>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I must admit your citing abilities are impressive. Also, though you do not outright lie you are a master at spinning and twisting the facts."
All you know is what your brain has absorbed from decades of left-wing/neo-conservative propaganda; and it appears you have no desire to hear an alternate view. I, personally, seek to read and hear both sides. Nothing personal; it is just the way I am.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The truth is that Lincoln had always been against slavery. His parents were abolitionist and he was raised in an abolitionist church. He regularly spoke out and acted against slavery from early in his political career. In 1837 he was one of only six Illinois legislators to vote against a resolution affirming slavery's constitutionally protected status and condemning the spread of abolitionism."
Lincoln was a politician and a white supremacist, so he was obliged to speak out of both sides of his mouth from time to time. For example, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes, and the Illinois Constitution which prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. This paragraph mentions Lincoln's remarks on the Dred-Scott decision:
"Although many northern political leaders and newspaper editors assailed [Chief Justice] Taney's decision [on Dred Scot,] they indicated much more concern about its repudiation of the Missouri Compromise than about the constitutional rights of Negroes. After all, the Chief Justice had told the Republican party that the major plank of its political platform - resistance to the further expansion of slavery-was unconstitutional. Few Republicans, on the other hand, had ever defended the rights of free Negroes. Had the Chief Justice confined his argument to the question of Negro citizenship, he might have gone virtually unchallenged, for it merely confirmed existing state and federal practices sanctioned by both major political parties."Now my opinion," Abraham Lincoln observed, "is that the different states have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it." Lincoln's colleague, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, was even more explicit. What prompted him to repudiate the Dred Scott decision, he told the Senate, was its attempt to limit congressional powers over slavery in the territories. As for Negro citizenship, he could by no means agree to the doctrine that the Constitution required the states to place blacks and whites on an equal footing." [Litwack, Leon F., "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.62-63]
I believe Lincoln was saying that if Illinois had the power to grant citizenship to a fugitive slave, he would oppose it. Is that what you read? Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:
"Three states - Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon - incorporated anti-immigration provisions into their constitutions. The electorates, voting on these provisions separately, indicated their overwhelming approval at the polls. Voters indorsed the Illinois constitutional clause barring the further admission of Negroes by a margin of more than two to one, most of the opposition coming from northern counties in which there were few Negroes. Indianans gave a larger majority to the restriction clause than to the constitution itself, and Oregon approved exclusion by an eight-to-one majority. The popular mandate thus seemed clear. "The tendency, strong and irresistible, of the American mind," an Indianan declared, "is finally to accomplish a separation of the two races." [Ibid. pp.70-71]
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "His views on slavery did not change, his views on race did. He went from believing that black could and should not be political equals to whites to believing some blacks should have the right to vote."
There is no evidence his views changed. That is not to say his politics did not change from time to time, depending on how the wind blew.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The bottom line up front is that the southern slave holders didn't like the results of a freely held election in our constitutional republic and decided to resort to the bullets instead of the ballot box."
The historical facts are, the secessionists tried to leave the United States in peace, and Lincoln would have none of it. The South would have been better off in East Berlin: at least they would known their rights.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "They could have stayed in the republic and attempted to enact laws to allow peaceful secession, they did not. Unlike our founding fathers who endured years of abuses and usurpations upon their rights as English men."
"Laws to allow peaceful secession?" You are unfamiliar with the history of secession, the constitutional and ratification convention debates, and the constitutionally-enshrined concept of retained rights. The states had power over secession, until the tyrant Lincoln usurped it. That is also a historical fact.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The reason they rebelled is perhaps one of the worst reasons any group of people have rebelled against their current government, to protect their property in humans. This is an indisputable fact because the southern slave owners at the time of their rebellion stated this fact over and over again."
It was all about economics -- Hamiltonian's mercantilistic economics to be exact -- as adopted by Henry Clay and the Whigs. Slavery was merely a part of that economy. The Whig principles of high protective tariffs, fiat currency, and corporate welfare (crony capitalism,) that so infuriated the South (and some in the North) for decades, were later adopted by the Republicans when the Whig party faded away. Lincoln was certainly a chameleon on race and slavery; but he was as constant as the rising sun on his promotion of Henry Clay and Whig principles.
The Republican Party of today -- the Party of Reagan -- is a far cry from the Party of Lincoln, which was the party of economic plunder and white supremacy.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "From their declarations of secession to their speeches and letters to other slave states in efforts to get them to rebel against the constitution. Here is just one example our of 100s that I could show you."
>>OIFVeteran quoting Toombs: "In view of such effects and consequences here from the mere possession of one branch of Congress we ought not to shut our eyes to the effects of the possession of the government in all of its departments by any Black Republican. It would abolitionize Maryland in a year, raise a powerful abolition party in Va., Kentucky, and Missouri in two years, and foster and rear up a free labour party in [the] whole South in four years. Thus the strife will be transferred from the North to our own friends. Then security and peace in our borders is gone forever. Therefore I deeply lament that any portion of our people shall hug to their bosoms the delusive idea that we should wait for some "overt act." I shall consider our ruin already accomplished when we submit to a party whose every principle, whose daily declarations and acts are an open proclamation of war against us, and the insidious effects of whose policy I see around me every day. For one I would raise an insurrection, if I could not carry a revolution, to save my countrymen, and endeavor to save them in spite of themselves." – Letter from Senator Robert Toombs to Alexander Stephens-February 10, 1860"
Have you read this speech by Toombs made later that year in November?
"It is true... that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction— a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure [e.g., crony capitalism;] and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill—the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South. Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands. [Senator Robert Toombs, speech before Georgia legislature on the Morrill Tariff, November, 1860, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, pp.64-65]
Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!
Again, it was all about economics, which was centered around the tariff. If slavery alone was the issue, Lincoln would have not waited several years before making a big deal out of it; and he would never have appointed a slave-holder and/or slave-benefactor as the commander of the armies he was sending to wipe out the slave-holders and non-slave-holders of the South.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "As far as the reason the common southern soldier was fighting? It really matters not. No matter what your personal reason for serving your country you are in actuality fighting for the aims of that government. But even considering that many southern soldiers knew exactly what they were fighting for, and expressed this in letters."
>>OIFVeteran quoting: "The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20]
I believe it matters a lot that the soldier understands what he is fighting for; and, of course, anyone can compile a series of cherry-picked quotes and pretend they are relevant. Many of the things said about race in your quotes could be heard among the northern armies, as well. In fact, many northern soldiers were aghast when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, protesting that they joined to preserve the Union, not to help abolish slavery. The result was over 200,000 deserted, and many others evaded the draft. This is McPherson:
"[P]lenty of soldiers believed that the [Emancipation] proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. They professed to feel betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for Union, they said, but not for black freedom. The proclamation intensified a morale crisis in Union armies during the winter of 1862-1863, especially in the Army of the Potomac. The removal of McClellan from command, the disaster at Fredericksburg, and the fiasco of the Mud March had caused morale in that army to plunge to an all-time low. Things were little better in Grant's army on the Mississippi, where the first attempts against Vicksburg had come to grief.
"Desertion rates in both armies rose alarmingly. Many soldiers blamed the Emancipation Proclamation. The "men are much dissatisfied" with it, reported a New York captain, "and say that it has turned into a 'nigger war' and all are anxious to return to their homes for it was to preserve the Union that they volunteered." Enlisted men confirmed this observation with a blizzard of bitter comments in letters home. "I am the Boy that Can fight for my Country," wrote an Illinois private, "but not for the Negros. A private in the 66th Indiana wrote from Mississippi in February, 1863, that he and his messmates "will not fite to free the niger... there is a Regment her that say they will never fite untill the proclamation is with drawn there is four of the Capt[ains] in our Regt sent in there Resingnations and one of the Liutenants there was nine in Comp. G tride to desert." At the end of 1862 another Illinois soldier with a wife and children reflected on the "cost of freeing the Black Devils. No less than 300,000 of our own free white citizens have already been sacrificed to free the small mite that have got their freedom.... I consider the life & Happiness of my family of more value than any Nigger."
[James M. McPherson, "What they fought for, 1861-1865." Louisiana State University Press, 1994, p.63]
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "So instead of worrying so much about the mote in President Lincoln's eye you should be worrying about the beam in the eyes of the southern leaders."
And don't forget to mention the beam in the eyes of the northern leaders and populace:
"While stressing this incompatibility of free and slave labor, most Republicans also denied any intention to extend political rights to free Negroes and expressed revulsion at the idea of social intercourse with them. Full legal protection should be accorded both races, but according to Republican logic, it did not necessarily follow that Negroes should be granted the right to vote, sit on juries, or testify in cases involving whites. To the Negro, this must have been a strange logic indeed. In many areas, party leaders contended that any concessions to Negroes would constitute political suicide. In 1860, for example, an Ohio leader declared that a poll of the Republican party in the Old Northwest would not find "one in every thousand" favoring social and political rights for Negroes. Even such a firm and outspoken abolitionist as Congressman Joshua Giddings of Ohio hesitated to commit his party too far on this potentially explosive issue. "We do not say the black man is, or shall be, the equal of the white man," Giddings declared in 1859, "or that he shall vote or hold office, however just such a position may be; but we assert that he who murders a black man shall be hanged; that he who robs the black man of his liberty or his property shall be punished like other criminals." And few Republicans were as radical as Giddings on this question! Meanwhile, Republican-dominated legislatures and constitutional conventions made few efforts to extend political rights. If their conservatism required any further demonstration, a New York City Republican proudly noted that of the 32,000 who voted for Lincoln in 1860, only 1,600 indorsed the state Negro-suffrage amendment." [Litwack, Leon F., "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.270-271]
So much for the so-called party of freedom.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"All you know is what your brain has absorbed from decades of left-wing/neo-conservative propaganda; and it appears you have no desire to hear an alternate view.
I, personally, seek to read and hear both sides.
Nothing personal; it is just the way I am." Those are total lies, in fact Kalamata is a committed Lost Cause propagandist who instantly dismisses any facts or ideas not consistent with his own.
Kalamata's weapons of ideological warfare include an impressive library of accurate quotes, but only quotes which can be used to support his own constructs and always bolstered by generous helpings of personal attacks, mocking & insulting lies against anyone who disagrees.
Kalamata: "Lincoln was a politician and a white supremacist, so he was obliged to speak out of both sides of his mouth from time to time.
For example, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes, and the Illinois Constitution which prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state."
Nearly all American voters were "white supremacists" in those days, but some like Lincoln advocated more freedom for African Americans than others would permit.
Lincoln had a long personal history in opposition to slavery, a history well known by secessionist Fire Eaters in states like South Carolina.
It's why they seceded.
Kalamata: "I believe Lincoln was saying that if Illinois had the power to grant citizenship to a fugitive slave, he would oppose it.
Is that what you read? "
And yet less than seven years later Lincoln was murdered for proposing exactly that.
"On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln's speech at the White House in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks;[18]
Booth said 'That means nigger citizenship ... That is the last speech he will ever give.' "
Kalamata:
"Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:" And yet US census numbers show that Illinois' freed black population increased between 1820 and 1860 at a higher percentage rate than any other state in the Union, North or South.
From 1840 to 1860, during the time of Illinois' 1848 constitution, its freed-blacks doubled, only Ohio's grew faster and by 1860 several states, North and South, even had declining freed-black populations.
Bottom line: whatever Illinois' law said, freed-blacks continued to flock there.
Kalamata: "There is no evidence his views changed.
That is not to say his politics did not change from time to time, depending on how the wind blew."
The largest piece of evidence supporting Lincoln's change of mind regarding full citizenship for freed-blacks is the .41 caliber steel ball and Deringer pistol John Wilkes Boothe used to shoot him in the head:
Kalamata: "The historical facts are, the secessionists tried to leave the United States in peace, and Lincoln would have none of it. "
And yet more lies from Kalamata, he can't stop it, can't control it, they just flow out of him.
The facts are there was nothing peaceful about secession, Confederates began immediately waging a low-level war against the United States, actions which President Buchanan warned them in February 1861 would lead to armed conflict.
Lincoln was totally willing to tolerate Southern independence, but not at the expense of submitting to Confederate military actions against the United States.
Kalamata: "You are unfamiliar with the history of secession, the constitutional and ratification convention debates, and the constitutionally-enshrined concept of retained rights.
The states had power over secession, until the tyrant Lincoln usurped it.
That is also a historical fact."
No, it's a pack of historical lies, from beginning to end.
The real historical fact is that the Union did nothing to stop secession or Confederacy until Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States.
Kalamata: "Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!"
A lot of political hyperbole for a tariff that originally intended to return rates to the levels Southern Democrats themselves had supported in 1846, and which they defeated in 1860, and could still have defeated -- or forced compromises on -- in 1861 had they not seceded.
Kalamata: "Again, it was all about economics..."
Sure, the economics of slavery, but not just economics, also ethics, morality & laws related to slavery.
Kalamata: "If slavery alone was the issue, Lincoln would have not waited several years before making a big deal out of it; and he would never have appointed a slave-holder and/or slave-benefactor as the commander of the armies he was sending to wipe out the slave-holders and non-slave-holders of the South."
Complete insane nonsense, proving yet again that nothing rational goes on between Kalamata's ears.
Kalamata: " In fact, many northern soldiers were aghast when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, protesting that they joined to preserve the Union, not to help abolish slavery.
The result was over 200,000 deserted, and many others evaded the draft.
This is McPherson:"
Desertions during the Civil War totaled about 300,000 for the Union (12%), 150,000 for Confederates (15%), or roughly 6,000 per month Union, 3,000 Confederates, but the monthly numbers went up & down depending on fortunes of war.
The fall of 1862 & winter of 1863 seemed especially bleak for the Union side under "Little Mack" McClellan.
Major Union defeats at the time included Hartsville Tennessee, Fredericksburg Virginia, Chickasaw Bayou Mississippi and Galveston Texas.
Desertions are said to have increased, but no numbers anywhere support Kalamata's 200,000 figure.
Kalamata: "And don't forget to mention the beam in the eyes of the northern leaders and populace:"
Here Kalamata quotes a historian in 1965 saying 1860 era Republicans didn't believe in full rights for freed slaves.
And yet in six Northern states freed-blacks did vote, so it is not true that every Northerner was just as troglodytic as typical Southern slaveholders.
Kalamata: "So much for the so-called party of freedom."
In 1860 the Republican party of freedom offered more freedom for blacks than the Democrats' slavery party.
By 1870 Republicans passed the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, granting full citizenship.
Sadly, it took the Union Army in former Confederate states to enforce those Amendments and when Democrats negotiated the army's withdrawal in 1877, Southern Democrats were soon enough able to reassert their own Black Laws, Jim Crow, segregation and KKK terrorist enforcement, thus effectively nullifying the Republican full-citizenship Amendments for the next 100 years. ![]()