Posted on 01/31/2009 12:25:33 PM PST by Mr_Moonlight
It’s interesting that Frederick Douglass believed that Lincoln freeing the slaves was only incidental to Lincoln’s real agenda. Maybe Non-Squirter believes that Honest Abe wasn’t being truthful when he gave his First Inaugural Address. I believe that is the excuse the Jaffa crowd at Claremont uses to explain away Lincoln’s own words. You have to find some way to get rid of Lincoln’s inconvenient statements in order to make him less focused on preserving the Union and instead focused on ending slavery.
From his First Inaugural:
” Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
‘Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.’
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
‘No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
It seems that the Confederates were against free blacks living anywhere. Every free black was a loss of potential southern wealth.
“It seems that the Confederates were against free blacks living anywhere.”
There were more free blacks living in the Confederacy than there were in the North. Some were themselves slaveowners. A pity that history doesn’t accord with your wishes.
It is an indictment of the Confederacy that the presence of slaveowning free blacks is one of the CSA's proudest achievements.
I am familiar with Clemen’s life and my great grands lived across from him on Gillette Street.
“It is an indictment of the Confederacy that the presence of slaveowning free blacks is one of the CSA’s proudest achievements.”
What it shows is that free blacks in the ante bellum years liked the South or they would have moved to the North. But don’t let simple logic slow you down.
“In 1800 the census marshals counted 108,395 free blacks in the United States. These were disproportionately to be found in the southern states - almost 40,000 in Virginia and Maryland and another 10,000 in the Carolinas. Only Pennsylvania among the northern states contained more than 10,000 free persons of color (14,561). The seven southern states (plus the District of Columbia) housed well over half (59,917) of the free blacks in the United States at that date. In the fifty years that followed, the northern states abolished slavery and the free black population in those states increased dramatically, but the same was true in the South, where slavery prevailed. The national free black population grew to almost 435,000 in 1850, well over half of which (54.41 percent) were southern.
Among these fifteen cities New Orleans, Baltimore, and Charleston ranked first, second, and third nationally in the size of their free black populations and were the only ones with more than 10,000 free persons of color; Washington, with just under 10,000, ranked fourth. Free blacks made up more than half of the population of Charleston, about a quarter in Washington and New Orleans, and roughly a sixth in Baltimore and Louisville. Only in St. Louis (5.21 percent) did the figure fall below 10 percent. By comparison, only in Philadelphia (8.85 percent) and Providence (4.20 percent) among the northern cities did the black population exceed 4 percent. The free black populations in all of the southern cities except St. Louis were predominately female, rising to a ratio of more than three to two in Charleston and barely below that figure in New Orleans. In two of these southern cities - Charleston (96.74 percent) and Baltimore (94.58 percent) - the free persons of color were almost all natives of their states of residence and in two others - Louisville (95 percent) and Washington (99 percent) - a similar percentage were natives of their states of residence or other slave states. In the other two cities the nativities were slightly more mixed. In St. Louis more than five-sixths were born in Missouri or other slave states, but another eighth were born in free states and in New Orleans almost an identical segment were natives of their state of residence or other slave states, but almost all of the rest were born abroad, mostly in the Caribbean Islands.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_/ai_n17180355
Humor us. Just the ones where they say that they wished they were still in slavery. According to you that should be just about all of them.
You act as if you were ‘there’. Not all fought for the same reason. It’s not nearly as black and white as you’d like to believe.
Sometimes things are what they appear to be.
Actually most are from you, denying the obvious.
lol
I realize that this conflicted with the preference of Lee and Davis and Jackson that the blacks remain as property, but just out of curiosity what was so evil about Lincoln's support of voluntary emigration? A lot of people supported it - Madison, Monroe, Breckenridge. Thanks to a Southern dominated Supreme Court, blacks were not and could never be citizens. In most Southern states they were forbidden to get an education or work in many occupations. So what was so wrong about giving them a chance to return to Africa - if they wanted to - and build a life free from the repression and racism that was rampant throughout the United States? Or are you serious in your belief that a life in bondage in the U.S. was better than a life of freedom in Africa?
So, Non-Squirter, then are you advocating removing blacks from the United States like your hero Abe?
Get a load of what N-S is promoting here.
How about simple math? By 1860, of the 476,748 free blacks in the U.S. only 132,760 lived in the confederate states. So apparently a lot did move North. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York all had more free blacks than any rebel state except Virginia. Those three states alone had more free blacks that all the confederate states combined. Rhode Island had more free blacks than Georgia or Florida or Mississippi or Alabama or Arkansas. So obviously if you all freed any of your property you made sure they didn't remain in the state.
Free blacks made up more than half of the population of Charleston, about a quarter in Washington and New Orleans, and roughly a sixth in Baltimore and Louisville
In 1860 there were 3622 free blacks in Charleston county vs. 29,136 whites. In New Orleans Parish there were 10,932 free blacks and 149,063 free whites. My how things change.
Not promoting. Just wondering how you can consider slavery to be better a better condition than freedom.
No. Are you advocating slavery as the best condition for blacks to be in like your hero Robert Lee?
Non-Sinkquittur: "By 1860, of the 476,748 free blacks in the U.S. only 132,760 lived in the confederate states."
ROTFLOL! Non-Sinkie peeled off the free blacks in Maryland (all 84,000 of them) and plunked them down in the "free states" column. BRILLIANT!
Pay no attention to the fact that Maryland was in the Union mostly at gunpoint, and Maryland was exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation for reasons which we can only guess at... ;-)
So, I was looking at ANOTHER table about free blacks, and was astonished to find that of the 476,748 free blacks in the 1860 census, there were 183,369 in the Upper South, and 67,418 in the Lower South. 183,369 + 67,418 = 250787/476,748 = 52.6%
It's odd that from Non-Sinkie's numbers I get 132,760/476,748 = 27.8% !!!
Quelle difference!
Non-Sinkie, you could get a job with the Obama administration. They'd be impressed! One thing, though - you a tax cheat? ;-)
ROFLMAO
Thanks, I needed that laugh.
But pinot noir through the nose is nasty.;-)
My visit there had to do with an old piece of photosensitive glass I had found at an auction and wished to identify and date.
Unfortunately, the researcher was away in England, I lived about 100 miles away and didn't get another opportunity to check it out.
For many years, Kodak was the leading employer in Rochester. Their pay and benefits were unbelievable -- then came along, globalization.
Frederick Douglass knew that Lincoln wasn’t a particular friend to blacks, as his speech at the memorial to Lincoln revealed.
What continent did you plan on shipping America’s blacks to, Non-Squirter? Shouldn’t they have been allowed to live in the country of their birth? Deporting them was a remarkably ugly plan unless Lincoln’s goal was an all white America. Which it was. Is it yours?
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.