Posted on 04/28/2015 12:18:27 PM PDT by concernedcitizen76
The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.
Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana, both colonial possessions of Great Britain at the time, said Phillip W. Magness, one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It's a diversion because you're saying, in effect, that it's Muslims who captured their great-grandfathers that are responsible for plantation owners in Mississippi owning slaves.
Did the Founders intend that the Declaration of Independence should apply to slaves?
No. In fact they went out of their way to delete references to slavery among the grievances listed.
So one should never make a moral judgement on a subject? Talk about a contemporary position.
Let me repeat my earlier question: How should American slaves have invoked and realized their natural right of self-determination?
Irrelevant since that isn't the question. In his Scott v. Sanford decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote, "In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." Lincoln disagreed with that, saying on more than one occasion that free blacks were entitled to the same rights outlined by the Declaration of Independence that free whites were, and in that respect free blacks and free whites were equal. Chief Justice Taney disagreed with that and believed that free blacks were never intended to enjoy the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you agree with Lincoln or with Taney?
You are saying that. I am pointing out that effect follows cause. In order to understand where you are, you must understand how you got there.
No. In fact they went out of their way to delete references to slavery among the grievances listed.
To include them would sort of put the hex on the whole argument, now wouldn't it? Well, you can't say they weren't aware of their hypocrisy on this point, but when money is at stake, not everyone can maintain their integrity.
Not what I said at all. One should not make a moral judgement based only on popularity and tradition.
(Argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad antiquitatem.)
We only have your assertion that your position was arrived at with due consideration and careful thought. The odds favor the more likely explanation.
So tell me, why was it acceptable for Virginia to Break from England, but not acceptable for Virginia to Break from Washington D.C.?
Not an easy to answer question. Most slaves couldn't read and most were uneducated, so they could hardly have been expected to know what arguments to make, or to whom to make them. Revolt would have gotten them massacred.
I would suggest the best they could do is for those that could, to follow along the lines of Frederick Douglas. It would seem to have been a necessity for others to speak for them on their behalf, because most slaves were neither knowledgeable or in a position where they could be heard.
For people in their position and under those circumstances, the best they could do is to keep appealing to Christian philosophy. Of course, since the Masters were making money off of them, I very much doubt the subject would be tolerated for very long, especially if it was seen to be effective.
But why are we talking about slavery? Lincoln was willing to keep that, so as near as I can tell, the point is moot. If both sides are willing to agree to something, you move on to the real point of contention.
Define "acceptable."
I agree and disagree with both.
Chief Justice Taney overreached with his pronouncement regarding Free Blacks, but his overall point remained valid. I believe Lincoln is correct in his assertion that the Declaration was intended to apply to "Free Blacks", but Dred Scott was not a "free black". He was in fact a slave.
Lincoln is correct regarding "free blacks" but wrong regarding slaves. Taney is correct regarding slaves, but wrong regarding "free blacks."
They are both overreaching. As John Godfrey Saxe said:
And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong!
Phillip Magness is the researcher cited by the Washington Times article with which this thread began.
Philosophically consistent.
And yet on another thread you said the the south was justified in their actions because of the insult that even speaking of the immorality of slavery presented, the "endless sniping against the honorable intentions of the Southern partners:" as you put it.
Lincoln was willing to keep that, so as near as I can tell, the point is moot.
Lincoln personal attitude toward the immorality of slavery is well-established and was long-standing. What he believed, though, is that the Constitution gave the president or congress no power (in peacetime, at least) to abolish it without a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Interestingly, if the slave states had hung together in opposition, it would still be impossible today to pass such an amendment.
One more question: If the slaves had revolted, would it have been legal for the government to put down that rebellion?
I believe 4CJ has posted some stuff on Lincoln wanting to send the freed slaves back to Africa when he was posting on here.
That doesn't sound like something I said. Do you have a link?
As for the South being justified in Seceding, since I regard the Declaration as establishing the point
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I must therefore conclude the south was justified in seceding since that is consistent with this principle.
Lincoln personal attitude toward the immorality of slavery is well-established and was long-standing. What he believed, though, is that the Constitution gave the president or congress no power (in peacetime, at least) to abolish it without a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Interestingly, if the slave states had hung together in opposition, it would still be impossible today to pass such an amendment.
And you indirectly admit that their acquiescence was obtained through coercion, and is therefore not a voluntary consent. It was consent obtained under duress.
The point remains, Slavery wasn't the sticking point. Independence was the sticking point. Lincoln could tolerate Slavery, but he couldn't tolerate people leaving his authority.
You know what? You're right. I confused you with another poster. I apologize.
I must therefore conclude the south was justified in seceding since that is consistent with this principle.
How was the federal government destructive of those ends?
And you indirectly admit that their acquiescence was obtained through coercion, and is therefore not a voluntary consent. It was consent obtained under duress.
Much like the British acceptance of American independence.
Lincoln could tolerate Slavery, but he couldn't tolerate people leaving his authority.
Lincoln's beliefs on his responsibility to hold the union together are stated in his first inaugural:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
Thanks for the reminder about 4CJ. Here was one of his posts containing prewar quotes from Lincoln that illustrate his [Lincoln's] thoughts about the blacks. Link to 4CJ post 122.
Then there is the 1864-65 trip of General Dan Sickles to Colombia to discuss colonization there at the behest of Lincoln. Here, from the Dayton Daily Empire Newspaper of June 2, 1865 is the following mention of Sickles, Lincoln and the mission to Colombia [Source].
The Negroes of the U.S. To Be Sent To Bogota
It is understood that the mission of General Sickles to was for the purpose of obtaining grants of lands for the purpose of settling them with blacks from the United States, and that the late President who authorized the mission, was willing to give fifteen millions of dollars for adequate territory.
His initial plan, as testified to by his co-conspirators at their trial, was to kidnap Lincoln and hold him for ransom. There was at least one attempt to do that which was foiled when Lincoln suddenly changed his daily schedule.
The night of that speech, Booth's plan changed to assassination, not just of President, but of the Vice President and the Secretary of State.
If Lincoln was the 'tyrant' the both Booth and you seem to think he was, Booth who was well known to be in favor of the Confederate cause, would not have even been on the streets. He would have been locked away or a dead man by then. Booth never made any secret where his sympathies laid.
No worries. We all make mistakes on occasion. If you are going to argue on the internet, you need to have a thick skin. :)
How was the federal government destructive of those ends?
I believe that is entirely a matter of their perception. You know the usual spiel. The Gradual elimination of slavery, and therefore the eventual burden on their "business" model, Unfair tariff policy, and fear of a President using "Executive Orders" in the manner of the current President, and so on.
I would suggest it is the people who thinks their ox is being gored that should decide if they regard their existing government as "destructive of those ends." A lot of the Colonists didn't think England was treating them so badly. It was the "troublemakers" that did. They persuaded sufficient numbers to decide on a break.
Much like the British acceptance of American independence.
I dare say Britain had far more of a choice than did the Southern States. Britain could still fight and kick our @$$, they just decided it wasn't worth the trouble. The Southern states were in no such position while having that Union foot on their necks.
Quoting Abraham Lincoln
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. ...
...Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? ...
...I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
One thing you can say for certain, Lincoln sure could argue like a lawyer. There is but one glaring discrepancy in his argument. If what he says be true, then by the same argument we should still be part of England. Their Union was perpetual too, you know. United Kingdom. Union Jack.
Their Flag even represents their union by merging the flags of the three primary "states" of the United Kingdom. (England, Scotland, and Ireland. I guess Wales goes a begging.)
Allegiance to England was Perpetual until we invoked an understanding of natural law (Provided by Vattel from the Swiss Republic) that demonstrated it was not.
""I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principal."
George Washington--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.
At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.
But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.
To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.
Source: http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Franklin petition to Congress to abolish slavery.
Want some more examples of what the Founders really thought of slavery? I can give them to you if you want. They knew it was wrong and they knew damn well it would eventually tear the nation apart. But they didn't have the power to deal with it in their time.
Apparently Lincoln did not regard actors as as much of a threat as he did the Legislators of Maryland.
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.
