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 ...
Keep your chronology straight. George Washington said that in 1797, not 1776. It is well known that George Washington was persuaded against slavery in the intervening period. I have actually read George Washington's writings on the issue. His was a practical and thoughtful transformation.
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.
He had the option of leading by example, and chose not to do so. How could he have expected more of anyone else. No doubt he was in favor of it in principle, but opposed to it in practice, especially when it adversely affected him.
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.
The entire North turned against slavery shortly after 1787. You can post all sorts of examples of later day opinions, but it doesn't change the fact that they had no intention of abolishing it in 1776 when they created the Declaration of Independence. (That Franklin petition was from 1790.)
If you are arguing otherwise, then you have to concede that they deliberately made a devil's bargain with the known slave holding South. They in fact lied, to gain Southern support for the cause when they needed help, but never intended to honor the bargain they had struck. This would be a short lived argument because the evidence written in the US Constitution implies they intended to accommodate it.
Article IV, Section 2.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
But I don't think you are arguing that. I think you are trying to pit the 1790 founders against the 1776 founders, when *ALL* the colonies were slave holding colonies.
That is exactly what they did in 1776 when they were facing the military might of the British Empire.
This cartoon was a deadly serious message for them.
But not with the intentions of backstabbing the South. They had every intention of honoring the bargain they made. Even in 1787 they indicated that they would continue honoring that devil's bargain.
Perhaps it is that I have a more cynical view of things, but I would argue that our relationship with England was broken by military victory, not by abstract invocation of natural law.
Your argument is that "Might makes Right."
I prefer to believe in the correctness of more noble ideas.
You also discount the effect that moral justification for independence had on the colonists. Certainly they couldn't have put up such a spirited fight if they believed themselves to be morally wrong.
Defying God's appointed ruler (The King) is not something done easily by a religious population. I dare say the philosophical moral justification was absolutely essential to the success of their effort.
At base, Military effects are consequences of will. Without a will to fight, there can be no Military victory. Without the moral underpinnings, there could have been no will.
I admit that I tend more toward a bleak, Hobbesian view of mankind than an idealistic Lockean one.
You also discount the effect that moral justification for independence had on the colonists. Certainly they couldn't have put up such a spirited fight if they believed themselves to be morally wrong.
Given that the war had been going on for over a year before independence was declared and that some of the lowest points of morale (Paine's "times that try men's souls") came after, and that the size of the Continental Army peaked in 1776 and diminished every year after, I would argue that your claim is hard to support.
Defying God's appointed ruler (The King) is not something done easily by a religious population. I dare say the philosophical moral justification was absolutely essential to the success of their effort.
Every revolution, successful or not, has an ideology.
At base, Military effects are consequences of will. Without a will to fight, there can be no Military victory.
Plenty of armies with high-minded ideals or fiercely held ideologies have been defeated.
But not serious enough to include Georgia and Delaware I see. Should have sliced the snake up two more times. A little chunk off of Maryland...the tip off of South Carolina...
As good a time as any.
Even in 1860.
Congratulations, that completes the recitation of Lost Cause mythological grievances. Any conservative worth his seal will tell you that "anything worth having is worth fighting for". It's therefore pretty shameful to see on a conservative discussion site someone whining "the victors write the history" or "the north won but America lost" or the equally insipid "might makes right" as an indictment our our nation for trying to defend itself.
seal=salt
Damned autocorrect
I think they were doing the 1860 version of "Don't ask, Don't tell". You know, half-heartedly agreeing to keep policy the way it is, but inching their way towards changing it, and creating whatever legal exceptions they think they could get away with at the time. Their intentions were clear though.
I'm sure you think you are making some sort of point in your own mind, but whatever it does in your head, it makes no impression here in the real world.
You don't "Defend" yourself by sending a 40,000 man force to invade the Capital of another country.
This whole thing was about revenge in this petty pissing contest. Nothing more.
There was no war between the North and the South. The south went to war against the United States of America. The nation that brought the world it’s greatest hope for good in the world.
No more so than the Colonies went to war against the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The nation that brought the world it’s greatest hope for good in the world.
You have heard of England, yes?
Likewise the only point you’ve managed to make is “It’s my party and I’ll pout if I want to”
Congratulations.
It wasn’t “another country”.
You go right ahead. I have no interest in continuing to indulge your pity party. This topic is boring. You have your religion, and I have objectivity. The two things simply don't go well with each other.
No more so than the United States wasn't a different country from the United Kingdom. It was exactly the same condition for both. You just want to pout about it.
So go be British. I’m proud to be American and can’t stomach any of our enemies.
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.