Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
And Edgar Lee Masters?
I don't believe I've ever quoted him around here, tu quoque boy. You and others quote McPherson regularly though.
BZZZT! WRONG. Not only does McPherson appear on socialist radio, he also writes for a Trotskyite political party's website. Read it and weep:
James McPherson: Left Wing Extremist
Any freeper who has visited a thread discussing Abraham Lincoln, the great war in which he participated, or practically anything pertaining to American history between 1850 and 1870 has likely encountered the posting of commentary by Princeton University historian James McPherson, author of The Battle Cry of Freedom. On any of these threads McPherson himself is a controversial figure. To supporters of Lincoln and the North, McPherson is adored and his book is, as one of his supporters recently put it, a "highly-balanced, factual account." To supporters of the South and critics of Lincoln, McPherson's book is a heavily pro-northern account tainted with political bias and historical revisionism. Though conflicting appraisals of McPherson have been going on between the two sides for years, I only recently became curious about McPherson himself. Having an opportunity to weigh in, I decided to do a little research on the guy's background simply to find out who he was and what his issues were. Almost immediately and with but a single internet search I discovered not only was McPherson a liberal regular in the world of academia, but he also has ties to the left's radical and socialist elements.
Having seen McPherson characterized as balanced, objective, and even implied to be conservative, or at the least moderate or politically neutral, it became obvious somebody wasn't telling the whole story. Accordingly, I decided to compile the information found on Professor McPherson's radical left wing ties and introduce them as a whole into the record.
James McPherson: Defender of Bill Clinton
During the second term of his presidency, scandal plagued Democrat President was impeached by the United States House of Representatives for his extensive criminal activity in office including his obstruction of justice and repeatedly perjuring himself under oath. During the debate over impeachment and the judiciary hearings regarding what to do with Clinton in light of his crimes, liberal academia rushed to the defense of their embattled president. Not the least among them to line up on Clinton's side was James McPherson of Princeton University. McPherson's activities on behalf of Clinton are many:
On December 8, 1998 professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton, who had co-authored with Arthur Schlessinger the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and purporting his actions to have not merited impeachment, testified on Clinton's behalf before the House Judiciary Committee. The Daily Princetonian in the article linked here reported on Wilentz's testimony. The article also mentioned that James McPherson had been invited by the Clinton White House to testify on Clinton's behalf along with Wilentz. McPherson could not testify because the time conflicted with his classroom committments. McPherson nevertheless weighed in stating that the Constitution's requirements for impeachment "mean public offenses" along with the implication that Clinton's offense had not been a public offense.
James McPherson himself signed the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and opposing his impeachment as is documented here. The petition asserted that impeachment of Clinton would "undermine" the United States Constitution and "leave the presidency permanently disfigured." Regarding the charges agaisnt Clinton, it stated "the current charges against him depart from what the (Constitution's) Framers saw as grounds for impeachment." The petition ran in newspaper advertisements across the nation paid for by the liberal group People for the American Way. It was also frequently cited by Clinton's defense in support of his acquittal. When asked about his signature in the article here, McPherson stated that Clinton's impeachment "might come back to haunt the country" and that he had signed it once and would sign it again. The list of signatures on the document reads like a whose who of liberal academia including Arthur Schlessinger and Julian Bond.
When the Senate considered whether or not to remove Clinton during January and February of the following year, McPherson continued to speak out on Clinton's side. Before the vote was taken, McPherson stated that a senate vote to remove Clinton "would cripple the executive branch . . . weakening the presidency for years to come." During Clinton's senate trial, McPherson argued the same line while giving a lecture at Kent State University. To make his case he pointed to Andrew Johnson complaining that Johnson's impeachment had weakened the presidency so much that it didn't regain the strength it had under Lincoln for another 35 years. During the same lecture McPherson continued to make his case on Clinton's side by praising Clinton's rhetorical abilities and comparing them to Abraham Lincoln. According to McPherson, Clinton had the same "gift" of connecting to the people that Lincoln did, and that is why Clinton remained popular in polls at the time.
McPherson continued his defense of Clinton as an historian by accusing those who sought to impeach Clinton of a "personal vendetta." Showing a pro-northern bias, McPherson, in the same interview, contrasted what he called the personal vendetta against Clinton with Andrew Johnson's impeachment, which he claimed was not personal (Johnson's impeachment is almost universally considered a fraudulent show trial over purely political differences between Johnson and an unconstitutional act the radical northern Congress had passed). The quote appeared in McPherson's interview on the World Socialist Web Site, which he appears on frequently and has published several articles. The quote in its entirity states "There was enormous substance to the issues involved in the impeachment of 1868 in a way that I think was totally absent from the Clinton impeachment. That was a personal vendetta, and in Johnson's case, I don't think it was personal." McPherson continues, asserting "The major difference is that the impeachment of the 1860s concerned really serious matters of substance, and the 1990s' impeachment was a more personal vendetta" and making sure to point out that Andrew Johnson was never impeached over what he calls "personal behavior." Elsewhere in the same three part interview, McPherson took jabs at conservatives classifying "groups, like the anti-abortion people" as "extremes on the Right."
James McPherson: the Socialist Pacifica Radio Network
On Nov. 3rd, 1999, Professor James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom, appeared for a lengthy political discussion about the candidacy of George W. Bush on the "Democracy Now" program of the socialist Pacifica Radio Network. The topic of that particular show was a discussion devoted to accusations of white supremacy alleged against Bush by the show's two socialist hosts.
Pacifica radio is a multi-city socialist affiliated radio network headed up by Mary Frances Berry , the socialist Democrat chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Berry is perhaps best known as instigator of the 2000 florida election "voter disinfranchisement" show trial hearings and ensuing "reports" from the commission accusing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris of denying the right to vote to minorities. Berry's report was drafted on statistical models by a former paid consultant to Al Gore. Berry is also known more recently for waging a political battle against George W. Bush's appointees to the commission by refusing to seat them.
"Democracy Now," one of Pacifica's most popular programs, is a left wing political talk show that was, at the time McPherson appeared on the show, hosted by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman. The program is one of the top political discussion outlets for the radical left in America. It has in the past featured among its guests MIT Professor and leftist guru Noam Chomsky, Socialist presidential candidate David McReynolds, socialist and black panther activist Angela Davis, and radical Democrat congressman and reparations activist John Conyers. Pacifica itself is practically the exclusive domain of the radical left. With almost no exceptions, it's guests range from left to far left and its shows are hosted by open marxists and other radicals.
The first host McPherson appeared with, Juan Gonzalez, is an vietnam era activist and organizer who helped found the 1970's era "Young Lords" political movement, a Latino affiliate modelled after the Black Panther Party and formed under the guidance of imprisoned Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Gonzalez' "Young Lords" organization was a socialist latino liberation movement that dedicated itself to the abolition of capitalism, dissolution of the United States military, implementation of worldwide socialism, and assisting "Brothers and Sisters around the world" who are under assault by forces opposed to communism. The "Young Lords" movement staged "liberation" events in the early 1970's to preach socialism to crowds carrying banners reading "Viva Che!." It is also considered one of the organizational precursers of the Puerto Rican FALN movement of Clinton pardon fame.
The second host McPherson appeared with, Amy Goodman, is a socialist activist and was featured as a guest speaker at the 1997 Socialist Scholars Conference of American held in New York. She appeared at this socialist convention along side several noted socialists including Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders and other affiliates of the Progressive Caucus, the congressional wing of Democratic Socialists of America.
Also appearing on the program as a guest with McPherson was Ed Sebesta, a leftist "homosexual rights" activist and rabid anti-confederate campaigner. Sebesta is an extreme south hater who advocates radical anti-southern activism on his political website. Among the positions he supports are boycotting consumer products with the word "plantation" in their names, prohibiting federal cemetary maintanence of confederate soldier graves, a blanket removal of confederate monuments, and the removal of all street names that are in honor of confederates. Sebesta is also a major McPherson fan and recommends McPherson's book as a #1 read for anti-confederate activists on his website. Sebesta has devoted much of his recent energy attempting to brand republicans with the accusation of racism and was on the show with McPherson exclusively to make allegations of white supremacy against George W. Bush. Among the Republicans Sebesta has attempted to smear are then Texas governor and now president George W. Bush, current Texas governor Rick Perry, and attorney general John Ashcroft. Sebesta was a major promoter of disinformation about Ashcroft and the Southern Partisan interview during the Senate confirmation hearings.
McPherson appeared along side the two socialist wackos Goodman and Gonzales as well as Sebesta. During the course of the show from which transcripts are available online, he took an anti-south position. Among McPherson's positions were the assertion of his support for the removal of confederate symbols from the Georgia and Mississippi flags, criticism of Republicans who opposed their removal, and direct accusations of white supremacy against two national confederate veterans ancestry groups. Perhaps most amazing was McPherson's seeming abstention from rebutting the absurd charge of white supremacy being waged against Bush by the other three clowns. Among McPherson's statements from the Pacifica broadcast are the following two excerpts:
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that."
"I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states."
James McPherson: The 'World Socialist Web Site'
A Google web search reveals 27 "hits" for James McPherson on the World Socialist Web Site, www.wsws.org. The World Socialist Web Site is the official internet home of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). The site lists its purpose as providing documents of analysis and study "from the heritage of the socialist movement" (apparently McPherson's many articles on this site are among those documents). The site itself proclaims to be involved in a movement to solve economic and social equality struggles, which it claims are "inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook."
The organization that runs the website, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), is the direct descendant of an international socialist organization founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938. It has affiliate third party political organizations in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany, among others.
The World Socialist Web Site has a profile devoted to McPherson under their history section. McPherson's profile is linked their history index along side their other history pages. It is identified as "James McPherson: Historian of the American Civil War" and is one of many sections of mostly socialist themes. Among the others are "Marxism and the fundamental problems of the 20th century," "Leon Trotsky" and "The Struggle for Social Equality." Among the items under McPherson's profile are several of his publications including a three part exclusive interview with the organization that runs the site.
In addition, a mini-biography of a profile of McPherson is given on the World Socialist Web Site located here. This biography is by David Walsh, a socialist activist and arts editor for the World Socialist Web Site. In it, Walsh clearly identifies McPherson as a friend to socialists, stating "Nearly 40 years ago Professor McPherson arrived at a conception of the American Civil War, based on the work of the best of his predecessors and his own researches, as a revolutionary struggle for equality and democracy and he has not, I think, ever deviated from that view. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that the last several decades have not been favorable for progressive social thought" (my emphasis added). The rest of Walsh's mini-biography lavishes McPherson with praises for viewing the war as a "social movement" of "liberation" and proceeds to quote one of the north's strongest advocates during the war itself, Karl Marx, to show that the granddaddy of communism's view is consistent with McPherson's. The article does concede that McPherson is generally a political in his writings, but nevertheless maintains the title "progressive" - the famous euphemism used by leftists to refer to themselves and their allies in terminology with less inflamatory connotations than "leftist," "communist," or "liberal."
Now, all that being introduced into the record, excuse me for just a moment while I express my doubts in the objectivity of ANY individual who willingly appears on an openly socialist radio talk show during a discussion devoted to smearing George W. Bush. Allow me to express my doubts in the fairness of ANY individual who actively defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment while accusing those who favored it of having but a mere "personal vendetta." Allow me to express my doubts in the claims of political balance for ANY individual who openly associates with and publishes material on the official website of an international trotskyite marxist political party. Allow me to also express concerns over the left wing political bias of persons who willfully associate themselves with such an entity as Pacifica or with the socialist activists on Pacifica, or with a socialist political party, or with the Clinton Administration in its defense against the greatest presidential scandal in American history.
James McPherson: Modern Left Wing and Anti-Confederate Activism:
Aside from his openly socialist affiliations, involvement with Democrat and leftist modern political causes as well as anti-confederate activism in modern times appear on McPherson's record. They amply demonstrate McPherson's anti-southern bias in his own personal politics on things such as the modern confederate flag controversy and his pro-Democrat political affiliations. Broken down by category, here is a sample of McPherson's politics:
McPherson's modern anti-south and anti-confederate biases -
"One's stance on the [confederate] flag, I think, does reflect some degree of commitment for civil rights - or lack of commitment" - James McPherson, quoted by the Associated Press, February 28, 2000
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that." - James McPherson, quoted on the socialist Pacifica Radio Network's "Democracy Now" show, November 3, 1999
Modern confederates are "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." - James McPherson, review of "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz
"For a lot of people, especially blacks, but not only blacks, the symbols of the Confederacy, or memorializing those who fought for the Confederacy, are- the Confederacy is seen standing for slavery and for treason. That is for rebellion against the United States, war against the United States, war to try to break up and, in the minds of those who fought on the side of the North, to destroy the United States. And I think it seems in the minds of many to be a travesty to memorialize them." - James McPherson, December 18, 1995 interview, NPR
The Plain Dealer covered a speech by McPherson in a May 5, 2000 article, reporting McPherson to hold the belief that "it's likely slavery in some form would have persisted into the 20th century" were it not for the war. McPherson continued, asserting that had it not been for the war, this "might have given rise to a South African-type apartheid which could have continued to today."
"[Southerners] need to face up to the historical reality, if only to come to terms with the problems of their own society" - James McPherson, referring to persons who disagree with Northern versions of the conflict's history, U.S. News and World Report, 9/30/02
McPherson on Slavery Reparations -
James McPherson hosted a University seminar to discuss the issue of slavery reparations on April 14, 2001 at Washington University in St. Louis. The event's calendar announcement, may be found here. According to the calendar, the session was titled "40 Acres & a Mule," hosted by McPherson. The event's description reads "This class will address the question of whether decendents of slaves (or other African Americans) are owed reparations for slavery. Prof. McPherson will provide some historical background on the debate after the Civil War about granting every freed slave '40 acres and a mule.'" Details of what sides McPherson took during the seminar are not reported, but it should be noted that seminars of this nature on the reparations issue have been held on college campuses across the nation in recent years, almost exclusively to give a platform and audience to the pro-reparations cause.
McPherson's support of today's liberal Democrats, espousal of left wing policy, and criticism of the GOP -
The February 6, 2000 Baltimore Sun reported in an article about then Democrat presidential candidate Bill Bradley that Bradley had "assembled a " futures group" of thinkers who would meet several times a year to discuss the major problems of, and opportunities for, the United States in the last decade of the century." On the small list of members of this "select group" was James McPherson. Others included Richard Rorty, an ultra-left post modernist philosophy professor, and Cornel West, an ultra-liberal "black studies" professor and leading slavery reparations advocate.
"He's very good at creating a positive image. Just last week, he made a quick visit to the fires in Idaho. People appreciate that he cares about these things." - James McPherson, speaking about Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, August 14, 2000
"There is a real irony here because the Republicans went out of their way to avoid real conflict or the appearance of conflict. The public is aware of that, so what is the point of watching the convention or caring about it?" - James McPherson commenting on the Republican National Convention, New Hampshire Telegraph, August 4, 2000
In the April 2003 edition of "Perspectives," the magazine of the American Historical Association, McPherson published a lengthy diatribe espousing the continuation of "Affirmative Action" in response to the University of Michigan case before the Supreme Court.
...meaning it was a letter to Lincoln, not "the american people" in general, as you previously claimed.
At least the IWA knew the fight was about slavery, not tariffs.
Marx was one of the first to make that claim and his successors have been repeating it ever since, but that does not make it any less simplistic or erronious.
And I quote, "Communists have always adored Lincoln. They were among his first cheerleaders during his own lifetime and remain so to this day through the likes of James McPherson." I was just pointing out that you forgot one who wasn't a Lincoln admirer. Nowhere did you specify that you meant only communists that you quoted from. See, no tu quoque about it. Boy.
You're quoting the exception that proves the rule. If Masters is all you've got to counter such well known names as Karl Marx himself and well known marxist civil war writers of a later period (such as McPherson and and Sandburg), it may be safely said that the weakness of your tu quoque diversion is self evident.
you get the PINK POPCICLE AWARD for the most foolish post of the day.
but then, that's what fools do.
free dixie,sw
in 1860, the census-takers said NOBODY lived on the west bank of the Trinity River. the muddy Trinity was out of it's banks during the census & there were NO bridges to the west bank.
can you say DALLAS & FT WORTH, children? sure you can.
may i suggest you go check the TAX records for the number of black freeholders in dixie for the years 1840-1860???? the number of freemen/freewomen was FAR greater than the census numbers.
also, go take a look at the BOOK i mentioned;professor Blackerby was THE EXPERT on black Confederates. his seminal work was PEER-reviewed and found to be ACCURATE, even by northern professors of history.
free dixie,sw
ROTFLMAO! When did Lincoln abide by Taney's decision?
But that authorization was retroactive in the sense that Congress gave immunity to the president and his subordinates for all previous arrests
Ex post facto legislation is still unconstitutional.
"It must be evident to all, that martial law and the privilege of that writ are wholly incompatible with each other." (from ex parte Field)
A circuit court decision. Black's Law Dictionary 1856 Rev. 6th ed notes that the suspension is by the legislature. Cheif Justices Taney and Marshall said the same in two separate decisions. The founders stated the same in the debates, and centuries of English law held the same position. If the Field position is correct, then Justice Rehnquist could state that the issue has been settled definatively, couldn't he? I like this rebuttal better - from Justice Davis in ex parte Milligan:
If this position is sound to the extent claimed, then when war exists ... the commander ... can ... substitute military force for and to the exclusion of the laws, and punish all persons, as he thinks right and proper, without fixed or certain rules.Saving the best for last, one of the best lines taken from any SCOTUS decision:The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the "military independent of and superior to the civil power" -- the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence, that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence.
... The illustrious men who framed that instrument [the Constitution] were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
Last, but certainly not least, is the fact that the legislature attempted, illegally or otherwise, to transfer to power to suspend the writ to the President. If the President already possessed the powers, a legislature filled with yankees, absent almost all Southern legislators, still undertood that the Presidient did NOT allready posses such power. That speaks more than any Supreme Court decision ever could.The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
Everybody knows that there are small percentages missed in the censuses, but they are overall consistant and valid. But your example of Dallas and Fort Worth is meaningless. Both Tarrent and Dallas Counties reported data, and even if half of the people were missed, you are only talking about 10,000 to 15,000 people. You can quadruple the number of colored freemen in the state of Texas from the 1860 census and still have fewer than 1,000. The major settlements of those counties were only founded in the 1840's. Most of the missing Texas County data from the 1860 census is from the west and southwest parts of the state. More or less the same areas that the Texas Secession referendum failed have vote in February 1861 - too remote and too unpopulated.
As for the rest of the soon-to-be Confederate state, only 3 counties outside of Texas failed to report or have data missing.
There was no reason to hide the numbers of slaves and "colored" freemen in the census. The issue of miscegenation was very important too, especially in the south. In some places you did not count as "white" unless you were lily white. None of this 1/16ths stuff.
Compare the almost universal acceptance of census data with the spotty CSA records. Of those that survived the war, you will find conflicting data on the records, especially with blacks in "the service" of the South. Interesting items such as the word "soldier" crossed out and the word "servant" inserted. And look at the data on the number of black collecting pensions for their service in the armies of the CSA - very few. (Example: Tennessee had 12, total)
Searching tax record might provide some useful data. I'll be glad to take up your sugestion. But you suggestion that there were more freemen in the last 20 years than are shown in the US Census records, doesn't help with you observation that chattel slavery was dying out, and would be gone in "five years." With exponential growth over 70 years worth of census data, and nearly 4,000,000 slaves, 98% of which were in the southern states, you really can't stand by your earlier statement.
Slavery was not on its way out in the south, particularly in the deep south where the cotton-based agriculture depended on it.
Speaking of the book by Hubert C. Blackerby. This work must have been his opus magnum, because I can't find any other mention of him for any other work or in any journal or magazine. Did "Professor" Blackerby write anything else? The reason I ask, having had several published, peer-reviewed papers myself, as well as having edited an important volume concering regional geology, is that university professors of need to "publish or perish." I can usually get a good feeling for an author's credentials by his publications list. Hubert seems not to have one. Explanation?
[GOP, not following the conversation, responding to nc] Lincoln had only one term as a congressman.
[nc] No s--- Sherlock, who gave you the clue?
[Wlat at 1241]
Consider this text from the AOL ACW forum:
* * *
2. During Lincoln's first term as U.S. congressman from Illinois in the late 1840's, he continued to criticize the Mexican war and worked out a bill (never introduced) calling for a referendum in the District of Columbia designed to free the slaves in that Federal enclave and compensate their owners.
[nc note] The AOL ACW forum, another of Wlat's unimpeachable anonymous sources.
[nc at 1263 - GOP is responding to it - GOP should have read it.]
[Walt quoting] 2. During Lincoln's first term as U.S. congressman from Illinois in the late 1840's, he continued to criticize the Mexican war and worked out a bill (never introduced) calling for a referendum in the District of Columbia designed to free the slaves in that Federal enclave and compensate their owners.
His FIRST TERM as opposed to what?
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sites/uscapitol.htm
Lincoln's connections to this building are varied and rich, beginning on December 6, 1847, when he took his seat in the Thirtieth Congress. During his single term as the lone Whig Party representative from Illinois, he lived across the street at Mrs. Ann Sprigg's boardinghouse. The Library of Congress now stands in this location, just east of the building.
From the National Park Service:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:XvDKQLe0YqUJ:www.nps.gov/liho/congress.htm+lincoln+1849&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The first session of the 30th Congress was to convene on December 6, 1847. In October the Lincolns rented their house for $90 a year to Cornelius Ludlum, and they left for Washington via Lexington, Ky., where they visited the Todds. After an arduous stagecoach and railroad trip, the Lincolns arrived in the Nation's Capital. Though Lincoln was active as a new member of Congress, his colleagues generally appraised him as a droll Westerner of average talents. Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican War which had broken out in May 1846 soon made him unpopular with his constituents. In Illinois the patriotic fervor and hunger for new lands disspelled any doubts that the people may have had about the American cause. Lincoln's "spot" resolutions asking President James Polk to admit that the "spot" where American blood was first shed was Mexican territory and his anti-administration speeches created surprised resentment at home and earned him the nickname "Spotty Lincoln." Illinois Democrats called Lincoln a disgrace.
* * *
[Walt quoting] In summary, I think one can safely say that Lincoln was clearly a gradual abolitionist from the beginning of his political career.
Nah. This began with his second term as a congressman.
[GOP, not following the conversation, unintentionally making my point for me] Lincoln had only one term as a congressman.
So, I stand correct. There was no second term. Lincoln was a failed one-term Congressman. And in summary, I think one can safely say that the race hustling pimp Lincoln was clearly a gradual abolitionist from the beginning of his second term as a congressman.
Wlat, let me tell you this. You are a man of MONUMENTAL ignorance. Addressing a Black lady as "aunty" is the equivalent of addressing a Black man as "boy."
Your race hustling pimp god Abraham routinely addressed Blacks with racial epithets. As you can see below, the pimp had an "Aunt" Mary as well. Indeed, every Black woman on the White House staff was his "Aunt." Of course, his personal servant, whomever it might be, was his "boy." And Black laborers were "Cuffies."
And your only concern about your race pimp addressing Soujourner Truth with a racial epithet is whether Jefferson Davis would do it too?
-----
Lincoln defenders say that whatever his political and musical limitations, his personal relations with Negroes "were almost models of democratic correctness and friendly courtesy," which raises large questions about their definition of "democratic correctness." For although Lincoln, as James G. Randall concedes, "was careful" in "the presence of his Negro visitors ... not to use expressions or tell stories which might offend them (1957, 370), he routinely used the term boy to refer to Black men of all ages and made racial distinctions in listing White House employees, giving Whites the standard courtesy titles and calling Black women aunt. On November 9, 1862, he sent the following note to his wife: "Mrs. Cuthbert & Aunt Mary want to move to the White House, because it has brown so cold at Soldiers Home. Shall they?" (CW 5:492). Is there a scholar anywhere in the world who doesn't know the racial identity of Mrs. Cuthbert and Aunt Mary?
This was not a social lapse caused by inattention or the press of business -- this was Lincoln's habitual address to Blacks. He apparently made an exception for Frederick Douglass, although Lincoln's secretary, John Hay, called Douglass "Frederick" (79). Neither Hay nor Lincoln made an exception for Sojourner Truth. And it tells you a lot about the current state of historiography when contemporary White historians don't find it strange or offensive that the autograph Lincoln gave to that great and gracious lady in 1864 was to "Aunty Sojourner Truth". The most recent Lincoln biography givesa glowing account of this interview but neglects somehow to tell us what Lincoln wrote in the book.
Will it be said that Sojourner Truth didn't object? But how do we know she didn't have better manners than Lincoln and that she didn't know the difference between White men who called Black women Mrs. and White men who called them "aunty"? And who are these people who maintain that is sociallyacceptable to call minorities derogatory names if they don't object immediately? In any case, we are reminded of the deliciously witty reply Mary McLeod Bethune made to a White man who made the mistake of calling her aunty": "And which one of my sister's boys are you?"
Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., pp. 109-10.
Whom it may concern. Executive Mansion March 7. 1861
William Johnson, a colored boy, and bearer of this, has been with me about twelve months; and has been, so far, as I believe, honest, faithful, sober, industrious, and handy as a servant.
A. LINCOLN
(CW 4:277 boldface added)
Hon. Sec. of Treasury Executive Mansion
My dear Sir: Nov. 29. 1861
You remember kindly asking me, some time ago whether I really desired you to find a place for William Johnson, a colored boy who came from Illinois with me. If you can find him the place shall really be obliged. Yours truly A. LINCOLN
(CW 5:33 boldface added)
January 28, 1864
This boy says he knows Secretary Chase, and would like to have the place made vacant by William Johnson's death. I believe he is a good boy and I should be glad for him to have the place if it is still vacant. A. LINCOLN
(CW 7:156 boldface added)
[1] ADS, DNA WR RG 56, Treasury Department, Personnel Records. The Negro boy was Solomon James Johnson (see John E. Washington, They Knew Lincoln, pp. 135-41). See also Lincoln's note to Chase concerning a promotion for Solomon J. Johnson, March 15, 1865. In addition to working as messenger for the Treasury Department, William H. Johnson had been Lincoln's personal barber and valet.
The Soujourner Truth visit was on October 29, 1864. Let's see what racist Lincoln did in November 1864.
When in November 1864, Lincoln halted a War Department meeting on the election returns to read from the writings of Petroleum V. Nasby, Secretary of War Stanton could barely contain himself (Wilson 578). "God d--n it to hell," he told Charles A. Dana, "was there ever such nonsense! was there ever such inability to appreciate what is going on in an awful crisis? Here is the fate of this whole republic at stake, and here is the man around whom it all centers, on whom it all depends, turning aside from this momentuous issue, to read the God d---ed trash of a silly mountebank!"
The Nasby Papers, featuring the crude, dialect jokes of Petroleum V. Nasby, were Lincoln favorites. So taken was he with the Nasby jokes that he told Sumner and others that "for the genius to write these things I would gladly give up my office" (SW 15:66). "I'm going to write to 'Petroleum,'" he told a high-level group, "to comedown here, and I intend to tell him if he will communicate his talent to me, I will 'swap' places with him" (Carpenter 151).
Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 101-2 (elision added)
If Lincoln didn't see anything wrong with dialect jokes and epithets, others did. During a White House conference with the Committee for Recruiting Colored Troops in 1864, a spirited young man named Henry Samuels corrected the president when he used the epithet Cuffie. According to Samuels, the president listened quietly as the committee members asked the government to pay Black workers employed by the Army the same salary paid White workers. He then replied, according to Samuels, "Well, gentlemen, you wish the pay of 'cuffie' raised." Samuels interrupted him saying: Excuse me, Mr. Lincoln the term 'Cuffie' is not in our vernacular. What we want is that the wages of the American Colored Laborer be equalized with those of the Americal White Laborer."
Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 106
yes and it is right on schedule
Nope. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, followed by laws "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."
From Merriam-Webster: Pursuant: in carrying out : in conformity with : ACCORDING TO (1 : in conformity with 2 : as stated or attested by 3 : depending on )
Only laws pursuant to the Constitution have status, not just any federal law. The federal laws depend upon the Constitution to obtain validity.
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.