 1860|
|Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."||November 13, 1860|
|Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution."||November 14, 1860|
|South Carolina||December 20, 1860|
|Mississippi||January 9, 1861|
|Florida||January 10, 1861|
|Alabama||January 11, 1861|
|Georgia||January 19, 1861|
|Louisiana||January 26, 1861|
|Texas||February 23, 1861|
|Abraham Lincoln sworn in as
President of the United States
|March 4, 1861|
|Arizona territory||March 16, 1861|
|CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."||March 21, 1861|
|Virginia||adopted April 17,1861
ratified by voters May 23, 1861
|Arkansas||May 6, 1861|
|North Carolina||May 20, 1861|
|Tennessee||adopted May 6, 1861
ratified June 8, 1861
|West Virginia declares for the Union||June 19, 1861|
|Missouri||October 31, 1861|
|"Convention of the People of Kentucky"||November 20, 1861|
I’m surprised you didn’t call Godwin’s law on cva. He’s doing a fine job of Liberal Projection on the whole Nazi fetish dealio.
Didn’t need too.
I seriously doubt he actually believes the crap he spews on here and I’m certain he doesn’t live like it off of the internet.
When the KKK card gets played first .....
Well, at least you agree then that Jeff Davis ruled a country. Making progress.
Mein Kampf Chapter X.
The controversy over federation and unification, so cunningly propagandized by the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced National Socialism, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a definite stand in relation to the essential problem concerned in it. Ought Germany to be a confederacy or a military State? What is the practical significance of these terms? To me it seems that the second question is more important than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up confusion and therewith have a conciliating effect.
What is a Confederacy?
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it. But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any confederacy that exists today. And least of all by the American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent.
Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
So you’re saying that jeff davis was a Nazi?
Well I guess you and Hitler agree then, Confederacies are bad things, decentralize power. I would say President Davis was anti-Hitler.
To be fair, where did I romanticize slavery? Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our countries past both North and South. In the early 19th century the newly created manufacturing culture of the North didn't need the slave model anymore so they sold all their slaves "down the river" to the south for a huge profit. Then the Northern mercantile class petitioned congress and raised tariffs on imports after making big money on selling their slaves to the south. Northerners then turned against that "peculiar" institution, a purely Southern institution at that point, on moral grounds making the hypocrisy factor unbelievable.
The “confederacy” was a national socialist prototype, that much is clear.
And yet despite all of the supposed hypocrisy, the south continued to pursue their institution and even fought for it.
And yes, it’s great that the wannabe revisionist-confederates like to say it wasn’t about slavery but those are exactly the people, the slave-owners, who did not want to remain in the Union after Lincoln was elected.
Lincoln’s election in and of itself was just an excuse for these hotheads to think they had something and it ended up in over 500,000 deaths, 11 states getting ravaged by the war AND 50 years of economic destitution and repercussions that last even to this day. Nice going.
-- Maj. Randolph CSA
and to think, if the south had had the foresight to use the blacks as soldiers instead of slave labor, they might have even won.
Instead they didn’t want to see blacks as equals and instead decided to go at it despite a very large numerical disadvantage.
Fact: Outnumbered, the CS Army contracted thousands of black laborer to build fortifications; especially around Atalanta and Richmond. Cooks, musicians, ambulance drivers were almost all black. So when you read the south had 45K troops and the north had 60k troop at some battle, in reality the south probably had close to parity when you add in support from blacks in logistical roles.
And yet they keep coming. The South's demise was actually caused by the invention of Air Conditioning in the early 1960's, sissy Northerners could come South, pollute the southern body politic and live in Air Conditioned comfort........
I don't see the part where I called the confederacy a country, but if you agree with me on that then you must agree with the rest of the comparison as well?
If your measure is a decentralization of power then nothing could be further from the truth. Davis consolidated power in Richmond in ways Lincoln never dreamed of.
Hate, hate, hate. Hate the U.S. and anything and everything to do with it. It's what Lost Causer's excel at.
I am not in the camp that faults either Davis or Lincoln for wartime usurpation of executive power. Lincoln was not the President of my ancestors, so criticizing the internal politics of a foreign country, the USA(1861-1865), is not my thing-hypocritical to do so.
President Davis's usurpation was done in desperation, so I do not fault him either as long as post war he knew a free republic would emerge in the south along the lines of the original founding intent (art. of Confederation). Nothing that Davis said post war leads me to conclude otherwise.
Lincoln usurpation of power was to destroy the republic of our founders. Conversely, Davis's usurpation was to restore the republic post war. Pretty much the same thing to different goals.
I read all your posts. And highly entertaining they are, too.
I am not in the camp that faults either Davis or Lincoln for wartime usurpation of executive power.
No, you are in the camp that labels Lincoln a Nazi for actions that pale by comparison with those of Davis.
President Davis's usurpation was done in desperation, so I do not fault him either as long as post war he knew a free republic would emerge in the south along the lines of the original founding intent (art. of Confederation).
That would assume that having ignored his constitution at will, centralized power into his own hands, and run his country like a police state Davis would suddenly do a 180 and establish the kind of free republic you visualize in your dreams. That is expecting a lot. Without any evidence that Davis was inclined to do it.
Lincoln usurpation of power was to destroy the republic of our founders. Conversely, Davis's usurpation was to restore the republic post war.
Like I said, I always find your posts highly amusing.
Actually the two largest migrations in the last century were south to north. It wasn't the invention of air conditioning that reversed that trend, it was the enforcement of civil rights.
Life changed immensely in the 20th century as air conditioning and refrigeration systems became more efficient, controllable, and even mobile. No longer dependent on the weather for work or play, humans truly made the environment adapt to their needs. Climate control became so reliable and affordable it grew from an invisible luxury to a common necessity. By the end of the century, nearly 70 percent of U.S. households had air conditioning. Now people can live and work in glassed-in or windowless buildings, in porchless houses, or in the warmest and most humid places. In the United States alone, air conditioning reversed a century-long pattern of migration out of the southern cities.
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.