Posted on 06/08/2021 7:16:33 AM PDT by rebuildus
“woodpecker’’ should be paying you for this Joe.
[HandyDandy #436] I never stated that you deliver dicta. Show me where I stated that you deliver dicta.- - - - - - - - - -
[HandyDandy #412] Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta.
[woodpusher at 419]
"Dred Scott ... probably helped to promote the Civil War, as it certainly required the Civil War to bury its dicta."That quote is not bad. In a cutesy, playful, spinny kind of way. Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta. Right?
The quote is not of me, but of Dr. Walter Erlich.
Obviously, I do not deliver dicta, and you should probably refrain from using words whose meaning you do not know, as long as you remain too lazy to use a dictionary. You are a victim of dictum. There's cutesy.
The vast majority of the Taney opinion was dicta. The Curtis dissenting opinion was dicta. Any part of a court opinion that does not have majority support is, inter alia, dicta.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.,
dictum proprium A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition of the case. — Also termed (loosely) dictum propria.judicial dictum [Latin “something said in passing”] (18c) A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential.
obiter dictum [Latin “something said in passing”] (18c) A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential....
In your humble opinion, or deluded ignorance, take your pick, Taney's opinion is Scott contained nothing not concurred in by the whole court, nothing not essential to the disposition of the case. Also, there was no judicial comment that was unnecessary to the decision in the case.
[HandyDandy #419] Did you know that President Jefferson Davis said on several occasions the he would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed?- - - - - - - - - -
[HandyDandy #436] Here’s the link to Jeff Davis’ quote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1864/09/our-visit-to-richmond/522843/
I hope the link is to your satisfaction, eminence. You have to read a bit to get to the quote, it is near the end.
Of course, as shown, there was no such quote of Davis at your #419, and there is no such quote to find in your linked 22-page article from 1864. A search reveals the article contains neither the word soldier nor the word kill.
But if you have a quote where Jefferson Davis, or anyone else stated Davis “would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed,” please do present it.
If you are pretending to quote something, please present the actual words, not your concocted word salad.
Below is a quote of the entire meeting between the author and Davis. Please do point out where your mythical quote appears in this article. You alleged, President Jefferson Davis said on several occasions the he would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed. You cited the article below as authority.
For partial credit and a D-, perhaps you could show a QUOTE where any political head of state in history said he would not give up until his every last soldier was killed.
- - - - - - - - - -
How a group of "civil" individuals tried to pave the way for peace in the Confederate capital
By Edmund Kirke
[EXCERPT from when the author reportedly met Jefferson Davis until he left Mr. Davis]
"We thank you, Mr. Davis. It is not often you meet men of our clothes, and our principles, in Richmond.""Not often, — not so often as I could wish; and I trust your coming may lead to a more frequent and a more friendly intercourse between the North and the South."
"We sincerely hope it may."
"Mr. Benjamin tells me you have asked to see me, to" —
"And he paused, as if desiring we should finish the sentence. The Colonel replied, —
"Yes, Sir. We have asked this interview in the hope that you may suggest some way by which this war can be stopped. Our people want peace, — your people do, and your Congress has recently said that you do. We have come to ask how it can be brought about."
"In a very simple way. Withdraw your armies from our territory, and peace will come of itself. We do not seek to subjugate you. We are not waging an offensive war, except so far as it is offensive-defensive, — that is, so far as we are forced to invade you to prevent your invading us. Let us alone, and peace will come at once."
"But we cannot let you alone so long as you repudiate the Union. That is the one thing the Northern people will not surrender."
"I know. You would deny to us what you exact for yourselves, — the right of self government."
"No, Sir," I remarked. "We would deny you no natural right. But we think Union essential to peace; and, Mr. Davis, could two people, with the same language, separated by only an imaginary line, live at peace with each other? Would not disputes constantly arise, and cause almost constant war between them?"
"Undoubtedly, — with this generation. You have sown such bitterness at the South, you have put such an ocean of blood between the two sections, that I despair of seeing any harmony in my time. Our children may forget this war, but we cannot."
"I think the bitterness you speak of, Sir," said the Colonel, "does not really exist. We meet and talk here as friends our soldiers meet and fraternize with each other; and I feel sure, that, if the Union were restored, a more friendly feeling would arise between us than has ever existed. The war has made us know and respect each other better than before. This is the view of very many Southern men; I have had it from many of them, — your leading citizens."
"They are mistaken," replied Mr. Davis. "They do not understand Southern sentiment. How can we feel anything but bitterness towards men who deny us our rights? If you enter my house and drive me out of it, am I not your natural enemy?"
"You put the ease too strongly. But we cannot fight forever; the war must end at some time; we must finally agree upon something; can we not agree now, and stop this frightful carnage? We are both Christian men, Mr. Davis. Can you, as a Christian man, leave untried any means that may lead to peace?"
"No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands, — I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, — and that, or extermination, we will have."
"And there are, at least, four and a half millions of us left; so you see you have a work before you," said Mr. Benjamin, with a decided sneer.
"We have no wish to exterminate you," answered the Colonel. "I believe what I have said, — that there is no bitterness between the Northern and Southern people. The North, I know, loves the South. When peace. comes, it will pour money and means into your hands to repair the waste caused by the war; and it would now welcome you back, and forgive you all the loss and bloodshed you have caused. But we must crush your armies, and exterminate your Government. And is not that already nearly done? You are wholly without money, and at the end of your resources. Grant has shut you up in Richmond. Sherman is before Atlanta. Had you not, then, better accept honorable terms while you can retain your prestige, and save the pride of the Southern people?"
Mr. Davis smiled.
"I respect your earnestness, Colonel, but you do not seem to understand the situation. We are not exactly shut up in Richmond. If your papers tell the truth, it is your capital that is in danger, not ours. Some weeks ago, Grant crossed the Rapidan to whip Lee, and take Richmond. Lee drove him in the first battle, and then Grant executed what your people call a ‘brilliant flank-movement,' and fought Lee again. Lee drove him a second time, and then Grant made another ‘flank-movement;' and so they kept on, — Lee whipping, and Grant flanking, — until Grant got where he is now. And what is the net result? Grant has lost seventy-five or eighty thousand men, — more than Lee had at the outset, — and is no nearer taking Richmond than at first; and Lee, whose front has never been broken, holds him completely in check, and has men enough to spare to invade Maryland, and threaten Washington! Sherman, to be sure, is before Atlanta; but suppose he is, and suppose he takes it? You know, that, the farther he goes from his base of supplies, the weaker he grows, and the more disastrous defeat will be to him. And defeat may come. So, in a military view, I should certainly say our position was better than yours.
"As to money: we are richer than you are. You smile; but admit that our paper is worth nothing, — it answers as a circulating-medium; and we hold it all ourselves. If every dollar of it were lost, we should, as we have no foreign debt, be none the poorer. But it is worth something; it has the solid basis of a large cotton-crop, while yours rests on nothing, and you owe all the world. As to resources: we do not lack for arms or ammunition, and we have still a wide territory from which to gather supplies. So, you see, we are not in extremities. But if we were, — if we were without money, without food, without weapons, — if our whole country were devastated, and our armies crushed and disbanded, — could we, without giving up our manhood, give up our right to govern ourselves? Would you not rather die, and feel yourself a man, than live, and be subject to a foreign power?"
"From your stand-point there is force in what you say," replied the Colonel. "But we did not come here to argue with you, Mr. Davis. We came, hoping to find some honorable way to peace and I am grieved to hear you say what you do. When I have seen your young men dying on the battle-field, and your old men, women, and children starving in their homes, I have felt I could risk my life to save them. For that reason I am here; and I am grieved, grieved, that there is no hope."
"I know your motives, Colonel Jaquess, and I honor you for them; but what can I do more than I am doing? I would give my poor life, gladly, if it would bring peace and goodwill to the two countries; but it would not. It is with your own people you should labor. It is they who desolate our homes, burn our wheat-fields, break the wheels of wagons carrying away our women and children, and destroy supplies meant for our sick and wounded. At your door lies all the misery and the crime of this war, — and it is a fearful, fearful account."
"Not all of it, Mr. Davis. I admit a fearful account, but it is not all at our door. The passions of both sides are aroused. Unarmed men are hanged, prisoners are shot down in cold blood, by yourselves. Elements of barbarism are entering the war on both sides, that should make us—you and me, as Christian men—shudder to think of. In God's name, then, let us stop it. Let us do something, concede something, to bring about peace. You cannot expect, with only four and a half millions, as Mr. Benjamin says you have, to hold out forever against twenty millions."
Again Mr. Davis smiled.
"Do you suppose there are twenty millions at the North determined to crush us?"
"I do, — to crush your government. A small number of our people, a very small number, are your friends, — Secessionists. The rest differ about measures and candidates, but are united in the determination to sustain the Union. Whoever is elected in November, he must be committed to a vigorous prosecution of the war."
Mr. Davis still looking incredulous, I remarked, —
"It is so, Sir. Whoever tells you otherwise deceives you. I think I know Northern sentiment, and I assure you it is so. You know we have a system of lyceum-lecturing in our large towns. At the close of these lectures, it is the custom of the people to come upon the platform and talk with the lecturer. This gives him an excellent opportunity of learning public sentiment. Last winter I lectured before nearly a hundred of such associations, all over the North, — from Dubuque to Bangor, — and I took pains to ascertain the feeling of the people. I found a unanimous determination to crush the Rebellion and save the Union at every sacrifice. The majority are in favor of Mr. Lincoln and nearly all of those opposed to him are opposed to him because they think he does not fight you with enough vigor. The radical Republicans, who go for slave-suffrage and thorough confiscation, are those who will defeat him, if he is defeated. But if he is defeated before the people, the House will elect a worse man, — I mean, worse for you. It is more radical than he is, — you can see that from Mr. Ashley's Reconstruction Bill, — and the people are more radical than the House. Mr. Lincoln, I know, is about to call out five hundred thousand more men, and I can't see how you can resist much longer; but if you do, you will only deepen the radical feeling of the Northern people. They will now give you fair, honorable, generous terms; but let them suffer much more, let there be a dead man in every house, as there is now in every village, and they will give you no terms, — they will insist on hanging every Rebel south of —— Pardon my terms. I mean no offence."
"You give no offence," he replied, smiling very pleasantly. "I wouldn't have you pick your words. This is a frank, free talk, and I like you the better for saying what you think. Go on."
"I was merely going to say, that, let the Northern people once really feel the war, — they do not feel it yet, — and they will insist on hanging every one of your leaders." "Well, admitting all you say, I can't see how it affects our position. There are some things worse than hanging or extermination. We reckon giving up the right of self-government one of those things."
"By self-government you mean disunion, — Southern Independence?"
"Yes."
"And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest."
"No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations."
"You ask me to say what I think. Will you allow me to say that I know the South pretty well, and never observed those differences?"
"Then you have not used your eyes. My sight is poorer than yours, but I have seen them for years."
The laugh was upon me, and Mr. Benjamin enjoyed it.
"Well, Sir, be that as it may, if I understand you, the dispute between your government and ours is narrowed down to this: Union or Disunion."
"Yes; or to put it in other words: Independence or Subjugation."
"Then the two governments are irreconcilably apart. They have no alternative but to fight it out. But it is not so with the people. They are tired of fighting, and want peace; and as they bear all the burden and suffering of the war, is it not right they should have peace, and have it on such terms as they like?"
"I don't understand you. Be a little more explicit."
"Well, suppose the two governments should agree to something like this: To go to the people with two propositions: say, Peace, with Disunion and Southern Independence, as your proposition, — and Peace, with Union, Emancipation, No Confiscation, and Universal Amnesty, as ours. Let the citizens of all the United States (as they existed before the war) vote 'Yes,' or 'No,' on these two propositions, at a special election within sixty days. If a majority votes Disunion, our government to be bound by it, and to let you go in peace. If a majority votes Union, yours to be bound by it, and to stay in peace. The two governments can contract in this way, and the people, though constitutionally unable to decide on peace or war, can elect which of the two propositions shall govern their rulers. Let Lee and Grant, meanwhile, agree to an armistice. This would sheathe the sword; and if once sheathed, it would never again be drawn by this generation."
"The plan is altogether impracticable. If the South were only one State, it might work; but as it is, if one Southern State objected to emancipation, it would nullify the whole thing; for you are aware the people of Virginia cannot vote slavery out of South Carolina, nor the people of South Carolina vote it out of Virginia."
"But three-fourths of the States can amend the Constitution. Let it be done in that way, — in any way, so that it be done by the people. I am not a statesman or a politician, and I do not know just how such a plan could be carried out; but you get the idea, — that the PEOPLE shall decide the question."
"That the majority shall decide it, you mean. We seceded to rid ourselves of the rule of the majority, and this would subject us to it again."
"But the majority must rule finally, either with bullets or ballots."
"I am not so sure of that. Neither current events nor history shows that the majority rules, or ever did rule. The contrary, I think, is true. Why, Sir, the man who should go before the Southern people with such a proposition, with any proposition which implied that the North was to have a voice in determining the domestic relations of the South, could not live here a day. He would be hanged to the first tree, without judge or jury."
"Allow me to doubt that. I think it more likely he would be hanged, if he let the Southern people know the majority couldn't rule," I replied, smiling.
"I have no fear of that," rejoined Mr. Davis, also smiling most good-humoredly. "I give you leave to proclaim it from every house-top in the South."
"But, seriously, Sir, you let the majority rule in a single State; why not let it rule in the whole country?"
"Because the States are independent and sovereign. The country is not. It is only a confederation of States; or rather it was: it is now two confederations."
"Then we are not a people, — we are only a political partnership?"
"That is all."
"Your very name, Sir, ‘United States,' implies that," said Mr. Benjamin. "But, tell me, are the terms you have named—Emancipation, No Confiscation, and Universal Amnesty— the terms which Mr. Lincoln authorized you to offer us?"
"No, Sir, Mr. Lincoln did not authorize me to offer you any terms. But I think both he and the Northern people, for the sake of peace, would assent to some such conditions."
"They are very generous," replied Mr. Davis, for the first time during the interview showing some angry feeling. "But Amnesty, Sir, applies to criminals. We have committed no crime. Confiscation is of no account, unless you can enforce it. And Emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, — and if you will take care of them, you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you ‘emancipated' them; and you may ‘emancipate' every negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free! We will govern ourselves. We will do it, if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames."
"I see, Mr. Davis, it is useless to continue this conversation," I replied; "and you will pardon us, if we have seemed to press our views with too much pertinacity. We love the old flag, and that must he our apology for intruding upon you at all."
"You have not intruded upon me," he replied, resuming his usual manner. "I am glad to have met you, both. I once loved the old flag as well as you do I would have died for it; but now it is to me only the emblem of oppression."
"I hope the day may never come, Mr. Davis, when I say that," said the Colonel.
A half-hour's conversation on other topics—not of public interest—ensued, and then we rose to go. As we did so, the Rebel President gave me his hand, and, bidding me a kindly good-bye, expressed the hope of seeing me again in Richmond in happier times, — when peace should have returned; but with the Colonel his parting was particularly cordial. Taking his hand in both of his, he said to him, —
"Colonel, I respect your character and your motives, and I wish you well, — I wish you every good I can wish you consistently with the interests of the Confederacy."
The quiet, straightforward bearing and magnificent moral courage of our "fighting parson" had evidently impressed Mr. Davis very favorably.
As we were leaving the room, he added, —
"Say to Mr. Lincoln from me, that I shall at any time he pleased to receive proposals for peace on the basis of our Independence. It will be useless to approach me with any other."
When we went out, Mr. Benjamin called Judge Ould, who had been waiting during the whole interview—two hours—at the other end of the hall, and we passed down the stairway together. As I put my arm within that of the Judge, he said to me, —
"Well, what is the result?"
"Nothing but war, — war to the knife."
I will try to explain to you, Mr Smartass, what the problem is in the first line of the Lincoln speech. Hint: transcriber/editor f’d up. Try to concentrate for a second. To review, Lincoln’s speech began thusly:“He [Lincoln] said the question is often asked, why this fuss about ni***rs?”
Can you see the problem now, your eminence? I gave you a hint. It’s really not that hard. You see, this is Lincoln’s speech. He is the person uttering the words. The transcriber/editor (probably a Lost causer) stuck in “[Lincoln]” in brackets. Has it occurred to you that it should be [Douglas] in brackets?
This absurdity never did occur to me.
The quote is from the Carlinville Democrat issue of September 2, 1858.
woodpusher #435:
Please advise what is the cause of your confusion. How many speeches of Lincoln at Carlinville, Illinois on August 31, 1858 in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, on page 77 did you find?There is the remarkably similar content from a Lincoln speech at Clinton, Illinois but that is not at page 77 and is given in a different city on a different date.
The same may be said for the remarkably similar content in the Lincoln speech at Elwood, Kansas, but that was more than a year later, in a different city, and also not on Volume 3, page 77.
I cannot see a problem with Lincoln’s speech in your post. However, you do seem to have hidden something Lincoln said by using asterisks. Perhaps you quoted Wikipedia rather than the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, the fifth Lincoln-Douglas debate was entirely different, on a different date, in Galesburg, Illinois, at Volume 3, page 77, page 235. There, Lincoln denigrated the Mexican race.
You state the transcript of the speech of Lincoln at Carlinville was wrongly attributed to Lincoln due to a f'up by the transcriber.
The Lincoln speech at Clinton, Illinois of September 2, 1858 was made in the Bloomington Pantagraph issue of September 3, 1858. And lo and behold, Lincoln was quoted thusly,
The questions are sometimes asked, "What is all this fuss that is being made about negroes?"
The Lincoln speech at Elwood, Kansas of December 1 [November 30?] , 1859, a year later was reported in the Elwood Free Press, December 3, 1859. Reported as having occured on December 1, some historians claim it occcurred on the night of November 30. In his opening remarks, Lincoln is reported as having stated,
People often ask, "why make such a fuss about a few *******."
So, three different newspapers, reporting speeches given in three different cities, each cited Lincoln saying approximately the same thing, in almost identical words, over the course of more than a year, and you attribute the one in Carlinville to an editor's mistake? Three times by three different newspapers about three different speeches, all as curated in the gold standard Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Or you just can't handle the truth.
https://digital.lib.niu.edu/illinois/lincoln/topics/lincolndouglas
Note that the Bloomington Pantagraph is denoted as a Republican newspaper. Also note that, "Lincoln edited the transcripts for the debates and published them into a book. The success of this publication helped Lincoln secure the Republican party's nomination in the 1860 race."
In the Lincoln-Douglas Debate 7, in Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858, in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, page 317, sourced to the book by Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln spoke to Stephen Douglas thusly,
We profess to have no taste for running and catching *******—at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a fugitive slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it.
[woodpusher] "I am defending accurate history and law."BroJoeK] But only such history and law as might support claims of Lost Causers, right?
Speaking of the 1860 census and before, there was no lost cause and no Lost Causers. Your lengthy disquisition on this irrelevant basis is taken under advisement.
As is obvious from your reply, you did not look at the Census. Instead, you searched out some irrelevant bullcrap.
You sound very confused & disoriented, let me help you straighten it out: for purposes of most discussions, "North" = free states and "South" = slave states.
No. The final and official Census Report of 1860 spoke to "the fifteen slaveholding States" and "the nineteen free States and seven Territories." Your garbage, which originated in 2008 by Erin Bradford, states that it included northern slave states with the South. The official 1860 census compared the free states and the slave states.
At the time of the 1860 census, there were no Confederate states. The Census did not take four states and arbitrarily assign them to something called "The South." If Delaware is in "The South," then everything south of New Jersey was in "The South." What was New Jersey, a border state?
- - - - - - - - - -
This is my source, UVA.
If your source is the University of Virginia, why does your link go to:
https://www.ncpedia.org/sites/default/files/census_stats_1790-1860.pdf
Why doesn't it go to the University of Virginia? Did UV relocate to North Carolina? Why does NCPedia provide a dead link to the UVA data? Provide a link to the UVA data at your claimed source, the University of Virginia. Did UVA withdraw that data? You never looked at the University of Virginia site, did you? Happy hunting.
woodpusher: "...the free colored show a decrease of numbers during the past ten years according to the census, in the following ten States: Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont."Those were preliminary numbers, so, let's look at final numbers, as reported here, UVA.
Arkansas 1850 free colored: 608 1860: 144 change: -464
Florida 1850 free colored: 932 1860: 932 change: 0
Mississippi: 1850: 930 1860: 773 change -157
Texas: 1850:397 1860: 355 change -42Total South: 1850: 228,000 free colored, 1860 251,000 change: +23,000
Indiana: 1850: 11,262 1860: 11,428 change: +166
Maine: 1850: 1,356 1860: 1327 change: -29
New Hampshire: 1850: 520 1860: 494 change: -26
New York 1850: 49.069 1860: 49,005 change: -64
Oregon: 1850: 0 1860: 128 change: +128
Vermont: 1850 718 1860: 707 change -9Total North: 1850: 196,000 free colored 1860: 226,000 change +30,000
So, between 1850 and 1860 the total population of free African Americans grew by 23,000 in the South and by 30,000 in the North.
Three Southern states and four Northern states had very small population losses, losses that totaled 663 in the South, 128 in the North.
There were FIFTEEN slave states in the 1860 census. Your source states that what it calls "the South" included the Confederate states, and the four Union slave states.
[Erin Bradford, 2008] Southern states are states that made up the Confederate States of America during the Civil War and include the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri. All other states that were admitted into the union later, such as California, are considered to be states in the North for the purpose of this analysis, despite their geographic location.
For purposes of the collection of 1860 Census data, there was no Confederacy,
In 2008, for purposes of her analysis, Erin Bradford could include Delaware with the South and California with the North. For purposes of her analysis, she could have decided to identify the Black population as Indians or Eskimos. Her analysis is not history. California has not moved north, and President Joe Biden is not from the South.
My source was the official census. That portion on life expectancy was cited to a preliminary report on (about) the 1860 Census. My statistics fully cited and quoted from the Census Report of 1860, and is about the FIFTEEN slave states. The official FIFTEEN slave states do not include New Jersey whose population in servitude is included with a footnote, "* Colored apprentices for life by the act to abolish slavery, passed April 18, 1846."
Moreover, no statistics were taken in the 1860 Census for Union and Confederate states, or Northern vs. Southern states. The Census occurred before there were Confederate states. The Census statistics reflect the free Black populations of FIFTEEN slave states.
The 1860 statistics of Erin Bradford lists statistics for the State of Nevada. Nevada became a state in 1864. It also lists 1860 statistics for the State of Nebraska, Nebraska was admitted in 1867. I guess for purposes of her analysis, Nevada and Nebraska were states of The North in 1860. So, northern states were in the South, and non-states were in the North and included in the state totals. 2008 Civil War history in the making.
From woodpusher #433 in reply to BroJoek #425:
The Census report of 1860 showed that there were 251,000 free colored persons in the fifteen slaveholding states, and only 237,283 free colored persons in the nineteen free states and the seven territories and the District of Columbia.SOURCE: Population of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census, under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior, by Joseph C. G. Kennedy, Superintendant of Census, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1864.
At vii:
Looking cursorily over the returns, it appears that the fifteen slaveholding States contain 12,240,000 inhabitants, of whom 8,039,000 are whites, 251,000 free colored persons, and 3,950,000 are slaves. The actual gain of the whole population in those States, from 1850 to 1860, was 2,627,000, equal to 27.33 per cent. The slaves advanced in numbers 749,931, or 23.44 per cent. This does not include the slaves of the District of Columbia, who decreased 502 in the course of the ten years. By a law of April 16, 1862, slavery has been abolished in the District of Columbia, the owners of slaves having been compensated out of the public treasury. The nineteen free States and seven Territories, together with the federal District, contained, according to the Eighth Census, 19,203,008 persons, of whom 18,920,771 were white, 237,283 free colored, and 41,725 civilized Indians.It is historical fact that there were more free Blacks in the fifteen (15) slave states than in the free states.
At xv:
MANUMISSION OF SLAVES.With regard to manumission, it appears from the returns that during the census year, they numbered a little more than 3,000, being more than double the number who were liberated in 1850, or at the rate of one each to 1,388; whereas, during 1850, the manumissions were as one to every 2,181 slaves. Great irregularity, as might naturally be expected, appears to exist for the two periods whereof we have returns on this subject. By the Eighth Census, it appears that manumissions have greatly increased in number in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee, while they have decreased in Delaware and Florida, and varied but little in Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, and Virginia, and other slaveholding States not mentioned.
After that, I referenced a preliminary report on the 1860 census that was issued in 1862, two years before the official Census Report which was issued in 1864.
Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census.
Census Office, Department of the Interior,
Washington, May 20, 1862.At 6:
Thus, in Boston during the five years ending with 1859, the city registrar observes: "The number of colored births was one less than the number of marriages, and the deaths exceeded the births in the proportion of nearly two to one." In Providence, where a very correct registry has been in operation under the superintendence of Dr. Snow, the deaths are one in twenty-four of the colored; and in Philadelphia during the last six months of the census year, the new city registration gives 148 births against 306 deaths among the free colored.[...]
Owing, among other causes, to the extremes of climate in the more northern States, and in other States to expulsive enactments of the legislatures, the free colored show a decrease of numbers during the past ten years according to the census, in the following ten States: Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont.
Now that I have documented that I provided the official Census data regarding the FIFTEEN slave states, and you presented unofficial crap, and data that included TWO non-states as states, I shall proceed with the question you had to run from in fear of the truth.
With gradual emancipation supposedly freeing Black slaves, one would expect to see a rise in the Free Black population in the free states.
In the 1860 official Census, there were more Blacks in the FIFTEEN Slave states than in the Free states. Why did the majority of the FREE Blacks live in Slave states?
At any rate, in the Free states, the total increase of the free Black population was minimal, and in a sizeable number of Free states, the free Black population declined over a ten year period. Certainly there were deaths, but babies were being born, gradual emancipation was freeing the children of free Blacks when the children reached age 21, if they were still in the state doing the emancipating, and all the slaves that managed to flee from slavery into the free states joined their free Black population.
Where did all these free Blacks go?
[BroJoeK #427] The truth is, there have been any number of wars never so declared by the Constitution, Federal statues or Court opinions.[woodpusher #434 to BroJoeK #427] The truth is no war has been declared by the Constitution, Federal statute, or by a Court opinion. Congress has issued a Proclamation of a State of War, but a Proclamation is not a Statute. Once again you are babbling nonsense and have no clue what you are talking about.
[BroJoeK #440 to woodpusher #434] No, I merely repeated your own words back to you, hoping you'd thereby see clearly how much babbling nonsense you've posted.
Nice try, but the posts do not go away. You spewed nonsense at your #427 that "The truth is, there have been any number of wars never so declared by the Constitution, Federal statues or Court opinions."
The truth is that NO wars were ever SO DECLARED by the Constitution, Federal Statutes or Court opinions. The insinuation that any war COULD be DECLARED by the Constitution, Federal statutes or Court opinions is illustrative of your ridiculousness.
What war was declared by the Constitution?
What war was declared by what Federal statute?
What was was declared by what Court opinion?
You did not repeat my words. You simply said something stupid.
Very much admire your work.
Thanks, but didn't you hear? You are me, and I am you. Whatever shall we do? They sing in harmony, who knew? They make stuff up, on cue. They fling poo. I know what to do. Cut the printouts into pieces and take them to the loo!
I wish. You are a magnitude level above me in both research skills and innate knowledge on this subject. You are what I would be after I grow up. :)
They sing in harmony, who knew? They make stuff up, on cue. They fling poo. I know what to do. Cut the printouts into pieces and take them to the loo!
It is a sad situation when you can find precious few reasonable people to argue the other side. My own observation is that "x" is often reasonable and makes a serious debater. Bull Snipe also tends to be more objective than the usual lot. Beyond those two, I can't think of any more names on the other side which I consider reasonable or serious when discussing the civil war.
On our side, there are quite a few people who are both knowledgeable and rational. Too many to name. Among them are Pea Ridge, Pelham, Rust Bucket etc.
People often ask, "why make such a fuss about a few *******." A.Lincoln
“He [Lincoln] said the question is often asked, why this fuss about ni***rs?” A.Lincoln
Note that in every instance Lincoln is referring to someone else as having asked the question. Thanks for proving my point.
You state the transcript of the speech of Lincoln at Carlinville was wrongly attributed to Lincoln due to a f'up by the transcriber.
Now you are being absurd. I never said the whole speech. Merely that sentence. Explain to me why the transcriber would put [Lincoln] in brackets inside Lincoln’s own words? Was the transcriber just telling us about the speech?
Or you just can't handle the truth.
What truth? That Lincoln would use the common vernacular of the 1850’s in the 1850’s? The word had a different connotation then. It was commonplace in those days. What truth? That Lincoln would use the common vernacular of the 1850’s in the 1850’s? The word had a different connotation then. It was commonplace in those days. Today it is abhorrent. Times change. You change. You have gone from a staunch proponent of Taney to now a Lincoln Basher.
- - - - - - - - - -
[HandyDandy #412] Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta.
When I said that we can always count on you for the dicta, you know I was referring to the quote by a Supreme Court Justice (or is it by Erlich?), you can’t seem to make up your mind), at least we are assured the quote is not of you.
WP "Dred Scott ... probably helped to promote the Civil War, as it certainly required the Civil War to bury its dicta."
HD “That quote is not bad. In a cutesy, playful, spinny kind of way. Although in reality we can always count on you for the dicta. Right?”
My meaning being that the Civil War could not bury “its dicta”, (i.e. the dicta from the Dred Scott case) because you have it at your ready disposal to copy and paste. Note that I never said that you “deliver dicta”.
As for Davis, you provided the text. My near quote of him (that he would fight until the last confederate soldier was killed is for all intent and purposes the jist of this:
"No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands, — I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, — and that, or extermination, we will have." J.Davis
[HandyDandy #448] Explain to me why the transcriber would put [Lincoln] in brackets inside Lincoln’s own words? Was the transcriber just telling us about the speech?
Why indeed would the news report include the bracked identification of the speaker?
The editor of the Collected Works provided the bracketed content. Your attention is invited to the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 1, page x.
Editorial emendations, whether of punctuation, spelling, or diction, have been bracketed.
- - - - - - - - - -
“He [Lincoln] said the question is often asked, why this fuss about *******?”Note that in every instance Lincoln is referring to someone else as having asked the question. Thanks for proving my point.
As I previously noted, Lincoln's comment observing that "the question is often asked, why this fuss about *******" appears in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 3, page 77. Had you read all the way to page 78, you would have seen that Lincoln answered his own rhetorical question, thusly,
Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n******.
- - - - - - - - - -
What truth? That Lincoln would use the common vernacular of the 1850’s in the 1850’s?
As Lerone Bennett, Jr. observed, Forced Into Glory, page 97,
In 1946, Roy Prentice Basler, a supreme Lincoln authority, threw in the towel, conceding that "it seems more likely" that "in extempore speaking, Lincoln sometimes used it [the N-word] as the common and quite natural colloquial term" (1946, 450)."Quite natural?"
Basler didn't mean that, did he? Whatever he meant, the fact that he wrote it in 1946, and that nobody has called him on it, is a reflection of a serious problem in the lands of Lincoln.
Bennett also wrote in page 550,
"No one has understood better than the educated Negroes," Basler said, "that Limcoln was not, above all other things, the liberator of the colored race. They have honored his name in literature with sparing reference to their freedom. Perhaps they have not found the Emancipation Proclamation a sign to conjure with" (1935, 220)Or a sign to emancipate with.
Bennett on page 253,
After all, he was forty-five years old when he made his first public statement against [the extension of] slavery in October 1854.Four years later, in his forty-ninth year, Lincoln said that slavery had always been "a minor question" to him until the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act (CW 2:514).
Astonishing.
A grown man actually said that.
A grown man actually said in the United States of America on July 17, 1858, that the question of slavery had been a minor issue to him and that he thought it was in the "course of ultimate extinction" in the years of Nat Turner, in the years of the escape of some twenty thousand slaves, in the years of the Amistad, in the years of the fight over the right to petition in Congress and the right to deliver the mail in South Carolina, in the years when thousands of Black men and women were tortured and lashed and murdered in the South and Illinois and scores of White men and women were jailed in the South for distributing books and saying that all men were created equal.
Astonishing.
Even more astonishing is that none of Lincoln's major interpreters has found it astonishing that he said it and that almost all Americans believe that the man who said it was the wisest voice in the United States at that time—or this one.
[HandyDandy #419] Did you know that President Jefferson Davis said on several occasions the he would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed?[HandyDandy #449] As for Davis, you provided the text. My near quote of him (that he would fight until the last confederate soldier was killed is for all intent and purposes the jist of this:
"No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands, — I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, — and that, or extermination, we will have." J.Davis
Your nonsense, which I had to provide to you, in no way is a "near quote" of what you alleged, namely, "President Jefferson Davis said on several occasions the he would not give up until the very last confederate soldier was killed."
You were unable to provide any authoritative source of what Davis may have said. It is not even alleged that "Edmund Kirke" was sitting there making a transcript of what was said. That "Kirke" put everything in quotation marks does not establish that he had a photographic memory. It takes about six single-spaced pages to print out what "Kirke" is assumed by you to have actually quoted verbatim.
What Davis alleged said is more reminiscent of Winston Churchill:
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Certainly, neither Churchill, nor Davis, is shown to have said he would fight till his last soldier was killed. You cannot show one example of Davis, or any other pokitical head of state, saying such a thing.
To be noted, James R. Gilmore went to see Davis under the false name, Edmund Kirke, and published under the fake name Edmund Kirke, as well as under his real name.
See also: link Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858-1864: James R. Gilmore, "Our Visit To Richmond," Atlantic Monthly, September 1864.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4310600/?sp=1&r=-0.457,0.128,1.916,1.295,0
[wp = Handwritten]
Atlantic MonthlySeptember 1864
Regular and Volunteer Officer
Before Vicksburg
Our Visit to Richmond By J.R. Gilmore
Would you happen to have your alleged quote from a source other than a Massachusetts abolitionist Yankee officer on a military mission using a fake name?
He (she it) reveals himself as just another lost cause virtue signaler, but one inclined to word pollution.
You provided it to me? Here again you are confused. I provided the link and sent you to go fetch. Nice job getting directly to the actual quote which I gave the just the gist of. My paraphrase should have actually included the confederate soldiers children who took up the fallen Confederate soldiers musket (according to Jeff Davis).
WP:”You were unable to provide any authoritative source of what Davis may have said. It is not even alleged that "Edmund Kirke" was sitting there making a transcript of what was said. That "Kirke" put everything in quotation marks does not establish that he had a photographic memory. It takes about six single-spaced pages to print out what "Kirke" is assumed by you to have actually quoted verbatim.
You don’t have a point here, do you? Did you know that “Mark Twain” was a pen name?
WD: “To be noted, James R. Gilmore went to see Davis under the false name, Edmund Kirke, and published under the fake name Edmund Kirke, as well as under his real name.
“False name”, “fake name” “real name”? The term you are looking for is, “pseudonym”, aka pen name. For example, you post here under the fake name, “Woodpusher”. You don’t like the quote so you attack the source, as you attack the messenger.
WP: “Would you happen to have your alleged quote from a source other than a Massachusetts abolitionist Yankee officer on a military mission using a fake name?
Now don’t go all drama-Queen on me. There’s already enough of them on your side. You are getting as good at fiction as the rest of the Lost Causers.
In some of my reading on the civil war era I have noted that most of the Northern population hated slavery, but not for the moral reasons we have all been led to believe. Their main reason for hating it was because they saw it as a threat to their livelihood which necessitated them trading their work for wages.
If a slave would do their job at no cost, then they were out of work and therefore unable to earn a living.
The abolitionist which saw slavery as a moral issue, were a distinct minority at the time.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.I had a thought yesterday and I resolved to put it before you and see if you could enlighten us on a particular point.
In the past, there has been some argument with someone whom you may have become recently familiar, about Lincoln's reference to the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address.
I have read elsewhere that Lincoln had his fingers all over the Corwin Amendment in it's earlier iterations and may have even written it himself. It occurs to me that his claim of "I have not seen" is very likely a blatant lie, or perhaps his lawyer's tongue splitting hairs as some are wont to do.
Perhaps he had not seen the exact written words of that last version of it, but it seems highly improbable that he was not well aware of the gist of it, especially with Seward ramrodding it through the Senate.
With your knowledge and resource skills, do you suppose you could show us if Lincoln was indeed involved with the creation of the Corwin amendment, and how deep his involvement might go?
[woodpusher] Would you happen to have your alleged quote from a source other than a Massachusetts abolitionist Yankee officer on a military mission using a fake name?[HandyDandy] Now don’t go all drama-Queen on me. There’s already enough of them on your side. You are getting as good at fiction as the rest of the Lost Causers.
Your own source documented that Lincoln held a meeting to establish plausible deniability and that Lincoln issued their passes, acknowledged they would be acting as spies, decided the story should be published in The Atlantic, directed that he be given the copy before publication for editing, edited the story prior to publication in The Atlantic, and orchestrated the whole affair for political election purposes.
[HandyDandy] “False name”, “fake name” “real name”? The term you are looking for is, “pseudonym”, aka pen name. For example, you post here under the fake name, “Woodpusher”. You don’t like the quote so you attack the source, as you attack the messenger.
There was no quote, and no "near quote." I exposed the blatant propaganda mission orchestrated by Lincoln for political election purposes.
You don’t have a point here, do you? Did you know that “Mark Twain” was a pen name?
Mark Twain did not travel on a pass issued by Abraham Lincoln, nor did he publish in The Atlantic at the suggestion of Abraham Lincoln, nor did Mark Twain submit a pre-publication copy of his articles to Abraham Lincoln.
Mark Twain is not known to have had staged meetings with Lincoln, in front of a third party, to establish Lincoln's plausible deniability should events go sideways.
Mark Twain's articles were not edited by Abraham Lincoln prior to publication.
Using a false name to travel as a spy is not a pseudonym. It can get one imprisoned or hanged. Samuel Clemens use of the pseudonym Mark Twain is not known to have been discussed by a President and staff with a view to having him committed to a military prison.
James R. Gilmore, Personal Recollections of Abraam Lincoln and The Civil War, Boston, L.C. Page and Company, Inc., 1898, Chapter 17, pp. 240
Then, relapsing into his usual manner, he said, “There is something in what you say. But Jaquess couldn’t do it, — he couldn’t draw Davis’s fire; he is too honest. You are the man for that business.” Not stopping to be amused by his equivocal compliment, I replied, “Excuse me, sir, if I differ from you. His very honesty and sincerity exactly fit him for the business. Davis is astute and wary, but the colonel’s transparent honesty would disarm him completely.”“Have you suggested this to Jaquess?”
“No, sir.”
“Well,” he said, “ if you propose it to him, he will tell you he won’t have anything to do with the business. He feels that he is acting as God’s servant and messenger, and he would recoil from anything like political finesse. But if Davis should make such a declaration, the country should know of it; and I can see that, coming from him now, when everybody is tired of the war, and so many think some honorable settlement can be made, it might be of vital importance to us. But I tell you that not Jaquess, but you, are the man for that business.”
“Ah! I see, sir,” I remarked. “¥ou propose that I shall go upon this mission.”
“No, I do not,” he answered. “ I do not propose anything. I can’t propose anything about such a business. I can only say that I will give you a pass into the rebel lines, and then — ask Jaquess to pray for you.”
Plausible deniability, old chap. I a quote of Davis saying what I need for the election. Jaquess is not the snake for the job. You, Gilmore are just such a snake.
James R. Gilmore, Personal Recollections of Abraam Lincoln and The Civil War, Boston, L.C. Page and Company, Inc., 1898, Chapter 17, pp. 242-244
“Well, sit down, both of you,” said Mr. Lincoln, “ and let us get to business. Now, Mr. Gilmore, have you decided to ask me for a pass into the rebel lines?”“I have, sir,” I answered, “on the condition that you allow me to make such overtures to Davis as will put him entirely in the wrong if he should reject them.”
“Well,” said Mr. Lincoln, “Mr. Chase and I will talk about that in a moment. But, first, another question: Do you understand that I neither suggest, nor request, nor direct you to take this journey?”
“I do.”
Plausible deniability being established.
Continuing:
“And will you say so, if it should seem to me to be necessary?”“I will, whether you should ask it of me or not.”
“And if those people should hold on to you, — should give you free lodgings till our election is over, or in any other manner treat you unlike gentlemen,— do you understand that I shall be absolutely powerless to help you ? ”
“I understand that, sir, fully.”
“And you are willing to go entirely upon your own muscle?”
“No, sir, not upon my muscle. I suspect it will be more a matter of nerve than of muscle.”
“Do you hear that, Mr. Chase?” said Mr. Lincoln, with an indescribable look of comic gravity. “He criticises my English at the very moment I am giving him an office. Well, now that we have arranged the preliminaries, Mr. Chase, what terms shall we offer the rebels? Draw your chair up to the table, Mr. Gilmore, and take down what Mr. Chase may say.”
“You had better name the terms, Mr. Lincoln,” answered Mr. Chase. “I will make any suggestions that may seem necessary.”
Chase was too smart to fall for that Lincoln B.S.
Continuing,
“Well, either way,” replied Mr. Lincoln.He then went on to dictate to me, without interruption from Mr. Chase, the following:
“First. The immediate dissolution of the Southern Government, and disbandment of its armies; and the acknowledgment by all the States in rebellion of the supremacy of the Union.
“Second. The total and absolute abolition of slavery in every one of the late Slave States and throughout the Union. This to be perpetual.
“Third. Full amnesty to all who have been in any way engaged in the rebellion, and their restoration to all the rights of citizenship.
“Fourth. All acts of secession to be regarded as nullities; and the late rebellious States to be, and be regarded, as if they had never attempted to secede from the Union. Representation in the House from the recent Slave States to be on the basis of their voting population.”
Here Mr. Chase remarked, “About that I may want to say something, Mr. Lincoln; but please to go on now, and I will suggest some points afterwards.”
“Very well,” said Mr. Lincoln.
“Fifth. The sum of five hundred millions, in United States stock, to be issued and divided between the late Slave States, to be used by them in payment to slave-owners, loyal and disloyal, for the slaves emancipated by my proclamation. This sum to be divided among the late slave-owners, equally and equitably, at the rate of one-half the value of the slaves in the year 1860; and if any surplus should remain, it to be returned to the United States Treasury.
“Sixth. A national convention to be convened as soon as practicable, to ratify this settlement, and make such changes in the Constitution as may be in accord with the new order of things.
“Seventh. The intent and meaning of all the foregoing is that the Union shall be fully restored, as it was before the Rebellion, with the exception that all slaves within its borders are, and shall forever be, freemen.”
- - - - - - - - - -
James R. Gilmore, Personal Recollections of Abraam Lincoln and The Civil War, Boston, L.C. Page and Company, Inc., 1898, Chapter 17, pp. 287-90
After the meeting:
We then visited Castle Thunder and the hospitals for the Union wounded, and, about six o’clock, were ready to take our seats in the ambulance which was to convey us to the headquarters of General Foster, at Deep Bottom. As we were about to take our seats in the ambulance, Judge Ould drew me a short distance aside, saying: “ I have a favor to ask of you.”The favor was that I should obtain from Mr. Lincoln permits for some half-dozen persons to pass, to or fro, through the lines. I assured him that, beyond question, Mr. Lincoln would give the desired permissions, and then I said: "Now, judge, explain to me your delay of this morning.”
He then said that at nine o’clock he had gone to Mr. Davis’s house for the official permit to take us out, and had found there Secretary Benjamin, who was impressing upon Mr. Davis the necessity of placing us in Castle Thunder until the Northern election was over. He insisted that while Jaquess was sincerely desirous of opening the door for peace, I had no expectation of doing so, and was solely bent on drawing them out on points that would prejudice them with Northern voters.
Mr. Davis hesitated, — he thought they could not honorably detain men who had come to them on a peace errand. While the judgment of Davis was in suspense, Ould had entered the room, and Davis appealed to him for his opinion. Ould assured him that I was so frank a man that he should have discovered any political purpose if I had one; that I had expressed myself with the utmost freedom — and not always in a complimentary manner — about Southern men and Southern principles; and as an instance of my very uncommon frankness he mentioned my exposure of the ruse they had attempted to play upon us with the Sibley tents and the overgrown picket-stations. Davis adjourned the discussion by asking Ould to call on him at two o’clock, when he would decide the matter. At that time he gave Ould the permit, with the remark, “This is probably a bad business for us, anyway; but it would alienate many of our Northern friends should we hold on to these gentlemen.”
We arrived near the Union lines at Deep Bottom soon after sunset, and the waving of a white flag brought to us a young officer from the nearest picket-station. He went at once to General Foster for a couple of horses, and in half an hour we entered the general’s tent. It was after his dinner-hour, but he proposed to kill for us the fatted calf. “For,” he said, “these, my sons, were dead, and are alive again; were lost, and are found.” We let him kill the calf, — it tasted wonderfully like salt pork, — and then again mounting his horses, we were at ten o’clock that night at General Butler’s headquarters.
At General Grant’s invitation, Colonel Jaquess remained a few days at City Point, but I took the first boat for Washington. On the way down the river, and while the facts were fresh in my mind, I wrote out the interview with Davis and Benjamin, which I proposed to read to Mr. Lincoln, to avoid the omissions and inaccuracies that might occur in a verbal recital. Arrived in Washington, I hurried to the White House. Mr. Sumner was closeted with the President, but my name was no sooner announced than a kindly voice said, “Come in. Bring him in.” As I entered his room he rose and, grasping my hand, said: “I’m glad you’re back. I heard of your return two nights ago, but they said you were non-committal. What is it, — as we expected?”
“Exactly, sir,” I answered. “ There is no peace without separation. Coming down on the boat, I wrote out the interview to read to you when you are at leisure.”
“I am at leisure now,” he replied. “ Sumner, too, would be glad to hear it.”
When I had finished the reading, he said, “ What do you propose to do with this?”
“Put a beginning and an end to it, sir, on my way home, and hand it to the Tribune."
“Can’t you get it into the Atlantic Monthly?" he asked. “ It would have less of a partisan look there.”
“No doubt I can, sir,” I replied; “ but there would be some delay about it.”
“And it is important that Davis’s position should be known at once,” said Mr. Lincoln. “It will show the country that I didn’t fight shy of Greeley’s Niagara business without a reason; and everybody is agog to hear your report Let it go into the Tribune."
“Permit me to suggest,” said Mr. Sumner, “that Mr. Gilmore put at once a short card, with the separation declaration of Davis, into one of the Boston papers, and then, as soon as he can, the fuller report into the Atlantic."
“That is it,” said Mr. Lincoln. “ Put Davis’s ‘We are not fighting for slavery; we are fighting for independence’ into the card, — that is enough; and send me the proof of what goes into the Atlantic. Don’t let it appear till I return the proof. Some day all this will come out, but just now we must use discretion.”
As I rose to leave, Mr. Lincoln took my hand, and while he held it in his said, “Jaquess was right, — God’s hand is in it. This may be worth as much to us as half a dozen battles. Get the thing out as soon as you can; but don’t forget to send me the proof of what you write for the Atlantic. Good-by. God bless you.”
The “card ” appeared in the Boston Evening Transcript of July 22, 1864, and two or three days afterwards Mr. James T. Fields handed to me the proof of the Atlantic article, which I at once forwarded to Mr. Lincoln. He retained it seven days, and thereby delayed the issue of the magazine considerably beyond the usual period; and when the proof came back from him it was curtailed a full page and a half of its original proportions. He had stricken out the terms he was willing to grant to the Rebellion, and all reference which I had made to compensation for the slaves. I had intended the article not only as a declaration of Mr. Davis’s position, but also as a manifesto to the Southern people of the liberal conditions on which they could return to the Union. I thought a knowledge of those conditions would create a rebellion within a rebellion, and so much deplete the Southern armies as to shorten the war materially.
Mr. Lincoln told me subsequently that he held the proof under consideration for a few days because, while he was at first tempted to let the article stand as I had written it, fuller reflection convinced him that the publication of his terms would sow dissension in the South, and he was unwilling that his words should have any such effect. Had these terms been accepted, the South would have come out of the war in a better financial position than the North, and the revolted States would have been saved the long agony of reconstruction.
Abraham Lincoln to Abran Wakeman, July 25, 1864, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 7, page 461
To Abram Wakeman
Private Executive Mansion, Abram Wakeman, Esq Washington,
My dear Sir: July 25, 1864.
I feel that the subject which you pressed upon my attention in our recent conversation is an important one. The men of the South, recently (and perhaps still) at Niagara Falls, tell us distinctly that they are in the confidential employment of the rebellion; and they tell us as distinctly that they are not empowered to offer terms of peace. Does any one doubt that what they are empowered to do, is to assist in selecting and arranging a candidate and a platform for the Chicago convention? Who could have given them this confidential employment but he who only a week since declared to Jaquess and Gilmore that he had no terms of peace but the independence of the South—the dissolution of the Union? Thus the present presidential contest will almost certainly be no other than a contest between a Union and a Disunion candidate, disunion certainly following the success of the latter. The issue is a mighty one for all people and all time; and whoever aids the right, will be appreciated and remembered.Yours truly
A. LINCOLN.
“and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, — and that, or extermination, we will have.” J. Davis.
Do you want to know what I think? I think you stole the whole idea of Gilmore exposing Lincoln’s “plausible deniability” from:
“In 1864, America was more than weary of the bloody civil war. At that moment, James R. Gilmore made a suggestion to Abraham Lincoln to take to Confederate President Jefferson Davis a set of accords by which the North would be willing to have peace. But the purpose of the trip was to propose terms that Lincoln and Gilmore knew Northerners (and the rest of the world) would consider fair and that the Confederates would never accept, thereby gaining Jeff Davis the scorn of the world. It would also help secure Lincoln the 1864 election. What made Gilmore the man to take the message was his familiarity with the South. He'd spent 20 years there as a businessman before the war and knew many prominent people. Right after the attack on Fort Sumter, he was asked to meet with Abraham Lincoln to talk about southern feelings. They subsequently met many times. Gilmore came to Lincoln with his "peace" idea and asked: "...will you allow me five minutes by a slow watch?" Lincoln replied: "Yes, ten; and if you are very entertaining, I'll give you twenty." In a remarkable account of presidential "plausible deniability" before the term was even invented, they had this exchange in the presence of Salmon Chase: GILMORE: "I have [accepted], sir," I answered , "on the condition that you allow me to make such overtures to Davis as will put him entirely in the wrong if he should reject them." LINCOLN: "But, first, another question: Do you understand that I neither suggest, nor request, nor direct you to take this journey?" GILMORE: "I do." LINCOLN: "And will you say so, if it should seem to me to be necessary?" GILMORE: "I will, whether you should ask it of me or not." LINCOLN: "And if those people should hold on to you, — should give you free lodgings till our election is over, or in any other manner treat you unlike gentlemen, — do you understand that I shall be absolutely powerless to help you?" GILMORE: "I understand that, sir, fully." LINCOLN: "And you are willing to go entirely upon your own muscle?" GILMORE: "No, sir, not upon my muscle. I suspect it will be more a matter of nerve than of muscle." LINCOLN: "Do you hear that, Mr. Chase?" said Mr. Lincoln, with an indescribable look of comic gravity. " He criticises my English at the very moment I am giving him an office." Every memoir of the American Civil War provides you us with another view of the catastrophe that changed the country forever. For the first time, this long out-of-print volume is available as an affordable, well-formatted book for e-readers and smartphones. Be sure to LOOK INSIDE by clicking the cover above or download a sample.“
https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Recollections-Abraham-Expanded-Annotated-ebook/dp/B00I8DEQ2E
WD: “Your own source documented that Lincoln held a meeting to establish plausible deniability and that Lincoln issued their passes, acknowledged they would be acting as spies, decided the story should be published in The Atlantic, directed that he be given the copy before publication for editing, edited the story prior to publication in The Atlantic, and orchestrated the whole affair for political election purposes.”
“My own source?” What are you smoking? My source was the Atlantic article of 1862. No mention of spies, plausible deniability etc.etc. You are getting all mixed-up, dude.
In some of my reading on the civil war era I have noted that most of the Northern population hated slavery, but not for the moral reasons we have all been led to believe. Their main reason for hating it was because they saw it as a threat to their livelihood which necessitated them trading their work for wages.If a slave would do their job at no cost, then they were out of work and therefore unable to earn a living.
The abolitionist which saw slavery as a moral issue, were a distinct minority at the time.
Lincoln was not bashful about saying what he wanted:
"Resolved, That the elective franchise should be kept pure from contamination by the admission of colored votes."
Representative Lincoln voted for that in Illinois, January 5, 1836."In our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom"
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:276"Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended—the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them."
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:249"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people."
Lincoln, October 16, 1854, Peoria, Illinois, CW 2:268"Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States—that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people?"
Lincoln, August 27, 1856, Kalamazoo, Michigan, CW 2:363"Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?"
Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79"Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.] I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life." Lincoln, October 15, 1858, Alton, Illinois, CW 3:312
As an officer of the African Colonization Society, Lincoln wanted the territories free of Blacks, slave or not.
Slave labor was not incapable of doing more than picking cotton. They could, and some did, become skilled craftsmen, doing such things as making fine furniture. Slave or free Black labor of that era could be somewhat analagous to illegal alien labor of this era. They are capable of doing more than picking crops. Employers can leverage circumstances to obtain said labor cheaper than the going rate for legal labor. They are more likely to compete with the lower skilled lawful labor. Resistance to government failure to enforce immigration law may not be a racial or moral issue. Reduction of the legal labor market, or reduction of the legal labor wage may cause resistance. At one time, newly arrived Irish immigrants faced discrimination, but surely not because of their skin color.
In the ante-bellum era, free states resisted the introduction of freed slaves into their labor market. Lincoln opined that Illinoians would be free not to accept Blacks who had been freed in other states.
There were more free Blacks in the slave states than in the Free states. Why? They were supposedly free — free to go wherever they wanted. More realistically, they were free to go wherever they were accepted. The alternative is to believe they chose to remain in the slave states, or perhaps migrated from free states to slave states, perhaps for the cornbread or chitlins.
Gradual emancipation did not directly free any slaves. It freed the children of slaves when they reached a certain age, perhaps 21. Said children were freed if they reached 21 and were still in the state that made that law. Gradual emancipation created a strong financial incentive for the owner to sell the children out of state before they reached 21.
A hundred times, Lincoln said, "I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always." Who can argue with what Lincoln said a hundred times? To say it a hundred times, he had to really mean it.
With your knowledge and resource skills, do you suppose you could show us if Lincoln was indeed involved with the creation of the Corwin amendment, and how deep his involvement might go?
It is not my understanding that Lincoln was involved with the creation of the specific phrasing used in the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln did state, many times, his agreement with the gist of what was proposed. I provide the text of the Corwin Amendment and a quote from Ward Hill Lamon which may provide some background you have not seen before.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/GLC09040.pdf
See link for four-page hi-res copy of Congressional document, including President Lincoln's transmittal of the Corwin Amendment as "an authenticated copy of a joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, adopted by Congress, and approved on the 2nd of March, 1861, by James Buchanan, President." Text of the Joint Resolution follows:
JOINT RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITU-
TION OF THE UNITED STATES.Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, of America in Congress assembled, that the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:
ARTICLE XIII.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
WILLIAM PENNINGTON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.JOHN BRECKINRIDGE,
Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate.Approved March 2, 1861.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Ward Hill Lamon, The Life of Abraham Lincoln As President, edited by Bob O'Connor, pp. 15-18, (footnotes omitted). Ward Hill Lamon was the personal bodyguard of Abraham Lincoln and was appointed as Marshal of the District of Columbia.
It has been charged that Mr. Lincoln fully expected another compromise, but he had no intention of being chief among compromisers. He had said that the house was divided, and he now considered it imprudent to admit that the statement was untrue in point of fact—that there was in truth no line of division between the inmates. They charge that his assertion to the contrary was merely a little trick to get possession of the house itself, while the real owners were quarrelling over imaginary difficulties. Doubtless Mr. Seward also regarded the conflict of which he had been the herald as a partisan chimera had served its day; but after so long insisting that it was entirely “irrepressible,” it seemed to him at least unwise to come forward in person and actually repress it. They had a party as well as a country to save. And any tender of the compromise which gave the South equal or indeed any rights in the territories and in the places under the exclusive control of Congress, which supposed rights were insisted upon by a large minority of the people, would instantly dissolve the party.Their associated leaders were equally embarrassed. They had not entered upon the anti-slavery crusade with the feeling that animated the abolitionists; their “oral” sentiments were only borrowed for the occasion. The elections being over, they had no further use for them. And they knew very well as Mr. Jefferson had observed long ago that the extension of slavery into the territories did not reduce a single freeman from bondage or alter, except for the better, the condition of a single slave. They argued, in the mind of a sane man there could be no “moral idea” whatever connected with this branch of the controversy. And these leaders were all sane. They were therefore perfectly willing to surrender the substance of that by which the country had been convulsed and the Union imperiled—the exclusion of slavery from the territories.
“At this session,” says Mr. Greeley, “after the withdrawal of the southern members in such numbers as to give the Republicans a large majority in the House and the practical control of the Senate, three separate acts were passed organizing the territories of Colorado, Nevada and Dakota respectively—the three together covering a large portion of all the remaining territory of the United States.” All these acts were silent in regard to slavery leaving whatever rights had accrued to the South under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision not merely unimpaired but unquestioned by any legislative action. “This was done,” continued Mr. Greeley, “not in accordance with the feelings and views of the Republicans who reported and passed the bills, but as a peace offering and concession to those southern Unionists who were constantly protesting that they cared nothing for the extension of slavery; in fact were rather opposed to it but would not tamely submit to a stigma placed on their section and institution by northern votes.”
It was in truth what the pure abolitionists regarded “dough-face” work to save a worthless Union, vain as a concession because it was never acknowledged to be a concession, and base because it was a faceless betrayal of the voters who had given the party the power on just the opposite principle. But this was not all. The House adopted by a very large majority Mr. Corwin’s report from the committee of 33 affirming the “justice and propriety” of a faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law and adding a new and stronger guarantee to the existence of slavery in the states and yet more: the fervid and frothy orators who had incited fourteen states to stain the statute books with “personal liberty” bills intended “to hinder” the recovery of slave property, now united in a resolution imploring them to revise and expunge them; and finally the House passed and the Senate concurred in the childish proposition to amend the federal Constitution so as to prohibit any further amendment that might give to Congress power to meddle with slavery in the states. All this was done by a majority of Mr. Lincoln’s friends in Congress, while individuals and a great part of the Republican press were inclined to go still farther in the same direction. What became of the “free soil principles” when the territories were organized without reference to them and what became of the “irrepressible conflict” when slavery in the states was buttressed anew by the proposed amendment to the Constitution?
Undoubtedly Mr. Lincoln hoped that these practical concessions would avert the war. They were intended to have the effect of a compromise without the name. They were not indeed entitled to the name whether taken separately or as a whole; for a compromise implies a bargain between two or more—adjusting difficulties on the basis of mutual sacrifice and mutual benefit. Here there was no sacrifice but of Republican principles, and no benefit to the South.
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.