Posted on 11/02/2002 11:20:01 AM PST by Aurelius
Or by anyone who wants to tear down America and everything it stands for -- like you.
Walt
So what are you suggesting? That we should refrain from telling the truth if, in the minds of jingoistic chauvanistic idiots like yourself, the truth might be seen as having a negative reflection on our nation.
We often hear a partial quote "My country, right or wrong." which appeals to people of your mentality. But the full quote states a principle that genuine patriots hold. "My country right or wrong, when right, to be kept right, when wrong, to be made right."Thus endeth the lesson for today, sad to say it is probably more than you can absorb.
To whom is this quote attributed?
Walt
So what are you suggesting? That we should refrain from telling the truth if, in the minds of jingoistic chauvanistic idiots like yourself, the truth might be seen as having a negative reflection on our nation.
Would you say that George Washington was able to accomplish anything good in his life?
Walt
What in the Hell is the point of that question? Are you following this discussion? Do you actually read my posts before you respond? It certainly doesn't appear so. Did I ever say anything to suggest that I did not regard George Washington as a great man with enormous accomplishments to his credit? All that I have tried to do is to point out that he wasn't a saint and that his utterances were not infallible. You seem unable to distinguish between that and completely trashing him - which I certainly never had the intention of doing.
Just like Non-Sequitur, you seem unable to read my posts and comprehend what I say, but rather you filter them through some preconceived notion of what a person such as your own ideologically determined vision of what I must be like would say. In short, you are delusional. It is unfortunate because it makes meaningful dialogue impossible. You don't respond to what I have posted, you respond to what your own ideological image of the kind of person I muist be would have posted on the subject.
You inhabit a world that exists only in your head.
It is attributed to Carl Schurz, before the U.S. Senate, Feb. 29, 1872. (I thought it was much earlier and European - see, even I can be wrong sometimes.)
The correct quote (I didn't have that right either) is:
"My country right or wrong: when right, to keep her right; when wrong, to put her right."
SOURCE It's down a bit so you might search on "Carl Shurz" to find it.
In re: "his plans of white-separatism, repatriation and a divided continent."
I have cited numerous speeches (by Lincoln) inumerable times - his fear of amalgamation, his speech before a group of blacks in the White House (documented in the New York papers, Basler and others). How many times does one have to quote the man?
I simply request that you provide documentaion of your original assertion - that a slave-owner could MURDER their slave with impunity, and to receive recompense from the state for doing so. A law stating such would be a start. IIRC, a descendant of founding father Richard Henry Lee was executed for killing a slave, and I have read of at least one trial where a slave-owner was sentenced to life for murdering a slave.
It is not being "slow or half witted", or an "irrational, obsessive and compulsive compunction". It is a request for documentation for your assertion.
Dang. You sound just like Major Owens. Try some real history instead of your Lost Cause Myhts for a change.
----------------------------------------------------------
The antebellum argument that New England slavers fastened the practice on the South is a myth. To the contrary, British ships from London, Bristol, and Liverpool introduced most of the slaves, with New England vessels contributing only in a small way to mainland trade.
The leading North American carrier was Newport, the fifth largest colonial port. Rhode Islanders, who were at a disadvantage competing with the more advanced economies of Europe in textiles, metalwares, and guns, had one product of superior quality - the rum they distilled. Often trading the liquor directly with Africans instead of Europeans, Rhode Islanders successfully plied the trade for a century, transporting over 106,000 Africans by 1808.
Rhode Island slavers supplied West Indian markets in far greater proportion than those on the mainland. Before the American Revolution Barbados was their most important destination, and after 1783 Cuba took half of their slave cargoes. The mainland market never averaged more than a third of the Rhode Island trade. New York, which sent out 151 voyages, and other ports, including Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, shared in transporting slaves. In general, southerners did not engage in the carrying business.
South Carolina and Virginia were the main markets, the first receiving about seventy thousand slaves between 1735 and 1775, and the second about the same number between 1699 and 1775. The trade virtually ceased during the American Revolution, but South Carolina afterward intermittently imported slaves in large numbers until 1808.
The Middle Passage, as the trip across the Atlantic was called, was undoubtedly horrible, with the frightened Africans mercilessly shackled, stowed, and sometimes cruelly handled and driven to suicide. Modern investigators, however, have lightened a little the grim picture painted by abolitionists by pointing out that traders had a financial stake in delivering slaves alive and healthy. It has been shown that white mortality on ocean voyages, especially in the tropics, was also heavy. Rhode Island averaged a 12 percent loss of slaves, higher than the English rate.
The slave trade came under attack in the egalitarian and anti-British atmosphere of the American Revolution. But in deference to certain objectors, drafters of the Declaration of Independence dropped a proposed condemnation of the practice in that document, and the Framers of the Constitution compromised on the issue. It was agreed that the trade could be abolished as early as 1808, an agreement that was fulfilled with a minimum of dissent. Efforts to end the subsequent illegal traffic were hampered for over half a century by southern objections as well as friction with the British, some of whom were crusading to suppress the traffic entirely. During the Civil War, with southerners out of Congress and an antislavery administration in power, the United States signed a treaty with Great Britain that led to ending the traffic.
The Constitution did not contemplate a ban on interstate slave trading, leaving the issue to the states. The federal government, however, prohibited trade in the District of Columbia and set regulations regarding the size of ships used in coastal trade. The exhaustion of soil in the older states, expansion of the cotton kingdom, and suppression of the foreign trade combined to encourage domestic trading. Many slaves migrated westward with their masters, and others were sold through a system that was well established by the early nineteenth century. The seaboard and border states exported an estimated twenty-five thousand slaves a year, with Virginia the largest source.
Large-scale traders in the Upper South maintained agencies and representatives in the Lower South. Although water transport was used, slaves more commonly were marched overland, in coffles, to markets where they commanded prices that at least quadrupled between 1800 and 1860. At first only erratically regulated by the states and then unregulated altogether by 1850, the trade led to the breakup of families, which became the particular target of antislavery writers like Harriet Beecher Stowe.
Source: http://www.myhistory.org/historytopics/articles/slave_trade.html
-------------------------------------------------
So it turns out Virginia did more slave trading in a few years than the "Yankees" managed in over a century. How about that.
Shhhhhhhhhhh...........how dare you expose the myth of the slave power? Don't you know the neo-rebs are trying to get the CBF more exposure? Setting the record straight doesn't serve that goal.
Walt
In re: "his plans of white-separatism, repatriation and a divided continent."
I have cited numerous speeches (by Lincoln) inumerable times - his fear of amalgamation, his speech before a group of blacks in the White House (documented in the New York papers, Basler and others). How many times does one have to quote the man?
You have little that supports your premise. Although Lincoln might well have been glad to snap his fingers and have all negroes resettled elsewhere, that wasn't going to happen. He began to clear the way -- as you well know -- for full civil right for them. He did this with both his public proclamations and private letters:
"...peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it."
A. Lincoln
8/23/63
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood
...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Also:
"I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
Lincoln had been setting the stage for equal rights for at least a year -- as you well know.
Private
General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________ Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
______________________________________________
Private
March 13, 1864
Executive Mansion
Washington
Hon. Michael Hahn
My dear sir,
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention which among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whther some of the colored people may not be let in -- as for instance the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in oyr ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewll of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.
Yours truly
Lincoln meant to expand equal rights to black soldiers because his inate sense of justice could allow no less.
Lincoln was -not- a white separatist any more than he was a white supremacist. You backed off that line, and you'll back off this one too.
Walt
Funny thing about the neo-rebs is how they can get all weepy over the honorable bold cavaliers (who could easily have triumphed, but I digress) but then will tell any kind of lie themselves.
Walt
And why on earth shouldn't I? I am nothing like you.
And now let's put an end to this. You have now definitely gone over the edge with your irrational hostility.
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.