Posted on 01/31/2009 12:25:33 PM PST by Mr_Moonlight
ROCHESTER, NY - Seated by a window in the Illinois state Capitol in 1860, a beardless Abraham Lincoln held still 25 seconds for a classic campaign portrait of the soon-to-be president. It was undoubtedly a personal favorite.
"That looks better and expresses me better than any I have ever seen," Lincoln said in a letter to photographer Alexander Hesler. "If it pleases the people, I am satisfied."
To mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth on Feb. 12, the long-lost positive transparency of this photograph goes on display beginning tomorrow at the George Eastman House museum of photography in Rochester.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Thanks, I hadn’t noticed that Non-Squirter was falsifying the numbers.
I’m going to get myself down there one of these days. But as someone up-thread mentioned ... I’ll wait for the warmer weather. ;-D
But true.
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... ;-)
No need to guess. Maryland didn't join the rebellion so there was no legal justification to free her slaves. Your claim that "Maryland was in the Union mostly at gunpoint" is mainly nonsense - the secession convention in February 1861 did not approve secession and the Maryland legislature refused to approve in when they met in Frederick following Virginia's secession. What you are no doubt whining about is the arrest of legislators in September. They were proposing to take Maryland into armed rebellion against the government. What government in their right mind would allow them to do that?
If Maryland was held at gunpoint then it would have needed large numbers of troops to secure transportation. It did not. It would have provided aid and comfort to the rebels when they campaigned in the state. It did not. It would not have provided troops to the Union. In fact, it provided far more troops to the Union than to the confederacy.
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%
Your Upper South also seems to include Delaware and Kentucky and Missouri, all Union states. As well as Maryland.
I think you need to read that again. Douglass took Lincoln as a whole and as a man of his times. Unlike you, he doesn't judge him by 21st Century standards and he doesn't criticize Lincoln for traits that he gives others a free ride on. And Douglass makes it clear that he considered Licoln more than a friend to the black man, but perhaps the best friend.
What continent did you plan on shipping Americas blacks to...
First of all, nobody is talking about rounding them up against their will and shipping them overseas. That was the Southern preference. What Lincoln, and tens of thousands of others, suggested was voluntary emigration to Africa or another land where they could carve out their own future free from the bondage and bigotry that they faced in the U.S. You have still not told me what is particularly evil in that suggestion.
Shouldnt they have been allowed to live in the country of their birth?
If it was up to Southerners, those lives would have been spent in bondage, as someones property. And any who were free were not citizens and had no rights that the white man was bound to respect, thanks to Roger Taney and the Southern dominated Supreme Court. So the country of their birth didn't want them, except as property. They were not citizens and could never be citizens, per the Supreme Court. The couldn't get an education in almost all of the South. Lincoln couldn't change that, and he knew it. Faced with a future like that and a future of their own making, what was wrong with assisting emigration to those who desired it?
Deporting them was a remarkably ugly plan unless Lincolns goal was an all white America.
Deporting was a Southern plan. There was actually a law debated in Alabama that would have rounded up all free blacks in the state and sent them to Africa. It broke down over who would pay for it, the state or the county. Lincoln's plan was, first and always, voluntary. Provide support to those who wanted it. Those who didn't were free to stay. It was never anything else.
It's easy to call Lincoln's goal an 'all white America' but if you do then you have to admit that the Southern goal was an America where you were either white or property. And where do you find the moral high ground in that?
Is it yours?
You truly are a moron if you believe that.
You "win" again! **snicker**
He can make up phony "facts" faster than any twelve people can shoot 'em down.
See, check this one out:
Non-Squirter:
If Maryland was held at gunpoint then it would have needed large numbers of troops to secure transportation. It did not. It would have provided aid and comfort to the rebels when they campaigned in the state. It did not. It would not have provided troops to the Union. In fact, it provided far more troops to the Union than to the confederacy.
You see, Maryland was NOWHERE near Washington, DC, during the Civil War. Washington, DC, was where a large contingent of Union troops were stationed - but these troops weren't close enough to Maryland to affect Maryland's internal politics in the slightest.
Fortunately, after the war, the government moved the entire state of Maryland several hundred miles east (or was it west? - no matter!) so that it would be right next to the District of Columbia, thus shortening the commute to the nation's capital for those who lived in Maryland.
Amazingly, the government did this BEFORE the invention of the internal combustion engine, with REALLY LARGE horses, and wooden wagons!
There used to be a beautiful old theatre in Rochester, the Eastman Theatre. Not sure it's still there, will have to check it out on the net. Sometime, in the 1970's, I had the opportunity to see Henry Fonda do a one-man performance of Clarence Darrow, it was a memorable experience.
Virginia was just as close. You don't suppose those troops were facing South, do you?
Oh, wait - I ALREADY have a huge library of Civil War history books, and don't need much instruction on the Civil War from a guy who's shown that he's willing to twist facts and numbers to make a point.
You are just like sinkspur.
It might help. I could recommend some but most of ones I read don't have a lot of pictures in them.
Oh, wait - I ALREADY have a huge library of Civil War history books, and don't need much instruction on the Civil War from a guy who's shown that he's willing to twist facts and numbers to make a point.
Let me guess. All the DiLorenzo books. All the Kennedy Boys. A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. Some Charles Adams. And printouts from all the Southron fanatic websites. That about sum up your library?
BTW, we went SOUTH to visit those battlefields.
I'm actually a Union boy.
I just don't like Alinskyites like yourself who smear the honorable dead of either side.
On the Army of the Potomac? Mine too.
BTW, we went SOUTH to visit those battlefields.
And caught the secession bug apparently.
I'm actually a Union boy.
I believe the term is Copperhead.
I just don't like Alinskyites like yourself who smear the honorable dead of either side.
Oooh, yeah. Caught it big time. You've fallen into the Southron habit of accusing anyone who opposed the rebellion of being either a liberal or a commie.
I get it! You’re a joke! LOLOL!
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.