Lets see some evidence of that. And, in the form of complete sentences, if you can.
Trump AT HIS BEST...
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
Lets see some evidence of that. And, in the form of complete sentences, if you can.
The whole project of the Confederacy was madness and worse, but that doesn't change the fact that the cause was the Southern attempt to protect slavery. Nor does it erase the specious arguments used to justify slavery as a moral good, that continue to be used in some places by white supremacists, and that justified Jim Crow.
Ok then. You're just a bigot. Thanks for making it clear.
drbrumley
Well-known member
:rotfl: That was a direct quote from Lincoln Himself.....When you actually learn some history for yourself and know what you say and can back it up, then get back to me...until then, keep your stinking mouth shut
It was certainly the beginning. This economic issue remained the driving force until the war. Do you really think farmers in Michigan, or Ohio cared about [sic]'Negroes' then? They did not wish anything to do with [sic]'Negroes', and thought the South was oddly peculiar. As to 'race' prejudice, the North was just as prejudiced, yet had no use for the people of African decent; they saw them as inferior [sic]"Negroes' and wanted nothing to do with them.
You are making a common mistake by thinking the people then examined the situations in the same manner as you do today.
Baloney! The rise of the Republican party was the rise of a business class party taking place of a worn out rusticating society. Even the war itself proved to both sides to be an incentive for doing more than dreaming. Read "Lincoln Reconsidered"
Again, you examine it in modern terms. Far from the truth. The northerners deplored slavery because they believe the [sic]"Negro" did not belong and the southerners were peculiar for having them, for any purpose. Late in the 1960s, I noticed in the North west mountain states, where there were few blacks ever seen, some people, usually old folks, would not let African Americans serve them coffee. In the South in those days, all this 'fear of close approach' was made as if it had been a concern, yet it always had been, well off white children, in the South, had black 'mammies' and maids for most of their young lives. The Southern whites always lived with blacks, while the North had always been estranged by them. What you are saying was then discourse at a safe distance, for show, and much of it still is today.
Last edited:
drbrumley
Well-known member
And we have this beauty:
Proposed 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
And Lincoln's response to it, since he was going to free the slaves:
I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Interesting huh?
But the south fought the war over slavery...
They were gift wrapped it.....
Proposed 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
And Lincoln's response to it, since he was going to free the slaves:
I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Interesting huh?
But the south fought the war over slavery...
They were gift wrapped it.....
Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of "the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address
We see from this the precepts to the war were elsewhere, but where? In the balance of power. Th South believed it's traditions and past dominance was threatened and had all ready wanted to leave the union. The South feared more the loss of its permanence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_first_inaugural_address
We see from this the precepts to the war were elsewhere, but where? In the balance of power. Th South believed it's traditions and past dominance was threatened and had all ready wanted to leave the union. The South feared more the loss of its permanence.
Remember when I asked you for supporting materials in complete sentences? There is a reason I asked for that. Parts of sentences, like what you posted, often don't convey the whole meaning of the thought they were meant to convey. Specifically, what you posted, which I mistook for your thoughts, is a part of a sentence from the Lincoln Douglas debates in which Lincoln was making a case for being an abolitionist while not in favor of full equality. Lincoln was a moderate and a pragmatist, but that statement still put him on the relative left of the slavery issue, and explicitly opposed to it.
Well, thank you for that.
The South fought the war over slavery. The North was initially more interested in preserving the Union, but the South started the war. The North became more explicitly abolitionist as the war progressed.
As I've been saying. This was a last-ditch effort to save the Union without war.
Lincoln's explanation that he thought the Constitutional already protected slavery in the states should tell you why he could support this amendment while being an abolitionist: he didn't think it changed anything.
You had politicians in the North, successful ones, including Lincoln and also much of the Republican party, who openly opposed slavery. Why would they do that if they were as apathetic as you claim. It's true that few people believed in full equality. But the notion that people didn't care about abolition is revisionism.
At the time, you had many successful politicians speaking against slavery. Why would they do that if the people they were talking to didn't care? And why would they then win elections? Why, if it were a matter of mere apathy, would literal wars have been fought to keep territories and new states free? No, this is revisionism.
You are a poor mind reader.
Yes, they cared, however, the reason they care was economic and social, but not moral, as you presume. I am not saying none had moral objections, many of the transcendental thinker did object to the 'peculiar institution' on moral grounds; these are the ones would read about in elementary history books. The vast majority of people living from 1800 to 1860 cared little about the slave issue, other than not wanting it spread to their territory.
In truth, most common people disliked the presence of Africans more than they disliked slavery. First of all, it gave the slaveholder a labor advantage in procuring land. Secondly, slavery was seen as inferior to the wage system, which omitted the need to care for worker's children and when the became old; it also omitted the need to shelter workers and feed them. In economic terms, the wage system was more economically efficient. In the defeated South where monies were short, many former slaves returned to the same labor as sharecroppers
See "The Devil’s Punchbowl"; mny former slaves were actually detained by union sholders and left to starve. The Union was not all good Afreican loving persons who wanted to free skaves, and many detested slaves, as well, the notion they had to risk life and limb for people they did see as fully human. What they believed is they were fighting to perserve the union and their country.
You have to realise this was a time when wage laybor was highly exploited, and salvey, as cural as it could be, necessatated a 'keeping and caring for' the means of laybor.
"Leading up to the war, most Northerners did not possess markedly different ideas about race and equality than their Southern opponents did. Absent some grand northern epiphany in the spring of 1861, the idea that the North took up arms over the issue of slavery seems very unlikely."
https://www.thegreatfiction.com/2015/01/05/did-the-north-really-fight-to-end-slavery/
"Even after the commencement of hostilities, Union politicians continued to go out of their way to explain what they were fighting for and, as importantly, what they weren’t. In July, the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was passed that stated that the North was not fighting with any “purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the…established institutions of those states.” In other words, they weren’t fighting to end slavery, but only “to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.” What the North meant by “the supremacy of the Constitution” would have been an unfamiliar definition to the founding generation.
In order to prevent any additional states from joining the Confederacy, Northern politicians and military officers made a point of not offending slaveholders in the slave states that had not yet seceded. When Union general John C. Fremont used his authority to free slaves in Missouri in August of 1861, Lincoln countermanded his order, sending those slaves back into bondage, and relieved him of his duties. In West Virginia, Union general George McClellan promised slaveholders that he would allow no “interference with your slaves,” and that “not only will we abstain from all such interference, but we will…with an iron hand, crush any attempt at (a slave) insurrection.”
In fact, had the states not been so turn over past political differences, and the war had not occurred, slavery would have died out in less than twenty years. As we have seen in history, many former slaves ended up back working the same plantations, but no longer received the shelter they had under slavery. Many Africans starved after the war, as there was no welfare system at the time.
"
Sick From Freedom, the reality of emancipation during the chaos of war and its bloody aftermath often fell brutally short of that positive image. Instead, freed slaves were often neglected by union soldiers or faced rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera. Many of them simply starved to death."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war
"In the 19th century people did not want to talk about it. Some did not care and abolitionists, when they saw so many freed people dying, feared that it proved true what some people said: that slaves were not able to exist on their own," Downs told the Observer."
Powell believes that “The choice wasn’t to fight the Civil War or do nothing meaningful about slavery.” He continues, “We should stop viewing the Civil War as the only way or the best way freedom could have been achieved.” Powell is on to something. Not only did the war decrease the amount of political freedom that all Americans had, but it also contributed to the post-war environment that denied full freedom and equality to the emancipated slaves."
The 'War Between the States' was necessary to make America great then, and as we clearly see, after the war, the US began to complete coast to coast railroads and soon became a dominate and wealthy nation.
You mis-characterize the abolitionists, and you make a straw man of my argument.
This is the Quaker protest statement against slavery:
http://triptych.brynmawr.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/HC_QuakSlav/id/11
You'll note its complete lacking of economic argument. It makes a moral argument, from the Golden Rule. The date? 1688.
What evidence do you have of that? Any at all?
I don't see how any of that helps you make the case that abolitionists were mainly economically interested. I can see perfectly clearly how rural whites might have objected to being made to compete for jobs with systematically impoverished former slaves, but that's not the same group, and it's not the same era.
There were many abolitionists who still didn't believe in the equality of the races. I imagine their biases were formed from the images of a group of people systematically kept uneducated and in bondage. But that isn't the point, either. It doesn't mean that their interests were primarily economic.
Well, no, they didn't, but that also isn't the argument. The South took up arms to defend slavery from the perceived threat. The North took up arms against an insurrection. The South began the war, and for them, it was always about slavery. The war itself pushed the North more toward abolition as it progressed, but the North started out more opposed to slavery than the South. However, it should be noted that there were abolitionists in every state and proponents of slavery in every state. The difference was their relative political strengths in state governments.
Right. And I've been very clear about that throughout this thread. The South fought to preserve slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union, at least at first.
Well, yes. The Union side was the status quo. There was a very real risk that Maryland would secede, and then the capital of the union would have been surrounded by Confederates.
Did you know that there was a rough correspondence between the rate of slave ownership and the order in which states seceded? There was a careful balancing act to prevent more states from following them.
I doubt it. Many in the South were laying a philosophical groundwork for slavery forever. It's your insistence on viewing slavery as a purely economic institution that leads you to such erroneous conclusions.
What should have happened was that they should have been paid reparations and granted full political rights, including robust legal protections for their rights. It was the failure of Reconstruction that allowed Jim Crow and near-slavery to set back in.
The Union army barely had the resources to look after itself. They had made no plans to protect a large emancipated population. And yet, the slaves followed the Union army around. Tell me, if the Union army was no better than the slave treatment, why did they stick around?
You're romanticizing the slave system. If slave owners provided food and shelter, it was often from a desire to protect their property, and frequently it was no more then the minimum needed to accomplish that goal. The Union army inherited a crisis borne of the slave system, not of their own making, at a time not of their choosing.
No one can say for sure if a better way existed. But more to the point, it isn't abolitionists who chose the time and place of the war, so it's a fairly moot point. Could Lincoln have simply gone along with secession? Perhaps, but it would have destroyed the Union to embrace the principle that it was unilaterally sever-able by the states.
The alternative would not have been a less great United States. It would have been dissolution of the Union. For Lincoln to have accepted secession would have been to abolish the country and the federal Constitution, and he was sworn not to do that, as was his predecessor, James Buchanan, the man who first had to confront the secession crisis. This is the alternative the South put to him.
When considering the American anti-slavery movement, modern Americans think exclusively of Northern abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison; however, "The anti-slavery sentiment in the North was in some respects not as strong as in the South between 1800-1830” and that “the groundwork for the lively anti-slavery era after 1831 was, to a large extent, laid in the South…” (Phylon, William M. Boyd)
In Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel observes that there was virtually no difference in the racial attitudes of northern whites compared to southern whites. Hummel writes that “both practiced safe white supremacy, the black minority being either enslaved (in the South) or legally discriminated against (in the North).”
In The Real Lincoln, Tom DiLorenzo cites Indiana as an example of the terrible legal oppression Northern blacks faced. DiLorenzo notes that free blacks and those of mixed ethnicity were forbidden from voting, from testifying in court against whites, from holding political offices and from marrying whites, an act which was punishable by a ten-year prison term and a fine of up to $5,000. Black children were forbidden from attending public schools because, in the opinion of an Indiana court, “black children were deemed unfit associates of whites, as school companions.” Any contract with a black person was “null and void.”
Furthermore, any white person who encouraged blacks to enter the state or to intermarry with whites was subject to fines of up to $1,000. And Indiana was no outlier. DiLorenzo observes, “Such discriminatory laws were common in virtually every Northern state as of 1860.”
In an 1854 speech Lincoln himself elaborated on why Northerners opposed slavery’s extension into the West. He said, “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.”
Northerners were against slavery, then, not so much for the benefit of blacks, but for the advantage of whites. Senator Lyman Trumbull, a Republican from Lincoln’s Illinois, proudly stated that “we…are the white man’s party.” Historian Eugene Berwanger writes that during the election of 1860 “Republicans made no pretense of being concerned with the fate of the Negro and insisted that theirs was a party of white labor.”
When one examines the Northern attitude, it become clear the North did not wish to free [sic] Negroes, but rather feared their presence, as well, the labor advantage for slaveholders moving west.
" Northerners were largely content to allow slavery to continue where it already existed. But they were opposed to Southerners moving into recently-acquired Western territories and bringing slaves with them.
This is where Northerners drew the line. In so doing they found, in Hummel’s words, “an anti-slavery position that could be made consistent with [sic]Negrophobia. Keeping slaves out of the territories was an excellent way to keep blacks out altogether.”
https://www.amazon.com/Emancipating...ywords=emancipating+slaves+enslaving+free+men
In Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel observes that there was virtually no difference in the racial attitudes of northern whites compared to southern whites. Hummel writes that “both practiced safe white supremacy, the black minority being either enslaved (in the South) or legally discriminated against (in the North).”
In The Real Lincoln, Tom DiLorenzo cites Indiana as an example of the terrible legal oppression Northern blacks faced. DiLorenzo notes that free blacks and those of mixed ethnicity were forbidden from voting, from testifying in court against whites, from holding political offices and from marrying whites, an act which was punishable by a ten-year prison term and a fine of up to $5,000. Black children were forbidden from attending public schools because, in the opinion of an Indiana court, “black children were deemed unfit associates of whites, as school companions.” Any contract with a black person was “null and void.”
Furthermore, any white person who encouraged blacks to enter the state or to intermarry with whites was subject to fines of up to $1,000. And Indiana was no outlier. DiLorenzo observes, “Such discriminatory laws were common in virtually every Northern state as of 1860.”
In an 1854 speech Lincoln himself elaborated on why Northerners opposed slavery’s extension into the West. He said, “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.”
Northerners were against slavery, then, not so much for the benefit of blacks, but for the advantage of whites. Senator Lyman Trumbull, a Republican from Lincoln’s Illinois, proudly stated that “we…are the white man’s party.” Historian Eugene Berwanger writes that during the election of 1860 “Republicans made no pretense of being concerned with the fate of the Negro and insisted that theirs was a party of white labor.”
When one examines the Northern attitude, it become clear the North did not wish to free [sic] Negroes, but rather feared their presence, as well, the labor advantage for slaveholders moving west.
" Northerners were largely content to allow slavery to continue where it already existed. But they were opposed to Southerners moving into recently-acquired Western territories and bringing slaves with them.
This is where Northerners drew the line. In so doing they found, in Hummel’s words, “an anti-slavery position that could be made consistent with [sic]Negrophobia. Keeping slaves out of the territories was an excellent way to keep blacks out altogether.”
https://www.amazon.com/Emancipating...ywords=emancipating+slaves+enslaving+free+men
K, seriously, you're not telling me anything I don't know. I understand, a lot of the abolitionists were still white supremacists. And that doesn't stop them from being abolitionists. And I don't really want to read everything you can think to copy from thegreatfiction.com.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Maybe you can show me the abolitionist part in his speech....it doesn't seem to be there...I gave you here his entire segment of his speech where that quote came from. So we can see it in all it's unglorious banter....
Abraham Lincoln said:
"I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone." -- Seems to fit the bill.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
trump said that? :noway: