White without Apology

TooGoodReports ^ | 08/13/03 | Bernard Chapin

[dwd1]

That land ownership thing has transferred to car ownership...If you can afford to have your fees tripled...Sure, come on in....Driver's license and registration, please....

[dwd1]

I hope you are remembering from history class and not from your actually having been there...:-)

[dwd1]

ROTF LOL!!!

[dwd1]

I think the social programs would have never occured were it not for the Great Depression....

It is why I say as a moderate...We have to give everyone the basics to take their shot at the dream... If they don't step up, their loss...

Bush I and Hoover never learned a very important lesson.... It is the economy....

I hope this guy gets it right...

[Jason_b]

bump fo' later read.

[LexBaird]

If his motivation was to free slaves in areas where he had Constitutional authority as military CIC then surely why not free the slaves in "rebellious" areas under Union subjugation?

Where did I claim what Lincoln's motivations were? I merely pointed out what he was legally entitled to do as CIC did not pertain to the Northern states that had slavery, such as Missouri and Maryland.

Why did he issue the EP? To help win the war, of course. So what? It did help, and was a great moral thing to do in its own right. I'm sure that Lincoln's motives were not unalloyed altruism, but to insist that they must be is to make the best the enemy of the good.

The EP was a good thing. It was a righteous thing. That Lincoln did it is the important thing.

[GOPcapitalist]

By the standards of the nineteenth century, black Americans had no better friend than Abraham Lincoln.

That's a load of garbage if I ever heard one. Lincoln, to his dying day, believed that blacks should be deported back to Africa and to the carribean for and colonization - not exactly the type of thing a "friend" would do.

His anti-slavery politics were also predicated upon the interest of himself and whites, not blacks. As Lincoln stated in his famous Peoria address, he desired to keep slaves out of the territories because he believed that they should be the exclusive domain of white people.

If you want to find a true friend of blacks in the mid 19th century, try Lysander Spooner. Cause beyond him there truly weren't many - even among abolitionist circles.

[wardaddy]

I'm ambivalent about governmental interference in the economy other than tax cuts/repeals and tarriffs/trade.

Many a nation has jettisoned a successful war leader....Churchill is a great example. I hope we don't repeat that.

After my comment earlier about only property owning males voting I did some research about whether or nor freed blacks could vote anywhere in the US prior to 1865. I was only able to find a lengthy article by Houghton-Mifflin which infers that the mullatto class from Planter/Slave unions in cotton state urban areas could. I could not find any other evidence anywhere else. I was also suprised that there were more freed blacks in the South than North at the time. The White and Slave population were growing faster btw yet freed blacks were 9% of the total US black population and 60% of those resided South and the mullatto class were the best educated...Frederick Douglass notwithstanding. Further, those mullatto classes still form the genesis of many black upper class throughout Southern urban areas....New Orleans and Atlanta in particular.

Maybe NS will know about black voting rights up north in antebellum days and have a link. I was simply curious and had never researched the matter and my comment about property owners voting at the time of our founding made me think about the question.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_033600_freenegroes.htm

[johnb838]

We lacked an underclass in this country for the marxists to arganize, so they had to create (by destroying the family)and import (illegals) one.

[johnb838]

I do know many union shops in the North refused to hire escaped or freed slaves. They were just as racist as the South is portrayed to have been. They just did a better job at hiding it.

Still Are.

[FreedomPoster]

>>>Geez, I'm learning more about Lincoln here than i ever did in school....

Welcome to FreeRepublic. I expect you will learn a lot about many topics that you never learned in school.

[wardaddy]

It was flawed and self serving. That you wish to ascribe glory to that is fine.

Your original logic was one of Constitutional authority (questionable to some) and if so then was not freeing the slaves in Union held areas of the "rebellious" South extraconstitutional.

Was it moral to not free those slaves he could have while to issue a decree freeing those slaves over which he had no control?

The EC has been overhyped. Slavery was ended as a result of the war's conclusion.

No, I don't enjoy sounding like Cornell West...lol

[dwd1]

I can not remember exactly where but when slavery is discussed by those outside of this country, there are those who believe that what made it so unjust was that there was no mechanism for emancipation...Romans and several other societies had processes for obtaining one's freedom... In other words, there was hope...

If you want to get rid of the liberal ca-ca, best way is to let people know that there is a method and opportunity to get their shot at the American Dream...

[4CJ]

Allegedly, Licoln issued the EP as a "war" measure, to deprive the Confederacy of workers, to promote an insurrection and possible slaughter in the South, and maybe thought that the South would believe he legally had the power to do so, and return to the fold.

One major problem. He had no legal authority to do so. The Confederacy had seceded, just as the colonies had seceded from Britain in 1776, and as had 9 of the several states from the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union. Even if Lincoln did have some legality to issue the EP as a "war" measure, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the owners of seized property must be renumerated. Lastly, even the Constitution prevents the taking of property by the federal government, and Lincoln wrote a letter to his law-partner Herndon that his actions were unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

According to this website as many as 8 Northern states allowed free blacks to vote by 1860. Whether that included national elections as opposed to state and local elections isn't clear. In the companion book to Burns' "Civil War" it says that only four states did - Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Good one!

[Ditto]

Lincoln, to his dying day, believed that blacks should be deported back to Africa and to the carribean for and colonization - not exactly the type of thing a "friend" would do.

Funny you should mention that. Two days before his "dying day" he gave his last public address where he called for voting rights for blacks. A confederate guy in the audience named Booth was so outraged by that thought that he made the "dying day" happen.

As to the Peoria address, why is it that you guys always forget the punchline that called for the end of slavery? Don't they publish that in the Lost Cause talking points?

PS. Show me one instance where Lincoln called for "deportation". He surely supported voluntary colonization as a way to avoid the problem of race relations that we are still facing 150 years later, but he never called for anyone to be "deported." He knew very well that freedom would not automatically bring equality. Was he wrong?

[wardaddy]

Britain compensated slaveowners when they abolished in the 1830s(?). I don't think that ever got much traction over here. Hotheaded Cavaliers versus taciturn and resolute Roundheads more or less....Southerners and Northerners even today often disagree and that crosses color lines too....unless allied against a third party.

...somethings are just gonna happen.

[wardaddy]

Thanks...I knew you would know.

[WhiskeyPapa]

If his motivation was to free slaves in areas where he had Constitutional authority as military CIC then surely why not free the slaves in "rebellious" areas under Union subjugation?

I know I have posted this to -you personally- before.

Lincoln's war power only extended to areas in rebellion. Being military CIC per se didn't give him the power. Slavery was clearly protected in the Constitution. The rebels cluelessly liabled themselves to the president's war power when their iunsurection took the nature of armed revolt that could not be handled by the usual courts and marshalls.

Lincoln vetoed in 1864 the Wade Davis bill --because-- he thought its provision of making slave ownership a federal crime was unconstitutional.

Had you read the Conkling letter I posted earlier today, you'd have seen Lincoln's rationale for issuing the EP. But I suppose you just skipped over it.

Walt