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]

I think that says something about the possibility of him being passionate about abolishing slavery, wouldn't you agree?

Him starting a war is about abolishing slavery? I have another explanation, and i'm pretty sure you won't like it.

The Southern states produced 72% of the money to finance the Federal government. Lincoln was quite concerned about the loss of money that would result from the Southern states leaving.

I believe his exact words were "What shall I do for a revenue?"

[Robert DeLong]

"What shall I do for a revenue?" Abraham Lincoln

Unable to find reference to that quote, if yo have it please provide.

[DiogenesLamp]

Unable to find reference to that quote, if yo have it please provide.

Here is one place I found a similar statement. It isn't the one I remember seeing before, but perhaps it will do.

Testimony of Col. John B. Baldwin

" 'He [Lincoln] said something about the withdrawal of the troops from Sumter on the ground of military necessity. Said I, "that will never do under heaven. You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."-"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?"-Said he, "Fifty or sixty millions." "Why sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest." He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, "You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right. Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from them the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter. If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter-I do not care on which side it is fired-the thing is gone." "Oh," said he, "sir, that is impossible."'"

Perhaps others, who likely do a better job than I do keeping up with where certain quotes are, can find a better source.

[x]

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.

If you lived in Maine or Vermont, you probably didn't expect African-Americans to move en masse to your state or community. You might have one or two black families in town and wouldn't object to them. You might have read or seen the play of Uncle Tom's Cabin and been appalled by slavery. It was an issue to you. You might even help runaways, and while Canada would be secure destination for them, some would stay in your state and find employment. If you lived in Wisconsin or Michigan the situation would be similar.

If you lived in Ohio or Illinois, by contrast, you might be more concerned about African-Americans crossing the river and moving in next door. You might vote for a party that wanted to keep slavery out of the territories, but you might also vote for a party that wanted to keep slavery in place where it was and protect it and demand that runaway slaves be returned to their masters. That was another way of keeping Blacks out.

Most people were racist by today's standards, but you are making pathological Negrophobia something more common than it was, and ignoring the fact that many of the most racist people had no problem at all with owning slaves.

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.

Then you, or your teachers, must be very, very old. Since the 1970s, it's been the fashion to put down Civil War era Northerners as racist above all else. Those of us who went through that have come to see things in a more balanced way.

>>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.

You say that opponents of slavery expansion were "meddlesome troublemakers" (as well as racists) if they live far away and racists if they live near-by. You attack both groups, though you deny it now. You don't allow for people having moral objections to slavery expansion. You vilify them for having political objections. And you paint those who objected on other grounds as worse than those who wanted to bring slaves and slavery into the territories. If virtually everyone was racist why make those who objected to slavery out to be more racist than those who were comfortable with slavery, loved it, and saw it as the wave of the future?

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.

I never denied that virtually everybody back then was "racist" by modern standards. But nonetheless, many people did object to slavery on moral grounds. The "racist America" narrative that you present denies this. It denies that people who didn't meet today's moral standards could still have had moral convictions that were outraged by slavery.

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

That contradicts what you've been saying for years. Most of the people alive at the time assumed that Blacks and Whites would remain separate and thought all their lives. Some wanted segregation enforced by law. Others just figured that Blacks and Whites had their own lives to live, as Protestants and Catholics or members of different denominations did. You paint Northerners as pathologically anti-Black and ignore the fact that many Northerners even before the Civil War had no problem at all with having a few Black neighbors.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then you, or your teachers, must be very, very old. Since the 1970s, it's been the fashion to put down Civil War era Northerners as racist above all else. Those of us who went through that have come to see things in a more balanced way.

I have never heard of it until recently when it has seemingly become the current big thing for the "Woke" people to bitch about.

You say that opponents of slavery expansion were "meddlesome troublemakers" (as well as racists) if they live far away and racists if they live near-by.

You are adding too many words to what I said. I say people that live in an area have a right to decide what sort of society they want, and people who do not live in an area should mind their own business.

Years ago when I was a conservative activist, I went all across my state for political fights with the other side. I drew the line at the border. I felt that the people in adjacent states should right their own ship, and just as I would regard people coming into my state as an outside interloper, so too would I be regarded as such if I meddled in their affairs.

Now this attitude does not extend to my offering people advice for their states over the internet, but I don't think it's right for me to physically go there and mess around in their elections.

Now if I moved there with the intention to remain, that would be different, because then it would be *MY* state.

You attack both groups, though you deny it now. You don't allow for people having moral objections to slavery expansion.

Slavery was *NOT* going to expand. Fake issue. And in the context of expansion, I don't think their objections were "moral" in the meaning of concern for the well being of slaves.

And you paint those who objected on other grounds as worse than those who wanted to bring slaves and slavery into the territories.

They were motivated by hatred, not love. Is there a worse motive?

I never denied that virtually everybody back then was "racist" by modern standards. But nonetheless, many people did object to slavery on moral grounds.

And the evidence demonstrates this group of people to be a teeny tiny minority who were widely regarded as "kooks" at the time. I don't think I could put it better than Charles Dickens did.

"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale."

Looking for that quote I ran across this one which I thought was interesting:

"“I’ve heard you have abolitionists here, we have a few in Illinois and we shot one the other day.” Abraham Lincoln, 9/1848.

Is it true? I don't know, but it's pretty funny.

That contradicts what you've been saying for years.

It may contradict what you thought I said, but not from my perspective it didn't.

You paint Northerners as pathologically anti-Black and ignore the fact that many Northerners even before the Civil War had no problem at all with having a few Black neighbors.

They passed awful anti-black laws. You have to have a majority to do that. Also if you look for quotes from prominent Northern men of the time, you can find plenty that show how racist they were.

[wardaddy]

So

160 years ago who cares now

It’s the uniparty

They frequently work against us and are feckless

Which in my view makes them worse than the Dems honestly

Of course for those whom slavery and race are the crucible of culture I guess it matters

[woodpusher]

John B. Baldwin, testimony given in Washington, D.C. on 10 February 1866; in Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1866), pp. 101-104.

Col. John B. Baldwin's Sworn Testimony

Regarding His Interview With Abraham Lincoln on 4 April 1861

Excerpted from pp. 101-104.

Washington, D.C., February 10, 1866

John B. Baldwin sworn and examined by Mr. Howard:

* * *

Question. Did you make a journey to Washington before the firing on Fort Sumter?
Answer. I did. I came here on the night of the 3d of April, 1861; I was here on the 4th day of April, 1861.
Question. Did you have an interview with President Lincoln?
Answer. I did have a private interview with him, lasting perhaps an hour.
Question. Do you feel at liberty to state what transpired at that interview?
Answer. I do sir; I know of no reason why I should not.
Question. Have the goodness to state it.

* * *

Said I, “Sir, I beg your pardon, for I only know of you as a politician, a successful politician; and possibly I have fallen into the error of addressing you by the motives which are generally potent with politicians, the motive of gaining friends. I thank you that you have recalled to me the higher and better motive of being right; and I assure you that, from now on, I will address you only by the motives that ought to influence a gentleman.”
Question. You drew a distinction between a politician and a gentleman?
Answer. Yes, sir; he laughed a little at that. He said something about the withdrawal of the troops from Sumter on the ground of military necessity.
Said I, “That will never do, under heaven. You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace.”
“Well,” said he, “what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?”
Said I, “Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?”
Said he, “Fifty or sixty millions.”
“Why, sir,” said I, “four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest.”
He said something or other about feeding the troops at Sumter. I told him that would not do. Said I, “You know perfectly well that the people of Charleston have been feeding them already. That is not what they are at. They are asserting a right. They will feed the troops, and fight them while they are feeding them. They are after the assertion of a right. Now, the only way that you can manage them is to withdraw from the means of making a blow until time for reflection, time for influence which can be brought to bear, can be gained, and settle the matter. If you do not take this course, if there is a gun fired at Sumter — I do not care on which side it is fired — the thing is gone.”
“Oh,” said he, “sir, that is impossible.”
Said I, “Sir, if there is a gun fired at Fort Sumter, as sure as there is a God in heaven the thing is gone. Virginia herself, strong as the Union majority in the convention is now, will be out in forty-eight hours.”
“Oh,” said he, “sir, that is impossible.”
Said I, “Mr. President, I did not come here to argue with you; I am here as a witness. I know the sentiments of the people of Virginia, and you do not. I understand that I was to come here to give you information of the sentiments of the people, and especially of the sentiments of the Union men of the convention. I wish to know before we go any further in this matter, for it is of too grave importance to have any doubt of it, whether I am accredited to you in such a way as that what I tell you is worthy of credence.”

- - - - -

SUPPORTING SOURCES:

[ONE]

The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy. The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average,-a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured. No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied, "Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?"

Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between The States, Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co., 1869, p. 59.

[TWO]

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.

[THREE]

Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.

"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"

"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!"

Robert Reid Howison, History of the War, excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.

[FOUR]

"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?" "Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."

Evert A. Duyckinck, National History of the War For the Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861, Vol. I, p. 173.

[FIVE]

In 1861, if the erring sisters had been allowed to go in peace, was not the disturbing question of the hour: Whence is to come national revenue? Had not this very consideration much to do with the policy of coercion?

"Thus," said Mr. Lincoln, "if we allow the Southern States to depart from the Union, where shall we get the money with which to carry on the Government?"

James Battle Avirett, The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great House and Cabin Before the War, New York: F. Tennyson Neely Co., 1901, p. 18.

[SIX]

It seems obvious that Lincoln's concern over secession, "What then will become of my tariff?" was a serious matter.

When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams, 2000, p. 27.

Footnoted to: Robert L. Dabny, Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, in Secular (1897; reprint, Harrisburg, VA.: Sprinkle, 1994), 94, 100.

[SEVEN]

The meeting was reported in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.

[EIGHT]

The quote from Lincoln re: Revenues (meeting with Dr. Fuller) is also substantiated by Benson Lossing, in his "Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War: Journeys Through the Battlefields in the Wake of Conflict", Johns Hopkins Univ Press (Reprint edition), 1997, Vol. 1, p. 420 (reprinted 1997)

Still another embassy, in the interest of the secessionists of Baltimore, waited upon the President. These were delegates from five of the Young Men's Christian Associations of that city, with the Rev. Dr. fuller, of the Baptist Church, at their head. The President received them cordially, and treated them kindly. He met their propositions and their sophisms with Socratic reasoning. When Dr. Fuller assued him that he could produce peace if he would let the country know that he was "disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States -- recognize the fact they they have formed a government of their own; and that they will never again be united with the North," the President asked, significantly, "and what is to become of the revenue?"

[wardaddy]

Facts don’t matter when they are on a roll

[wardaddy]

Why do you automatically associate that pro slavery people hated their slaves X?

[x]

I don’t. I’m saying first, don’t assume that people who opposed slavery expansion all hated Black people, and second, that many people who hated Blacks had no trouble voting for proslavery Democrats.

[x]

Again, you contradict yourself, saying that people have every reason to run their state or territory as they see fit and saying that hate is their motivation if they don’t want to compete with slaves and slaveowners. You don’t see your own contradictions because if you did, you’d have to rethink your beliefs.

“The North” and “the South” were big places. It won’t do to generalize in crude ways. Plenty of free Blacks lived in the free states without problems. Conditions weren’t ideal, but if slavery was the alternative they were acceptable.

I don’t know if that supposed Lincoln quote is true. Do you have a source?

I’d trust Charles Dickens on American affairs about as much as I’d trust Katty Kay.

[Pelham]

“He was murdered by an angry demotard.”

The only political party that John Wilkes Booth is known to have associated with is the Know Nothing party.

And that eventually merged into the Republican Party.

[wardaddy]

One’s stance of hatred for blacks is a poor indicator voting wise

Paternalism was not hatred btw before u go there

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Why do you automatically associate that pro slavery people hated their slaves X?"

I think this question is key to understanding DiogenesLamp's arguments and accusations about alleged Northern racists.

In the minds of our pro-Confederates, whether 170 years ago or today, to own a slave is to love that slave, just as we love our children (or something expensive) and will do anything to protect them.

But a freed-slave is no longer owned and therefore no longer loved, so must be hated, especially by people who hate slavery, and so Northern freedmen were not just tolerated or accepted by Northern whites, but necessarily must be rejected, all by definition of "slavery = love".

It's almost as if, in the minds of pro-Confederates, in 1860 the ~150,000 freed blacks living peacefully, prosperously & lawfully in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio were all "hated" because, "dontcha know", nobody "loved" them enough to make them slaves!

It's a somewhat equivalent feeling to disdain people used to express for an "old maid" that "nobody wanted" -- a similar "hatred" for Northern freed African Americans is being claimed.

Another analogy: often in 1860 and even sometimes today, people draw a distinction between the "love" of a slaveholder for his slaves compared to the "hatred" of a Northern factory owner for his "free-labor" industrial workers.
If a Northern worker gets paid more, it's still "hatred" because he gets laid off whenever he's not needed.
If a Northern worker is free to quit and find a better job, it's still "hatred" because nobody takes care of him when there's no work to be found.

So, slavery = "love" and freedom = "hatred" in the minds of our pro-Confederates.

That, I think, is where DiogenesLamp's criticisms are coming from.

[BroJoeK]

x: "I’d trust Charles Dickens on American affairs about as much as I’d trust Katty Kay."

Dickens was anti-slavery, but did admire the Southern aristocracy.

And Dickens hated Northerners in general because some had printed and sold his books without ever paying him royalties for them.
So he was unwilling to ascribe noble motives to people he loathed so thoroughly.

After the Civil War, in 1867 Dickens made a second visit to American and this time was treated vastly better than the first time and earned much more money here:

[In 1867]"During his travels, he saw a change in the people and the circumstances of America.
His final appearance was at a banquet the American Press held in his honour at Delmonico's on 18 April, when he promised never to denounce America again."

When Dickens left New York the second time he was already ill and in 1869 suffered a stroke, dying in 1870, age 58.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, you contradict yourself, saying that people have every reason to run their state or territory as they see fit and saying that hate is their motivation if they don’t want to compete with slaves and slaveowners.

I'm not understanding you. If the people of a state, let's say "Kansas", do not want slavery, and they *LIVE* in Kansas, then that should be their choice. I don't see where their reasons matter much, if that's what they want, then that's what they should get.

"Consent of the Governed" is a thing in my mind.

You don’t see your own contradictions because if you did, you’d have to rethink your beliefs.

I don't see my own contradictions because they don't look like contradictions to me. *YOU* see them, but as of yet you haven't done a very good job explaining them in such a way that *I* can see them.

I don’t know if that supposed Lincoln quote is true. Do you have a source?

Some place on the internet which claims Lincoln said it. It may be fake, but it's still pretty funny.

I’d trust Charles Dickens on American affairs about as much as I’d trust Katty Kay.

Well the odd thing is that Charles Dickens was very much an abolitionists, but he spent months touring the United States, including the South. Considering his own political beliefs, he should be pretty objective in his opinion on the matter.

Speaking against your own interest is usually considered credible in the legal system.

[DiogenesLamp]

You know I no longer take you seriously. You’ve gone to the well of “crazy” too many times now.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "The only political party that John Wilkes Booth is known to have associated with is the Know Nothing party.
And that eventually merged into the Republican Party."

Nice try!

Booth was a Marylander.
In 1860, 91% of Marylanders voted for either Southern Democrat Breckenridge or Constitutional Unionist, John Bell.
The Constitutional Unionists were former Whigs and American (Know Nothings), but eventually split with as many becoming Democrats as Republicans.

Booth himself was accidently seriously wounded in October 1860, and so may have missed voting, but by early 1861 he was strongly pro-secession.
His sympathies were not with a Constitutional Union platform.

Fair to say, by early 1861 Booth was an ardent Democrat, fervent secessionist, passionate pro-Confederate who hated Republicans generally, for abolitionism, and by 1865 was enraged at Lincoln specifically for Lincoln's plans to make African-Americans equal citizens of the United States.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: "You know I no longer take you seriously.
You’ve gone to the well of “crazy” too many times now."

So you claim, but the truth is you are simply incapable of dealing with facts that contradict your own peculiar narratives.

[central_va]

GOP is a dead man walking.