It's also a simple solution for simple minds, or those not willing to do some serious research.
Here is Robert E Lee in 1856, 5 years before the war...
You might want to read the entire letter some time. Lee says that "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things." It's hard to read that as a strong condemnation of slavery, or anything other than an opinion that slavery was the proper place for blacks as they currently existed in the south. For whites slavery was a curse, for blacks slavery was instruction. He went on, "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." So while he claimed to decry slavery, Lee didn't believe that any action should be taken to hasten its end. And for those abolitionists who would advocate an end to slavery, he described their activities as "...an evil course."
And then 9 years later, when supporting legislation that would enlist blacks as combat soldiers, Lee made it clear that his support was most reluctant. He said, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population." So even 9 years later Lee was clear in his belief that slavery was a necessity, and the best situation for blacks. So how can people twist that into opposition to slavery? And best it was mild disapproval, at worst he supported the institution. Lee was like the person today who says that they disapprove of abortion and who would never get one themselves, but who does not believe that woman should have the right to choose and that abortion should be illegal.
The law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching black children to read, and teaching them the way of salvation.
Nice, but nonsense. In the first place Sunday schools for blacks were not unusual. Throughout the south, churches saw it as their duty to teach the Bible to what the Presbyterian Synod of Texas described as "this benighted race in our midst." The Sunday school class that Jackson taught was not established by him, it was actually begun in 1845 by Dr. Henry Ruffner and the Reverend Tucker Lacy as the Presbyterian Sabbath School for Slaves. And Jackson did not teach slaves to read, they had lessons read to them. It was a typical Sunday school of the time and Jackson's syllabus survives, which I posted in reply 93.
This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.
Certainly not, especially in the fact that 7 of the slaves attending that school belonged to Jackson himself. Jackson's opionions on slavery were made clear in a letter he wrote concerning the plans of his half-brother, Wirt Woodson. In 1857 he wrote, "I do not want him [Wirt] to go into a free state if it can be avoided, for he would probably become an abolitionist; and then in the event of trouble between North and South he would stand on one side and we on the other." Jackson knew there would be trouble over the issue of slavery and he knew which side he would be on. Doesn't sound like someone opposed to slavery to me.
Lincoln, on the other hand, only "freed" slaves over whom he had no jurisdiction. The great "Emancipation Proclamation" did NOT free any slaves in the non-confederate states. In fact, it specifically EXCLUDED those states over which he certainly had the power to free them (he had, after all, suspended habeas corpus, what power could he NOT assume?).
OK, obviously Google did not make up for your lack of education in basic history or your failure to understand the Constitution. No the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in those areas not in rebellion, because Lincoln lacked the authority to do so. Slavery was not forbidden by the Constitution. It took the 13th Amendment to free the slaves, an amendment that Lincoln strongly supporter, spoke out in favor of, and which he had added to the 1864 Republican platform. Yes, Lincoln did free some slaves in the North when he supported passage of legislation ending slavery in the District of Columbia, which was passed long before the Emancipation Proclamation. So your claims are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be ridiculous.
He "emancipated" the slaves still in the south as pure theatre, and a military tactic, hoping they would rise up and rebel.
Any you, of course, have some documentation showing that this was Lincoln's plan? The proclamation itself contains the request, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages." It's clear that Lincoln was not out for slave revolt, that was a figment of the southron mind.
You have a great command of cant, and "everybody knows that" type of falsehoods, and a typical appalling ignorance of what the situation really was. Besides that, though, your knowledge of what you are talking about is just peachy /sarcasm.
So who has command of cant? So far I've provided evidence showing that most of what you claimed were fairy tales, and the rest weren't true. So far I'm batting a thousand. But don't give up, I'll give you another crack at it. My original post claimed that not a single one of the men I mentioned believed blacks to be their equals. Surely you can Google up a couple of quotes from Lee or Jackson or Davis which show the opposite to be true? Some quote that showed that Lee believed blacks to be his equal? Something that showed Jackson thought blacks were entitled to the same rights as whites? Somewhere where Davis believed blacks should vote? Or any other southern leader of the rebellion for that matter, I'll make it easier for you. Take your time, get it right. I'll be here.