Posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:28 AM PST by Loud Mime
Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is this Thursday. I thought it fitting to quote from the first Republican president's debates against Stephen Douglas. Each had an hour to present their case, hardly what the mainstream media would like.
I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.
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.
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.
When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it 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 how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world 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 betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? 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 white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.
Since the Constitution was not originated by the Congress, we must add it to what laws the executive branch enforces. See? It makes sense.
>>>That’s a line from Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism.” It’s a good line, and a very good book.<<<
A very good book that sits in my library, and highly recommended to those who erroneously label Conservatives as Nazis. The true Nazis, both in character and ideology, are the left wing nuts of the Democrat Party, as well as the Lincoln cultists who disguise themselves as “Conservatives”.
Now, now... let's not get into comparisons of "intellectual capacity," ma'am. You don't want to be squandering your obviously limited resources on the propagation of further silliness.
Your comment suggests that the enslavement of other human beings was a merely "legal" issue. Are we to suppose that you believe that there are or should be no legal consequences when people practice and defend a true moral abomination?
The Confederates' response to the near certainty of a legal prohibition of slavery was to seceed. They were willing to risk all ... but their primary reason for doing so was repugnant. And contradictory as well: to preserve their freedom to hold other men in bondage.
I dont have time to read up your reb propaganda. I got things to do. suffice it to say that up till 1776, all slavery was under the permission of the crown.
But the point remains that war was not inevitable, even if secession was.
Undoubtedly wrong. The Confederate constitution dealt with the problem of expansion of slavery as follows:
Wrong section. This is what I was referring to:
Section 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.It is unlikely the Confederacy would have been expansionist with a requirement for a two thirds vote to admit a state. Allowing slavery in new states doesn't matter much if it is unlikely you are going to have any new states.
were the slaves allowed to vote for the representatives who decided the South Carolina was going to leave the United States????
Didn't think so...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
You and your posse of black moderates have been running this game here for years.
It’s just getback and smearjobs on anyone who disagrees with your demonization of the South.
You have issues over this fact of history. Sorry.
So do I. I find the fruits of wholesale importation of enslaved black labor from 200 plus years ago to be a big drag and negative on our collective culture which still to this day threatens to destroy us and have eviscerated much of what passes for black culture.
And you and your gang here are part of the problem not the solution.
Did you vote for Obama? Be honest.
Those of us who have been her a long time have seen you guys come and go with your anti Southern vitriol.
Equating the South with the Holocaust and smearing us as Nazis is gonna win you as many pals as bigots cvalling blacks savages or monkees.
It should not be tolerated on a conservative forum.
I’m not revising anything but I’m not going to roll over for you so you can feel better about the injust8ices your heritage has endured. We’ve all taken our knocks.
Get over it.
Have you ever stopped to consider why this theme is a constant in black culture worldwide...not just here?
When you figure that out and more start working to address that and quit blaming something that happened hundreds of years ago for today’s pitfalls then we might have progress.
>>>The Constitution defines the course of US law. Where in the Constitution does it say that terrorists have no rights?<<<
Okay, if you want to get picky, then I modify my statement to this: The Constitution only protects the rights of U.S. Citizens, not foreign terrorists. Regarding Gitmo, a 2004 U.S. District Court decision held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. This was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court in Rasul vs. Bush. But it must be noted that all the “living constitution” liberals on the court (the majority) voted to overturn the lower court, while all the strict constructionists voted to uphold the decision.
Therefore, your opinion on this matter will be determined by whether you believe the Constitution means what is says (e.g., it is a legal document), or what left wing judges say it means (e.g. it is a so-called “living constitution”).
Did northern blacks get to vote on anything? How about northern women? Guess that moral high ground wasn't all that high.
I believe they meant the federal government all along. How could the Feds guarantee an action by a State?
When I read of this in my "Heritage Guide to the Constitution" it hardly covered this....just a couple of lines. But then I found this:
DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 AS REPORTED BY JAMES MADISON
Tuesday, May 29, 1787
Mr. RANDOLPH then opened the main business. [Here insert his speech [26] including his resolutions.] [27]
(Mr. R. Speech A. to be inserted Tuesday May 29) [27]
He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those, who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But, as the convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him.
He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the American downfal.
He observed that in revising the fœderal system we ought to inquire 1.[28] into the properties, which such a government ought to possess, 2.[28] the defects of the confederation, 3.[28] the danger of our situation & 4.[28] the remedy.
1. The Character of such a government ought to secure 1.[28] against foreign invasion: 2.[28] against dissentions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular states: 3.[28] to procure to the several States, various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4.[28] [29] to be able to defend itself against incroachment: & 5.[28] to be paramount to the state constitutions.
2. In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them, as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies, — when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown — no commercial discord had arisen among any states — no rebellion had appeared as in Massts — foreign debts had not become urgent — the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen — treaties had not been violated — and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.
He then proceeded to enumerate the defects: 1.[30] that the confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; congress not being permitted to prevent a war nor to support it by their own authority — Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew, that they could not cause infractions of treaties or of the law of nations, to be punished: that particular states might by their conduct provoke war without controul; and that neither militia nor draughts being fit for defence on such occasions, inlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.
2.[30] that the fœderal government could not check the quarrels between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency: 3.[30] that there were many advantages, which the U. S. might acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation — such as a productive impost — counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations — pushing of commerce ad libitum — &c &c.
4.[30] that the fœderal government could not defend itself against the [31] incroachments from the states. 5.[30] that it was not even paramount to the state constitutions, ratified, as it was in may of the states. 3. He next reviewed the danger of our situation,[32] appealed to the sense of the best friends of the U. S. — the prospect of anarchy from the laxity of government every where; and to other considerations.
4. He then proceeded to the remedy; the basis of which he said must be the republican principle He proposed as conformable to his ideas the following resolutions, which he explained one by one [Here insert ye Resolutions annexed.] [33]
The guarantee was federal and made to the States.
In the Constitution we find further evidence of designed federal power, as it gives Congress the power to have a navy and an Army (for two years) to deal with invasion or the threat thereof.
OK, I'm going to enjoy the rest of my Saturday! I'll check back tomorrow.
“...were the slaves allowed to vote for the representatives
who decided the South Carolina was going to leave the United States?”
-
Inane question.
They also had no vote on any other issue of the day.
Ha ha....a denier.
That is a lot of chutzpah to deny that most slavers were Yankee.
Sad fact.
That my kin bought the majority of the chattel...true.
It was a complimentary relationship
at least I know then truth when I see it unlike a freeper besmirching an otherwise fine Ruger..
next you’ll swear there were no cotton factors up north
*how can conservatives be so ignorant
That would be George Fitzhugh, in his 1854 book Sociology For The South Or The Failure of Free Society:
All kinds of fun quotes in that one:
"The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism. ""Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner in every thing but the arts of thrift. "
"We speak only of the usual and common effects of slavery and of equality. The Turk, half civilized as he is, exhibits the manly, noble and generous traits of character peculiar to the slave owner; he is hospitable, generous, truthful, brave, and strictly honest. In many respects, he is the finest specimen of humanity to be found in the world."
"ut the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all property in common, but to divide the profits, not according to each man's in-put and labor, but according to each man's wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master's wants are more costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a partner in a smaller concern, "a poor man's negro," boasts of "our crops, horses, fields and cattle;" and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? - he enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments. Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it brings along with it."
"Free laborers are little better than trespassers on this earth given by God to all mankind."
"In conclusion, we will repeat the propositions, in somewhat different phraseology, with which we set out. First - That Liberty and Equality, with their concomitant Free Competition, beget a war in society that is as destructive to its weaker members as the custom of exposing the deformed and crippled children. Secondly - That slavery protects the weaker members of society just as do the relations of parent, guardian and husband, and is as necessary, as natural, and almost as universal as those relations."
"The free negroes are no doubt an intolerable nuisance. They blight the prosperity of every village and of every country neighborhood where they settle. They are thieves from necessity, for nature has made them so improvident they cannot in health provide for sickness, in youth for old age, nor in summer for winter. Nature formed them for a climate where all their wants were supplied abundantly by her liberal hand at every season. We knew their natures when we set them free. Should we blame them, or censure ourselves? We knew they were not fitted for liberty, and yet conferred liberty on them. Our wiser ancestors made them slaves, because as slaves they might be made civilized, useful and christian beings. "
"A free negro! Why, the very term seems an absurdity. It is our daily boast, and experience verifies it, that the Anglo-Saxons of America are the only people in the world fitted for freedom. The negro's is not human freedom, but the wild and vicious license of the fox, the wolf or the hawk. He is, from the necessity of his nature, a very Ishmaelite, whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand is against him. It is as much the duty of government to take away liberty from those who abuse it, as to confer it on those who use it properly."
"We cannot believe that the Socialists do not see that domestic slavery is the only practicable form of socialism - they are afraid yet to pronounce the word.
An admirable proof and illustration of our doctrine, that slavery is communism, might be had by making all the working-men in England slaves to the land-holders, and requiring by law the land-holders to support them as we do our slaves. Would not, in such case, the working-men be joint owners of the farm? If the land-holders were also permitted to sell them, or remove them to the colonies where labor is scarce and dear, it would be an excellent bargain on both sides."
>>>were the slaves allowed to vote for the representatives who decided the South Carolina was going to leave the United States????<<<
Were the slaves in the northern and border states allowed to vote?
I dunno....my grandparents were still in Europe when both sides fought it out.
I think I read the same thing ... something akin to Southern culture having an essentially Celtic basis, with an emphasis on personal and family honor; whereas the North had a more Anglo-Saxon background, with an emphasis on broad principles and a greater comfort with "large group" organization. There's probably some truth to that, on a broad cultural level, and it ran both broad and deep in the south. (In his Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson convincingly lays out a similar story of cultural divergence between north and south, though he doesn't tie it tightly to Celtic vs. non-Celtic sensibilities.)
I think, though, that if you take it from a contemporary perspective the underlying reason was much more materially-based. The Southern economy depended almost entirely on the export of cotton and, to a lesser extent, tobacco and other crops. And they depended on slave labor to produce them.
The prospect of abolition directly threatened the South with economic ruin. Southerners were left with a choice of maintaining their wealth by propagating the moral wrong of slavery; or to fall into poverty if they did the right thing by freeing the human beings they held in bondage.
Our natural response in such situations is often to protect what we currently have, even if it's morally wrong; we'll find reasons to rationalize our wrongs, rather than to deal with the great discomfort that would arise from addressing our wrongdoing.
From earlier; while bouncing back and forth I posted this to myself....aargh!
You posted: Of course, the executive branch enforces laws originated by the congress.
I added: Or present in the Constitution? Right?
Since the Constitution was not originated by the Congress, we must add it to what laws the executive branch enforces. See? It makes sense.
>>>Why? You quoted [Doris Kearns Goodwin]. And it was Tommy DiLorenzo who quoted her in the link you provided. Quoted out of context, actually.<<<
I did not say “don’t quote her”. I said be careful, which you obviously were not.
>>>It’s intention was to do just that. Runaway slaves that wound up in non-slave states were not considered slaves.<<<
What is your source(s)? Why then did so many end up in Canada?
Is it somehow revisionist to quote Confederate declarations of secession, or the Confederate consitution itself?
My, my....
but I only know from reading about these things...because my fore bearers were sunning themselves (in squalor) in southern Europe while all this was going on....and didn't arrive till the early 1900’s.
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.