Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Killed Slavery?
Washingon Times ^ | 4/17/06 | Michael Zak

Posted on 04/17/2006 8:22:15 AM PDT by LS

Now more than ever, Republicans should take great pride in our Party's heritage of civil rights achievement. They should remember the words of Joseph Rainey, the South Carolina Republican and former slave who was the first African-American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives: "We love freedom more, vastly more, than slavery; consequently, we hope to keep clear of the Democrats!" And, it was Mary Terrell, an African-American Republican who co-founded the NAACP, who declared: "Every right that has been bestowed upon blacks was initiated by the Republican Party."

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: gop; lincoln; michaelzak; republicans; rnc; rnchistory; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Michael Zak is the author of "Back to Basics for the Republican Party." (www.republicanbasics.com)
1 posted on 04/17/2006 8:22:16 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS

This must really get the rats' panties in a bunch.

The Republican Party will always be the Party of Lincoln no matter how many revisionist bizarro world alternate history books the leftwingers write.

The donkey party will always be the party of Jim Crow, George Wallace and Robert 'imperial grand kleagle' Byrd.


2 posted on 04/17/2006 8:26:44 AM PDT by noobiangod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Thanks for posting this.


3 posted on 04/17/2006 8:29:08 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

A very sad chapter for Republicans happened after the civil war when they grew tired of Reconstruction expenses and "cut and ran" from the South. Unfortunately this gave the KKK a free hand to act as the terrorist wing of the Democratic party and restore Democratic control to the Southern states. It wasn't until Nixon came along with his Southern stategy to split the South between Wallace voters and Humphrey voters that Republicans regained control in many southern states. Gotta love those third parties. ;-)


4 posted on 04/17/2006 8:29:13 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

LS posted this.


5 posted on 04/17/2006 8:29:46 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I agree. We discuss this in "Patriot's History of the United States"---how the only solution that would have given the freedmen 40 acres and a mule legally would have been for Lincoln to label the rebels, well, rebels guilty of treason. Now, if he had done that, he could have given large-scale pardons to the vast majority of southerners and used it to break up the plantations of the wealthy slaveowner planters. It would have been legal, constitutional, and would have saved us all a LOT of trouble.


6 posted on 04/17/2006 8:31:13 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LS
A Republican stating these facts at the next prominent black's funeral would have the leftists and race-baiters in a spitting rage.
7 posted on 04/17/2006 8:31:47 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

What would it have done to an economy that depended on cotton?


8 posted on 04/17/2006 8:32:54 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: noobiangod

Democrats were in the Party of Treason in 1861 and are in the Party of Treason in 2006. When will this blight leave the American scene?


9 posted on 04/17/2006 8:33:36 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Probably not a lot: the subsequent share-cropper contracts were a less effective arrangement than if the blacks had owned their lands themselves and had the planters had to "get competitive" from the get-go. They still ended up relying overwhelmingly on cotton.


10 posted on 04/17/2006 8:35:24 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: noobiangod

Yes, but FDR and then LBJ seduced the blacks into the Democratic party with the promise of security and opportunity. Thus far, they are not budging.


11 posted on 04/17/2006 8:35:56 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LS
I am so glad to see the True History of this Nation once again being touted in the MSM! It is long past time to be telling the REAL history of this country rather than the re-written version from the Democrats and Liberals, who most decidedly have a GREAT DEAL TO HIDE!

This is a wonderful step in that direction!

Thanks for posting it!
12 posted on 04/17/2006 8:41:40 AM PDT by Danae (Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
Thanks for posting LS.

I strongly recommend Mike Zak's book for anyone interested in the history of the Republican Party. It's amazing that we let the Democrats virtually steal our history of freedom for the oppressed, and turn it against us. 527 organizations that support the conservative cause should put out a series of "instructional" commercials letting minorities know where the freedoms they enjoy today came from.

13 posted on 04/17/2006 8:52:58 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
Hillary Clinton:

"The Republican Party is the Plantation Party. And you know what I'm talkin' about."

14 posted on 04/17/2006 8:59:46 AM PDT by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

The DNC is the party of slavery, race repression, and race obsession in the present era. They are the party of lynch mobs, firehoses, Klansmen, and church bombings.

They have a lot to be ashamed of.

We are the party of color-blind citizenship, before and still. We have everything to be proud of.


15 posted on 04/17/2006 9:01:01 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, has become "Dependency, Cowardice, and Theft."


16 posted on 04/17/2006 9:03:14 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LS

That, and actually educating and training former slaves in Civics.


17 posted on 04/17/2006 9:09:13 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: LS
They didn't kill slavery. They simply changed it's name to TAXES.
19 posted on 04/17/2006 9:11:27 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Well, that's just dandy of the Republicans. And doesn't it seem they are so eager to boast. Okay, so tell me, what's the excuse for not securing the borders from invaders? Or is that an issue that is totally irrevelant? Come on, Republicans, you're the ones who supposedly do all the right things for a people. Why haven't the borders been secured?


20 posted on 04/17/2006 9:12:43 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
From Blacks and Texas Politics:

The Texas Republican Party was formed on July 4, 1867, in Houston by 150 black and 20 white Texans.

2 of the first 3 statewide leaders of the Republican Party of Texas were black

21 posted on 04/17/2006 9:29:21 AM PDT by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IKelly

It was proposed by Sumner and Stevens, but Lincoln wanted to "restore" the Union---hence he was remakably charitable to the Rebs ("with malice toward none, with charity for all"). His primary goal of restoring the Union remained. However, we don't know what he would have done with the Sumner/Stevens plan, because he was killed before Congress could really debate it. I personally doubt he would have signed it, as he missed his window, which was the moment the South seceded.


22 posted on 04/17/2006 9:46:21 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin

Hmm, so failure in one area completely negates one of the greatest feats in human history on the other? Gimme a break, and get hold of reality.


23 posted on 04/17/2006 9:47:11 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad

Yes, it's also interesting that while some of the "Neo-Confeds" hasten to point out that a tiny handful of blacks "fought" for the Confederacy (most experts say less than 1% of all blacks who were "in military service," i.e., as cooks and laborers in uniform), they routinely ignore the fact that more than 80,000 WHITE southerners fought for the Union, including units named the First Alabama Cavlary, the Mississippi Rifles, and an Arkansas cavalry regiment, not to mention 40,000 Tennesseeans.


24 posted on 04/17/2006 9:49:26 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LS
Who killed slavery?

John Wilkes Booth killed slavery with one shot.

His assassination of Lincoln left a terrible desire for vengeance in its wake. The South was taxed nearly to death and ground under the boot heel of the Union as a result. If Lincoln hadn't been shot, his plans for rebuilding the Union would likely have proceeded and as a result would probably not have settled the slavery issue as totally as it was by the policies of the government after he died.

Just my take on it.

25 posted on 04/17/2006 9:54:38 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (I can't complain...but sometimes I still do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Hmm, so failure in one area completely negates one of the greatest feats in human history on the other?
___________

Being one of the last western nations to abolish slavery, and having to fight the most deadly war of our history to do so, doesn't really rise up to the level of "one of the greatest feats in human history", IMHO.

The founders knew slavery was wrong, but also knew that addressing the issue at that time would have meant no nation.

I also wonder if the GOP intends to trumpet the fact that abolishing slavery also put the federal government into the driver's seat vis a vis states rights.


26 posted on 04/17/2006 9:58:54 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: noobiangod
This must really get the rats' panties in a bunch.

I sincerely doubt that. Most Dems are so ignorant they aren't aware of any of this. (I resisted the tempation to use the word Stupid)

27 posted on 04/17/2006 10:04:20 AM PDT by subterfuge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LS
Who Killed Slavery?
White men with rifles.

In Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell points out that slavery existed as an accepted institution unchallenged throughout history, worldwide, until the Eighteenth Century. Throughout that long era Christians did not reject the institution (for other than themselves and their kin) any more than the Hindus or the pagans or the Buddhists or the Confuscians or the Muslims did.

No literature existed anywhere to defend the institution of slavery before the such literature started to appear in the American south, because until then the institution of slavery had never been under consistent and determined attack. Christians didn't begin to mount effective opposition to the institution of slavery until the Eighteenth Century but no other cultural ifluence ever has mounted such opposition.

The British underwent the expense of maintaining a naval squadron off the west coast of Africa for no other purpose than suppressing the slave trade which - apart from the moral issue - was absolutely no skin off Britain's nose. Indeed, the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation - which "freed" only those slaves where its writ did not run - was to take the possibility of British recognition of the Confederacy off the table. The British industrial revolution was centered in its fabric mills, and those mills ran on cotton; the British economic interest alone would have dictated British recognition of the Confederacy, which could have doomed Union efforts to suppress the Confederacy. But with the Lincoln Administration having officially stipulated that the Civil WAr was not only about defending the Union but about abolishing slavery, British opposition to slavery precluded British support for the Confederacy.

The (huge) British Empire continued to exert pressure against slavery, inducing people who had no interest in its abolition to assent for the sake of relations with Britain.


28 posted on 04/17/2006 10:13:59 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
John Deere.

(cotton harvester)


29 posted on 04/17/2006 10:19:25 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
What would it have done to an economy that depended on cotton?

I think you mean "What would it have done to an economy almost exclusively dependent on agriculture?" Since slavery was used not only for cotton but also tobacco and rice, and to some extent indigo. Of these tobacco was considered the least onerous re: slaves, while rice was far and away considered the most brutal.

30 posted on 04/17/2006 10:30:53 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame

OK, what would it have done to an economy almsot exclusively dependent on agricutlure?


31 posted on 04/17/2006 10:35:10 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Yah. A lot of truth to that. L. was the one man who could have both browbeaten the whites into some reasonable acceptance of blacks, and at the same time tempered the calls by blacks such as Fred. Douglass for immediate social equality, which wasn't going to happen.


32 posted on 04/17/2006 10:36:22 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Actually, our abolition was far more courageous than that of these other "western nations," who had miniscule amounts of slavery on some isolated islands. It cost them literally nothing. But slave wealth in the South was equal to all the industrial/railroad/and textile wealth in the North combined.

This was absolutely astounding, for a nation to take such an economic "hit" for a moral issue, and that, after all was what the Civil War was really about.

33 posted on 04/17/2006 10:38:13 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I didn't like this book: the first part was fanstastic, but a couple of the other essays were less than thrilling.


34 posted on 04/17/2006 10:39:03 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
All true. In fact, a majority of slaves did not work on plantations . . . and yet, slave wealth was overwhelmingly tied to land value. See James Huston's new book, Calculating the Value of the Union which shows that slave wealth exceeded that of ALL the North's railroads and textiles put together!
35 posted on 04/17/2006 10:40:43 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Funny, but it's also pretty much a given among economic historians that slavery had already started to gravitate into industry and urban settings and that had there been NO cotton, slavery would have thrived. See Huston, Calculating the Value of the Union or Roger Ransom's "counter-factual," Confederate States of America.
36 posted on 04/17/2006 10:42:17 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LS
They still ended up relying overwhelmingly on cotton.

While I am unsure re: the situation re: rice, by the 1860 the market -- both nationwide and int'l -- for tobacco/tobacco products had been in a glut for nearly twenty years. Most slave owners in the central southern states, VA, etc, in fact made ends meet by selling "excess" slaves, tobacco being, as it were, sort money losing side-line to add a veneer of respectability.

However, unlike tobacco there was a huge, seemingly never-ending, ever increasing demand -- both nationwide and on int'l markets -- for cotton, esp. American cotton. New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. would loan the southern farmer money on the condition that he plant cotton -- for they knew there was a eager market for that product. So, more and more, the southern farmer (of any size but the very smallest) stopped a (healthy) diversity of crops and came to plant cotton...nothing but cotton. B/c that's where the money was, and b/c that is the one crop bankers would loan him money on and for.

It wasn't called "King Cotton" for no reason.

(Given the day and age and financial situtation, it's hard to believe that even with 40-acres-and-a-mule that the freed slave would, on average, have achieved much more than a subsistance level.)

37 posted on 04/17/2006 10:46:19 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

On the other hand, Lincoln had advocated passage of the 13th amendment, insisting that it be included in the 1864 Republican platform. After it had passed congress, he'd signed it and sent it to the states. So his position pushing for total abolition is well established at the time of his death.


38 posted on 04/17/2006 10:47:11 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Who killed slavery?

John Wilkes Booth killed slavery with one shot.

================

Wrong. John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln. The machine (age) killed slavery in America and in every other civilized nation; look at where slavery still exists, or existed until very recently.

39 posted on 04/17/2006 10:52:17 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: noobiangod

Doesn't matter. Too many of the blacks headed straight back to the plantation. No amount history will change the attitude "What will you give me this time?"


40 posted on 04/17/2006 10:52:40 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Given the day and age and financial situtation, it's hard to believe that even with 40-acres-and-a-mule that the freed slave would, on average, have achieved much more than a subsistance level.
I don't like comparisons like "subsistence level" when you are talking about historical comparisons. Compared to today's standards, middle class Americans of 1950 were "poor."

And compared to modern American standards Queen Victoria was middle class - an American secretary enjoys so many modern conveniences and so much better health care (for herself and her family) that an American secretary would have to think long and hard about trading circumstances with Queen Victoria.


41 posted on 04/17/2006 11:42:12 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LS

Odd, I thought whole migrant argument came down to "stoop-labor..."


42 posted on 04/17/2006 12:05:01 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

By the time of Lincoln's death, the plantations had been laid waste, the slaves scattered, Lincoln's hold on the reins had slackened and change was on the wind.


43 posted on 04/17/2006 12:08:18 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

Thomas Nast depicted the surrender in Harper's Weekly this way; I don't see Lincoln in the picture.

44 posted on 04/17/2006 12:14:41 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
1) You are right about the demand. But you are missing a key, the price. Beginning around 1860, new gluts of cotton from Egypt and India started driving the price down. Now, cotton was STILL more profitable a crop than, say, corn, but overall prices were falling, and most economic historians (Gavin Wright, for example) think that if the South hadn't already been so wedded to cotton, it might have made a somewhat smoother transition to industry.

2) No, they were not losing money. Both Time on the Cross and subsequent studies (Reconing with Slavery) concluded that slavery was not only profitable in almost all parts of the South, but viable because of the increasing value of property in slaves.

3) My doctoral dissertation was on Southern banking in the antebellum period. The bank loans were as much on slaves per se as they were cotton. (I found the same slaves used as collateral for several loans simultaneously!) Indeed, "King Cotton" proved a bust---Br. and France didn't need it at all.

4) The 40 acres and a mule argument was less about subsisetnce and more about independence. If we had done that, while there would always be a Jesse Jackson, it would be much tougher to ever argue that blacks were "economically discriminated against" after the Civil War, because they would have had basically what most whites in the South had---and, indeed, what most free farmers in the north had.

45 posted on 04/17/2006 12:26:57 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
If we have learned anything about slavery from the ancient Greeks to the present, it is that slavery is not about the type of labor being done, but the fact of forced labor without consent.

Richard Wade has a good book, "Slavery in the Cities," and Richard Starobin has a book on industrial slavery in the antebellum south. Personally, I always thought it would have been a no-brainer to use slaves in the silver and gold mines out west, because there is only one way in and one way out, and they are easily controlled.

46 posted on 04/17/2006 12:29:00 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Probably because at the time he portrayed it, ONLY Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had surrendered, not Hood's army in the West or the other "armies" that the Confederacy still had in the field. Those surrendered over the subsequent three weeks.


47 posted on 04/17/2006 12:30:22 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LS

By then the armies were routed; all that remained was to reincorporate the members for punishment or to let them wander west; what are these industries of which you speak?


48 posted on 04/17/2006 12:48:44 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Everything from candlemaking to leather to actual machining. It's pretty extensive.


49 posted on 04/17/2006 12:49:34 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LS

What percentage of the nation's economy did those industries make up prior to the disruption caused by the "unpleasantness?"


50 posted on 04/17/2006 12:53:59 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson