The Republic Party is the ANTI-Slavery Party!

self | July 14, 2023 | self

[wintertime]

Part of the Republican platform should be:

Republicans are the ANTI-Slavery party!

Republicans have been ANTI-Slavery since its founding!

It should be posted on every billboard in America. It should be a major part of every political ad.

It free money just waiting to be picked up.

[DiogenesLamp]

In 1860, the Democratic party was the party of low taxes, states’ rights and limited, decentralized government. Lincoln imposed the first income tax, gutted the Bill of Rights, stripped the states of their sovereignty, and created the blueprint for ceaselessly enlarging government the demoncrats still use to this day.

Something else I recently learned is he created paper money. Before Lincoln, money was coins.

The paper money Lincoln used to finance his operations were called "greenbacks." The Wiki entry on "greenbacks" has a lot of interesting information.

How much more stable would our currency be if it wasn't paper?

[Sarcazmo]

“Stop spreading incorrect information.”

Ok.

“Are you with me so far?”

I think so.

“So do you deny any of what I have just told you?”

No.... no, I don’t think I do.

“Did they switch from Republican to Democrat?”

Yes, it appears so.

You can stop reading here
***************************************
Note to self: DL does not get sarcasm, no matter how ridiculous. Add disclaimer in the future for DL ad those in RL.

[Robert DeLong]

It was never ratified. Ohio & Maryland were the only two states who ratified it. It's designated intention was to stop the secession of southern states, and hopefully avoid the Civil War they could see building up steam.

Lincoln did not endorse the amendment. He didn't even mention it in his first inaugural address. Perhaps because he didn't want to speak about it in order to hide his true thoughts on the matter, thinking it was the best approach to take. Because one way would belie his desires & wishes, while the other way would surely ignite a Civil War.

What the party thought about slavery, most likely played second fiddle to what they knew would transpire if they outright rejected it. In other words, wanting & pulling the trigger are too separate actions, so pass the amendment & see where it goes, with perhaps the hope that it wouldn't be ratified, and would die on the vine.

But, I really have no way to speak authoritatively on the topic of course. Because there really isn't much written on the topic.

Thus I am reduced to mere speculation.

But they were passionately against slavery, so by the process of extrapolation, it is safe to assume that their true goal was to abolish slavery completely. Would they have been satisfied with just limiting future growth of slavery given their passionate objection to slavery? That's a question that requires another assumption. My assumption is that they would not have been satisfied. Your assumption may be the opposite.

Regardless, I stand by my contention that the Republican Party was started with the intention of abolishing slavery altogether, even though they may not have formulated a plan to do so, other than perhaps beating on the subject until it was accomplished. Am I right? I have no clue, but you can't depute it with certainty either.

It's a question for which there is no definitive answer. It can only be speculated upon now, since there is not enough written evidence to confirm or deny, at least that I am aware of. Perhaps I just want the reality to be one that which puts the best foot forward, because abolishing slavery was the correct thing to do. 🙂

England, who was responsible for bringing slaves into the colonies, had abolished slavery, so it was only right that our nation follow suit. Slavery has its disgrace in the nations from which they came her from, because blacks were just as active as whites were in the slave trade business. If they had not supplied the product, we would had no supply to purchase the product being offered, human beings.

They refuse to give us credit for doing so, and blame us for slavery, even though slavery is still practiced in other countries to this day and human trafficking is alive & well, to the dismay of anyone who posses decency.

Abolishing slavery, was not enough in the eyes of some, black & white. The road had to struggle to the pint of more inclusion. But even that is now looked upon with disdain, for now the Blacks want separate but inequal outcomes. Total success for them total destruction leading to the ultimate solution, death to all the white people. Though that outcome is not desired by all Blacks, just like slavery was not supported by all whites.

[jmacusa]

And as I asked you,didn’t the Southern slave owners profit from the trade?

[DiogenesLamp]

The world has become so crazy that sarcasm is indistinguishable from things people actually believe.

Yes, I have become sarcasm tone deaf.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was never ratified.

So if I fire a gun at you, it doesn't matter unless it hits you?

Lincoln did not endorse the amendment. He didn't even mention it in his first inaugural address.

You are mistaken on both counts.

"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 could go into the various ways that Lincoln pushed and coaxed to get this amendment passed, but that would make this longer than I want to spend on it.

What the party thought about slavery, most likely played second fiddle to what they knew would transpire if they outright rejected it. In other words, wanting & pulling the trigger are too separate actions, so pass the amendment & see where it goes, with perhaps the hope that it wouldn't be ratified, and would die on the vine.

It passed 5 Northern states. (not two as you have indicated. ) Add to that the 11 states of the Confederacy and the five Northern slave states, you are getting pretty close. William Seward, who was Lincoln's appointed Secretary of State, Promised he could get New York to pass it. (He was a former governor of New York and the US Senator from New York at the time.)

If they thought it would have worked to bring back the Southern states, they *WOULD* have passed it. The Civil War overtook it.

But they were passionately against slavery...

So they said. Voting for it says otherwise.

Regardless, I stand by my contention that the Republican Party was started with the intention of abolishing slavery altogether...

So they said, but voting for it says otherwise.

[DiogenesLamp]

And as I asked you,didn’t the Southern slave owners profit from the trade?

40%.

New York and Washington DC got 60%.

Yes, most of the money funding the Federal government came from slavery. *THIS* is why they wanted to keep the Southern states.

[Sarcazmo]

XD XD... I figured. Have a good weekend!

[DiogenesLamp]

And you too!

[x]

A funny thing about the "Free Soil Party." It was headquartered in New York City, New York.

As I have said over and over and over again, if you have any proof for that claim, you should produce it.

I notice that Wikipedia is now claiming that the party's "headquarters" were in Buffalo, New York, but Buffalo is definitely not New York City.

The Free Soilers were strong in Western New York. First, because it was a very reform-oriented region. Second, because most people in Western New York had come westward from New England or had relatives who had moved further west. Buffalo was a gateway to the Northwest and the fate of the territories was a major topic of conversation there, as it was further west. Third, because the New York Democratic Party was split and the Free Soilers felt that if they nominated Martin Van Buren they could carry the state.

The party's 1848 convention was held in Buffalo, and the 1852 convention was in Pittsburgh. I don't see any evidence that the party had its headquarters in New York City, though you keep on making that claim.

[Robert DeLong]

A president has no role in a constitutional amendment. All he is really saying with what you provided, is that if ratified, he will offer no objection, and will honor it, as it becomes part of the constitution. But he never endorsed it or spoke against it. He chose instead to remain silent. He even clarified that he was not diverting from his chosen silence, but was only now speaking on it merely to clarify what actions he will take if ratified, which he said would be nothing except accepting it.

That changes nothing with regards to what I said.

I still stand by my original statement. The issue of slavery is why they walked away from the Whig Party and formed a 3rd part, which they called the Republican Party. His hands were tied with regards to abolishing slavery. His only option left was to have it not ratified.

You have to remember that the Free Soil Party abandoned there party & joined the Republican party.

They just might have done so to water down the Republican Party. After all, they were willing to allow slavery in the states where it currently existed, in both northern & southern states.

So, were these Free Soil mergers the difference needed to provide the 2/3 majority needed to pass the amendment, and Republicans who were never a part of the Free Soil party, all voted no on the amendment? I contend that was a possibility. If that is the case, then the Republican Party being passionate supporters of abolishing slavery remains in tact, & negates your assertion. Now, I am not saying that is the case, just that it is a possibility.

I'm not sure I could do the research needed to make a qualified bonified determination. Research is not really a specialty of mine, & my declining eyesight hampers that endeavor also.

Was Fort Sumter used as a fulcrum to interrupt the ratification process? I contend that too has a high probability of being the case. But like the previous stated possibility, the same thing applies. But the timing couldn't have more fortuitus could it have been? Perhaps that was more of a divine intervention than a calculated/coordinated event.

BTW, I stand corrected. Besides Ohio & Maryland ratifying the amendment Illinois supposedly ratified it also. some dispute Illinois’ ratification vote. I do not know what the why may be either, with regard to the dispute.

Ohio was the first state to ratify the amendment, and Maryland and Illinois followed suit, but the onset of the Civil War interrupted the states’ ratification of the amendment.

SOURCE of the bold verbiage listed immediately above

If they thought it would have worked to bring back the Southern states, they *WOULD* have passed it.

They did pass it, so they must have thought it would work.

The Civil War overtook it.

Yep, that is why it was never ratified, but 22 possibly 3 states did ratify it.

I have no doubt that the southern & northern states where slavery still existed would have ratified the amendment, and it would have become law. I never said it wouldn't have, I merely stated it was never ratified.

So they said. Voting for it says otherwise.

No, that was just the quick conclusion you came to because you thought it proved your argument. I provided a perfectly plausible, possible counter that you can continue researching to see if you can find the counts of the Free Soil members who came to the Republican party, the ayes & nays vote count for the Corwin amendment to prove or disprove if any of the Republicans who voted aye were never members of the Free Soil party. Which of course would prove that not all members who originally formed the Republican Party were passionate supporters of abolishing slavery.

I certainly would be interested in learning the truth, regardless who the truth supports. Because the truth matters more to me. 🙂

Like you, I will stop here because I too chose to rest on my hypothesis that throws doubt on your conclusion. 😋

Because to me, this is really not that important. If you want to prove your conclusion, be my guest, but please provide your source material this time, instead of just a copy/paste of verbiage.

I took what you provided because I realized it did not validate anything you had said, but id did validate what I had said, that he remained quiet on the topic.

[DiogenesLamp]

I notice that Wikipedia is now claiming that the party's "headquarters" were in Buffalo, New York, but Buffalo is definitely not New York City.

Let me conceded the point about whether it was New York city or some other city in New York, but the larger point I am making still remains. Why is it located in New York instead of Kansas? Why is it any business of New York what transpires in lands over a thousand miles away?

Also, if you've been looking at it, did you see the racist motivation behind it? These were no friends of slaves, they simply wanted black people kept out of the territories.

When you look, you find out over and over again that the primary objection to slavery was an objection to having blacks in their racist white society at all!

This is something they never taught me in history class, and I very much doubt they taught anyone else this either.

[jeffersondem]

"I’m not sure even he (Lincoln) knew (how he would overthrow slavery), unless his intention was to provoke a Civil War. Some suggest the FDR did the same with Japan, knew that Peal Harbor was being planned & did nothing to stop it. All to change the mindset of Americans who predominately wanted to stay out of the conflict."

That explanation must be considered a possibility. Certainly the southern states in 1860, and earlier, thought the regional candidate Lincoln was dangerous and capable of most anything.

General Grant, in his Personal Memoirs Chapter 4, writes this jarring statement about how a skillful president can use his troops to provoke a war, and claim the other side started it.

“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, “Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.,” and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it. Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate “war, pestilence, and famine,” than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion.”

This entire quote was in one paragraph.

[Robert DeLong]

Interesting, thanks for that piece of historical knowledge. Much appreciated. 🙂

[DiogenesLamp]

A president has no role in a constitutional amendment.

This is correct, which makes you wonder why he went to so much trouble to insert himself into the process.

All he is really saying with what you provided, is that if ratified, he will offer no objection, and will honor it, as it becomes part of the constitution.

You are judging his actions based simply on that bit I quoted from his first inaugural. I am judging his actions based on all the other things he did regarding the Corwin Amendment. I have read credible articles suggesting *HE* wrote the original version of it. The article explained how it went from one of his water carriers to another, while he went to some efforts to keep his fingerprints off of it, but everyone in between was one of his stooges.

And then he personally wrote letters to the governors of all the seceded states informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment through congress, even though as you say, the president has no official role in the passage of Constitutional amendments.

Why would he do that?

One can only conclude he did that because he thought it would help pass the amendment.

They just might have done so to water down the Republican Party. After all, they were willing to allow slavery in the states where it currently existed, in both northern & southern states.

And the point I was getting at, which I may not have clearly conveyed to you is that they were fine leaving slavery where it was, because the slave state's representatives in Congress were a minority and could be routinely outvoted by the Northern coalition of states.

But allowing any territories to become states that would align themselves with the Southern coalition of states, would allow the Southern coalition to reach the point where they could block legislation, or pass legislation favorable to themselves. (As the Northern coalition was already doing.)

At stake was control of congress, and the vast amount of money that could be gained or lost through that control.

A few years ago I have come to suspect that the issue wasn't really slaves in the territory, the issue was loss of control of congress, with "slaves in the territory" as just a means of opposing states coming into the Union that would side with the Southern states on legislative issues.

In other words, it was being done to keep the money, by keeping the status quo for the people controlling the government at that time.

So, were these Free Soil mergers the difference needed to provide the 2/3 majority needed to pass the amendment, and Republicans who were never a part of the Free Soil party, all voted no on the amendment? I contend that was a possibility. If that is the case, then the Republican Party being passionate supporters of abolishing slavery remains in tact, & negates your assertion. Now, I am not saying that is the case, just that it is a possibility.

Well I can name two Republicans that certainly voted for it. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, for whom the amendment was named, and William Seward of New York. (And Lincoln's appointed Secretary of State)

I suppose we could get a roll call of all who voted for it. I'm sure all the Democrats did, but the Congress at the time was controlled by Republicans, and enough of them would have to cross over to make it happen.

Was Fort Sumter used as a fulcrum to interrupt the ratification process? I contend that too has a high probability of being the case.

Then why write to all the seceded state governors regarding the passage of the Corwin Amendment?

Lincoln initiated the fleet of warships going to Charleston in March of 1861. He interestingly sent them after congress had adjourned and therefore any attempts to stop him by congress were unlikely.

They did pass it, so they must have thought it would work.

Yes, I know they passed it through CONGRESS, but they would have passed it through the states as well if they had thought it would work.

The seceded states convinced them it was futile, though I believe one of the Northern states ratified it *AFTER* the war had already started.

No, that was just the quick conclusion you came to because you thought it proved your argument.

Republican congressmen voting *FOR* a pro-slavery amendment would seemingly prove my argument. I am at a loss as to how you can see this action as anti-slavery.

I certainly would be interested in learning the truth, regardless who the truth supports. Because the truth matters more to me. 🙂

And this is the mindset everyone should have. We should not believe things simply because this is what we wish to believe, we should believe things because the evidence demonstrates them to be the truth.

I took what you provided because I realized it did not validate anything you had said, but id did validate what I had said, that he remained quiet on the topic.

I will see if I can find some of the articles I have read regarding Lincolns behind the scenes involvement in creating and attempting to pass the Corwin Amendment.

[Robert DeLong]

None of that is conclusive. By all outward appearances it could be used to form the conclusion you and the person you linked to.

But if Lincoln had determined that he would start a Civil War, wouldn't you also consider that Lincoln to be a smart enough man to know that he would need to provide some cover for the actions I'm theorizing he may have been planning?

But since even I do not want to think of Lincoln being capable of such actions.

So, for that I will concede this debate. I would rather think of Lincoln in a positive way. But I still stand by my original statement.

Because not withstanding the evidence you presented, the timing of events still remains a huge issue that neither of us can explain away. Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that the slaves states having a solution at hand, would risk it by trying to maintain control of Fort Sumter by firing upon troops without first requesting an explanation as to why they would need to surrender control.

There still remains issues unanswered. My winning or losing this debate/discussion is unimportant. I still hate both political parties now, because neither of them stands wit this nation or her citizens.

[x]

You paint with a very broad brush. People who really hated African-Americans were often fine with slavery in the territories and elsewhere. People who opposed slavery in the territories often did so because they had moral objection to slavery.

The Free Soilers did best in Vermont and Massachusetts. If their voters really didn’t like Black people, and that was their primary motivation, all they had to do was to support slavery in the South and turn back runaways, but they didn’t do that.

You damn them for any reason and for no reason. If they were far from the frontier, that’s bad. If they were close to the frontier, that’s bad. My teachers told me that racism was a big factor behind the Free Soil movement, but I’ve come to see that they were exaggerating. It’s part of the “racist America” narrative that you’ve bought into.

[DiogenesLamp]

People who really hated African-Americans were often fine with slavery in the territories and elsewhere.

I think this is a conclusion without sufficient supporting evidence to make it. From what I have read, people who really hated black people absolutely did not want them in the territories or even in their own states.

People who opposed slavery in the territories often did so because they had moral objection to slavery.

Some did, but from everything I read, this portion of the population was a teeny tiny minority, not unlike the "gay rights" people of today. Most people didn't want slavery in the territories because they wanted to keep them strictly white.

If their voters really didn’t like Black people, and that was their primary motivation, all they had to do was to support slavery in the South and turn back runaways, but they didn’t do that.

Years ago I watched Errol Flinn as "Robin Hood", and in the movie he picks a fight with the Sheriff of Nottingham over a peasant hunting on the King's land.

I got the impression that he wasn't so much concerned about the welfare of the peasant as he was with using him as an excuse to pick a fight with the Sheriff.

I now wonder how much of helping runaways had to do with "sticking it to the man" rather than helping them for moral reasons. As has been noted, the underground railroad ran all the way to Canada, rather than to just the Northern "free", states.

You damn them for any reason and for no reason.

I try to see things realistically. I have become aware that I have been lied to all my life about what happened and why. I've been led to believe this was all a moral fight, and then you find out how much Northern whites hated black people and didn't care about them at all.

So yes, i've become quite cynical about what they have tried to make me believe all these years, and I no longer give that side the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are telling me the truth.

I keep seeing evidence that contradicts the official narrative, and this evidence dovetails quite nicely with the money and power motive that I think is inherent in human nature.

In other word, it makes more sense than the official narrative. People simply aren't motivated by the milk of human kindness so much as they are by greed and power.

If they were far from the frontier, that’s bad.

Well yeah. What people do in other lands should be up to the people in the other lands, not meddlesome troublemakers from elsewhere.

If they were close to the frontier, that’s bad.

I'm not sure where you got that from anything i've written. It is the people who occupy the ground who should have a say as to how their society should operate.

My teachers told me that racism was a big factor behind the Free Soil movement, but I’ve come to see that they were exaggerating.

Well here you and I different. I have *NEVER* heard that racism was a big factor in opposition to slavery in the territories. I have always heard it was simply moral opposition to slavery.

It’s part of the “racist America” narrative that you’ve bought into.

If you don't believe both North and South were very racist in the 1860s, then you are not being realistic. Of course they were racist, and unapologetically so.

That being said, many overcame it and went on to see black people as worthy of incorporation into society.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, for that I will concede this debate. I would rather think of Lincoln in a positive way.

We have all been taught to believe this, and this is why it is unpleasant to consider him differently.

Because not withstanding the evidence you presented, the timing of events still remains a huge issue that neither of us can explain away.

The more you look into it, the more Lincoln's motivation for Fort Sumter looks like a carefully contrived plan to make it appear that the South started it, while downplaying his own roll in orchestrating it.

I read a New York times article from shortly after the attack on fort Sumter in which they praise Lincoln for cleverly using a ruse to get the Confederates to fire first. Even the New York times said it was Lincoln's manipulation that caused it to happen.

Let me relate to you my understanding of what happened.

Lincoln orders 5 warships to go to Fort Sumter, and the written orders for the ships say to use their entire force against the confederates if they are resisted.

The Orders designate Captain Mercer of the Powhatan as the officer who will command the force. Lincoln then issues secret orders to Lt. Porter to take over command of the Powhatan and sail it to Pensacola instead of to Fort Sumter, but he orders him to do this in absolute secrecy.

Meanwhile the other warships and the troop carrier "Baltic" have no knowledge that the command ship will never arrive.

They have assembled off the coast of Charleston to engage in a belligerent action against the Confederates, (according to all official orders) and they were waiting for Captain Mercer to arrive and take control of the engagement.

The Confederates absolutely believed these ships were going to attack them because their written orders said they would. None of them knew that Captain Mercer had been secretly relieved of command and the flotilla of warships were effectively paralyzed.

When the ships arrived, this confirmed the orders they had gotten as to the intent of those ships. Therefore they needed to neutralize the fort before they were placed into a position of being attacked from both the Sea and the Fortress at the same time.

Lincoln later said he had simply lost track of who was commanding what ship and what their mission was, and it was all just a mistake that he sent the command ship to Florida instead of Charleston.

Well as I said, the New York times didn't think it was a "mistake", they thought it was a cleverly orchestrated plan to get the South to attack Sumter so that Lincoln would have an excuse to raise an army to invade them.

But yes, we don't want to look at Lincoln as being a cynical manipulator that deliberately triggered a war which would kill 750,000 people.

That is not how we have been taught to view him, and it is unpleasant to consider it.

[Robert DeLong]

I think that says something about the possibility of him being passionate about abolishing slavery, wouldn't you agree? Did that passion run through all the Whig members who walked away to form a 3rd party Republican Party? I think we would have to find documents that identify the founding members & numbers, along with the rollcall vote on the Corwin Amendment, to come to a more definite assessment.

But yeah I agree, it certainly is quite possible that it was a setup, and it's why I refuse to stand down from my original statement,, even though I can't prove it. It's also why I personally do not want to prove it.