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 ...
You may be th3e first person I’ve come across who believes the Dred Scott case was decided rightly.
Methinks you’re confused. CV did not win election to mayor of Columbus. He ran for governor of OH and lost. He was later a contender for the Democratic nomination for president.
He was never expelled to Canada. After his arrest and conviction for a speech opposing the war he was expelled to the CSA, from when he made his way to Canada, then sneaked back in and ran the aforementioned campaign for gov.
He died in a truly unique way. While demonstrating how the victim his client was accused of shooting might actually have shot himself, he demonstrated how it might have happened.
Shot himself in the belly and died. Don’t know if that rather graphic demonstration was enough to get his client acquitted.
No, Booth decided to kill him after Lincoln said he favored full civil rights for blacks who served in the Union Army, including the right to vote.
Booth had no problem with Jefferson Davis being a tyrant in the South when he seized property or executed citizens who refused to join his treason.
Booth was a total fanatic who did what fanatics do.
You sure are the obdurate one. You know better yet you persist in strawmen.
It really is a damn shame Lincoln was killed.
He was correct.
The Democrat Party has been dealing the Race Card for 170 years, and they will continuing dealing it as long as it works. They snuffle the deck from time to time... 150 years ago it was against blacks... 50 years ago, it became for blacks... soon it will be Hispanics and to hell with the blacks.
Whatever it takes to get power and money.
So CV was a Darwin Award winner in the year that Darwin's The Descent of Man was published.
Cool, huh?
All people, or just white people?
What about the majority black population of MS and SC?
Does the majority population have the right to impose the ultimate in removal of rights on the minority, or do minorities also have unalienable rights?
Ping
You mean an honest man? Yeah, I get that a lot.
Again, it is self evident to me that if the Declaration was intended to apply to Slaves, they would have emancipated them all en masse. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest adherence to what we wish to believe.
Now I think the Declaration laid the foundation for what became eventual emancipation, but when it was written that was certainly not it's intent.
Of course, but it was not considered racism then, it was considered realism. It is considered racism by the standards of today and those standards are set by those who see nothing wrong with their own version of racism.
Of course that was not its intent. It expressed a universally applicable principle that for prudential reasons could not be put into effect immediately. Most of the delegates made that very clear in, for instance, the Constitutional Convention.
BTW, the Dred Scott decision was loaded with errors of fact and law.
For example, it says blacks were nowhere citizens of the colonies or new states. In fact, there were at least five states, including NC!, where free blacks were legally full citizens entitled to vote. But Taney just ignored this fact because it didn’t fit his argument.
The decision was disaster on every level. Much like Roe, it was intended to use the power of the Court to impose a final solution of a political controversy. At which it comprehensively failed.
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. Unless you have better support for this assertion, the fact that one thing occurs after the other does not make the one thing the cause of the other.
Booth had no problem with Jefferson Davis being a tyrant in the South when he seized property or executed citizens who refused to join his treason.
I've covered this topic with others. Did whatever passes for the Confederate constitution prohibit this activity? The US Constitution certainly did. Jefferson Davis may have been in full compliance with his governing document when he took such actions. Lincoln obviously wasn't.
Booth was a total fanatic who did what fanatics do.
One might say the same of Lincoln. 600,000 dead in a war that needn't have occurred? Civil disruption and disaster as far as the eye could see afterward? Destruction of fundamental founding principles? Creation of our current "FedZilla" that has engaged in even more destruction of "consent of the governed"?
And all for what? Lincoln was going to let the South keep slavery, he just wasn't going to allow them to be independent of his government.
Demonstrate that my argument is a "strawman". The founding document states explicitly that people have a right to create whatever form of government will best insure their happiness.
Lincoln disagreed with that principle, and moved the entire Federal Leviathan to fight against it.
I credit much of their shift in opinion to the contemplation of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Most of them at the time knew it wasn't intended to apply to slaves, but then they started thinking "Why should it not be?"
If you look up the Freedom Cases filed in Massachusetts courts you realize their entire legal argument hinged on the Declaration of Independence. They *DID* apply the Declaration to the condition of Slaves.
BTW, the Dred Scott decision was loaded with errors of fact and law.
But not in regards to the essential point; That the Declaration was never intended to apply to slaves.
For example, it says blacks were nowhere citizens of the colonies or new states. In fact, there were at least five states, including NC!, where free blacks were legally full citizens entitled to vote. But Taney just ignored this fact because it didn’t fit his argument.
A Seemingly common tactic for many controversial Supreme Court decisions. Yes, many states had Free Blacks who were citizens and exercised the rights of citizens. Taney went too far in asserting that none were eligible. He should have stayed within the lines of what was known to be the law, but I think he was trying to make a political point with that overreach.
The decision was disaster on every level. Much like Roe, it was intended to use the power of the Court to impose a final solution of a political controversy. At which it comprehensively failed.
It failed to quell the opposition. They continued working for what they believed and their arguments eventually persuaded a majority. I will point out that the Congress felt the need to pass the 14th amendment to override it. Obviously that decision held some power till 1868.
It's pretty common knowledge.
On the evening of April 11, the president stood on the White House balcony and delivered a speech to a small group gathered on the lawn. Two days earlier, Robert E. Lee had surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House, and after four long years of struggle it had become clear that the Union cause would emerge from the war victorious. Lincoln’s speech that evening outlined some of his ideas about reconstructing the nation and bringing the defeated Confederate states back into the Union. Lincoln also indicated a wish to extend the franchise to some African-Americans—at the very least, those who had fought in the Union ranks during the war—and expressed a desire that the southern states would extend the vote to literate blacks, as well. Booth stood in the audience for the speech, and this notion seems to have amplified his rage at Lincoln. “That means nigger citizenship,” he told Lewis Powell, one of his band of conspirators. “Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.”Source: http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24242
I believe that establishes your point to a reasonable degree, though it does not establish it as the sole reason. What Boothe said after he had shot Lincoln cannot be dismissed. Perhaps Boothe regarded this move by Lincoln as "Tyrannical".
Given the mentality of the time, It is likely that he did.
Based on his “definition” that a tyrant is “someone who wants to make me do something that I don’t want to do” you and I must be tyrants because we want poor DL to try to use his brain for once.
Stop being a tyrant!
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.