The Republic Party is the ANTI-Slavery Party!

Well I grew up in late stages of segregation and when actual not imagined racism existed in the thick of it

Only hatred towards blacks came from the most ardent ignorant klansmen of which I only saw them on tv not knowing any and that hatred was directed mostly at the leadership radical or not elements

We were raised to view them sort of paternalistic noblise oblige

Of course with a large contracting family we hired 100s and I was raised somewhat by them with house help hunting and cooking etc

The N word was frowned upon of course everyone including blacks said negro

White working class feared their usurpation of work which is ironic now with open borders and of course what was called miscegenation then

Professional class whites feared their potential political power especially in black majority areas

That’s all I have to go on I wasn’t around in slavery days

Believe what you need to be comfortable here bro

I like one of Shelby Footes relies when being interviewed by a black kid about his relationship with Faulkner and Faulkners then conciliatory views on race

Faulkner said he feared the good aspects of the black race would be eclipsed by the negatives fully exploited …this comment was post FDR starting to snatch them from the GOPe former lock

“Nice try!
“Booth was a Marylander.
In 1860, 91% of Marylanders voted for either Southern Democrat Breckenridge or Constitutional Unionist, John Bell.”

Lol. Did you never take a class in logic? That “guilt by association” mess sure indicates that you didn’t.

The “nice try” is yours, which isn’t something new.

https://www.visitmaryland.org/article/who-was-john-wilkes-booth

“Sadly for the nation, Booth could not keep his stage persona separate from the rest of his life. Perhaps driven by boredom between performances, Booth joined the Know-Nothings, a staunchly anti-Catholic political party, vehemently opposed to immigration. The Know-Nothings were prone to violence, rioting, burning churches, and even tarred and feathered a Catholic priest. With the outbreak of the Civil War, Booth’s loyalties lay firmly with the South, and he is believed to have operated as an agent of the Confederate Secret Service.”

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/john-wilkes-booth

“Booth had a very active role in politics during the years before and during the Civil War. During his teen years he was active with the Know Nothings, an anti-immigrant political party. He was pro-slavery and detested abolitionists.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/posts-make-unfounded-claims-about-political-affiliation-of-john-wilkes-booth/

“John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Republican President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, was affiliated with the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party and was a supporter of slavery and the Confederacy. Social media posts claim without evidence that Booth was a Democrat.”

““To my knowledge, there are no surviving statements in which John Wilkes Booth declares he is a Democrat, but merely saying so oversimplifies his politics,” Christian McWhirter, the Lincoln historian at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, told us in an email.

“He certainly was not a Republican and his politics during the Civil War were almost entirely motivated by his belief in white supremacy and intense hatred of Abraham Lincoln. Booth viewed Lincoln and the Republicans as responsible for the Civil War because he considered them a ‘radical’ abolitionist party who forced the slaveholding states to secede to protect the institution of slavery,” McWhirter said.

“Booth’s political affiliations before the Civil War are a little murkier but he appears to have been a ‘Know-Nothing’ in the 1850s,” McWhirter continued. “This was a third party movement — known officially as the American Party — that for a time competed with the Republicans as the major second party replacing the collapsed Whig Party. The core of the Know-Nothing platform was opposition to immigration from various non-Anglo-Saxon groups, such as the Irish and Germans, along with Catholics.”

You certainly believe that states had a right to allow (and impose) slavery, but when citizens of a territory try to forbid slavery, you say that they are motivated by hate. You also ignore the fact that people from Missouri and other slave states were doing what they could to bring slavery into Kansas.

As for Dickens, his hatred of the upstart Yankees exceeded any qualms he had about slavery.

You certainly believe that states had a right to allow (and impose) slavery, but when citizens of a territory try to forbid slavery, you say that they are motivated by hate.

I disagree that anyone should allow slavery, slavery is theft in my opinion, but under the laws existing at that time, they had a right to do it if they wanted to do it.

As for people trying to forbid slavery being motivated by hate, that is what the evidence indicates. Their prime motivation was to oppose black people, and that appears to be what was driving *MOST* people's opposition to slavery.

You also ignore the fact that people from Missouri and other slave states were doing what they could to bring slavery into Kansas.

I don't ignore that fact, I am well aware of it. Unless they were planning to MOVE to Kansas and live there, they should have stayed the h3ll out of it.

But I suspect their motivation was not so much a belief that Kansas needed slavery, but that *THEY* needed allies in the congress and that was one way to get them.

As i've said, people are always motivated by their own self interest. So too with those people trying to push slavery into Kansas, despite the state being ill suited for it, even if you accept it as a valid practice.

As for Dickens, his hatred of the upstart Yankees exceeded any qualms he had about slavery.

I think BroJoeK posted something earlier about Dickens being motivated by a hatred for Yankees, and perhaps there is a grain of truth in it, but I think this argument is just an effort to dismiss what Dickens said.

As with accusations about Ward Hill Lamone making up his explosive claims, I think this is just a case of someone wanting to believe they are false, because they have so much time investing in believing the official narrative, and therefore these claims must be false.

FactCheck plays up the Know Nothing connection, perhaps to paint Booth as an anti-immigration activist, but so far as I can see, all he did was attend a rally when he was 16. Booth was furious about Lincoln’s reelection in 1864. If he voted, most likely it would have been for McClellan.

FWIW, an ancestor of Gary Peters, the current little-known Democrat senator from Michigan, gave Booth shelter when he was on the run after the assassination. The family claimed they didn’t know what Booth had done, but most likely they did.

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

People think that about you, Diogenes, yet we still argue with you. You have to deal with the fact that indifference, a live and let live attitude, or an unwillingness to complete with slave labor and slaveowners doesn't amount to hatred.

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

Found this:

"Speaking at Worcester, Massachusetts, in September 1848, Abraham Lincoln made an impromptu reference to the slain abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy that shocked some people in the audience: "I have heard you have abolitionists here. We have a few in Illinois and we shot one the other day." Forced into Glory: by Lerone Bennett "

Thanks you both for bringing forth what you have.

While it is interesting, it still boils down to a narrative that was offered with no way of confirming what was presented, at least as far as I can see. I may be wrong but let's review what is known.

This was a private meeting between the President & the one providing his recollection from 5 years earlier. The man is a Virginian, who may or may not have harbored biased feeling against President Lincoln. They had an Amendment that would have codified slavery. Why did the Virginia Convention not not take up that issue, rather than the cession issue?

Lincoln of course was dead already by the assassin's, John Wilkes Booth, bullet, meaning he had no way to counter the claims.

Now, I am not denying the evidence brought forth, but neither can I confirm the veracity of the evidence either.

A lot of the confirming evidence provided by woodpusher all seem to have their root in Col. John B. Baldwin's Sworn Testimony, which makes sense, but does that equate to making his statement true? Not in my book.

So, we are stuck in the same quandary. What is to be believed? The only thing we can do is believe what we want to believe. We all know that belief may or may not be the reality.

Do you agree with what I have said, and that there is no way any of this can be confirmed or refuted with certainty?

Do you agree with what I have said, and that there is no way any of this can be confirmed or refuted with certainty?

Well there is circumstantial evidence. 72% of Federal revenue came from the Southern states.

I find it hard to believe that a President, presiding over a nation that is close to bankruptcy, (only having 200 thousand in cash reserves at the time) would not be greatly concerned about revenue, especially when 72% of his revenue is walking out the door.

I do recall seeing other quotes and statements to the effect that Lincoln was highly concerned about revenue, which makes perfect sense if you put yourself into his situation.

Why wouldn't Lincoln be concerned about revenue? It was one of his biggest problems during the war, and it resulted in his Secretary of Treasury issuing the first paper money ever used in this nation's history.

"Greenbacks."

People think that about you, Diogenes, yet we still argue with you.

I don't think that is true. People *SAY* i'm spouting crazy talk, but this is only because I am saying things they don't want to hear, not because the things i'm saying are crazy.

You have to deal with the fact that indifference, a live and let live attitude, or an unwillingness to complete with slave labor and slaveowners doesn't amount to hatred.

I do not dispute that an unwillingness to compete with slave labor was a powerful motivating factor regarding why whites didn't want slavery, and if an effort is made to chose between which issue they hated more, the presence of blacks or free labor undercutting their wages, I would be hard pressed to say which was the more dominant issue for them.

But I can say with a great deal of confidence that their opposition to slavery did not emanate from a concern about the welfare of black people.

For a small minority of abolitionists it did, but most people were not concerned about that at all.

A third issue was a resentment and or envy of wealthy slave owners and their wealth and arrogance, but I don't see this aspect as being more dominant than the other two.

The least reason people opposed slavery was because of concern for the slaves.

72% of Federal revenue came from the Southern states.

I tried to verify that claim was unable to do so.

Perhaps you can provide what I was unable to?

Why wouldn't Lincoln be concerned about revenue? It was one of his biggest problems during the war, and it resulted in his Secretary of Treasury issuing the first paper money ever used in this nation's history.

Yes, revenue was absolutely, & undeniably an issue, and was resolved by the Greenback fiat currency. But the confederates also introduced their fiat currency as well, before the Civil War had started. It was not backed by hard assets, but simply by a promise to pay the bearer after the war, on the prospect of Southern victory and independence.

So, revenue was an issue for both sides, not just the Union side.

So, it would be easy to promote the narrative, true of false, that Lincoln was concerned about the revenue, wouldn't it?

In fact, the solution negated that fear for both sides. So, if Lincoln did raise the revenue issue, could it have not been to make Col. John B. Baldwin think about the same issue in respect that the southern states also faced revenue issues that impacted citizens of both sides?

So, is the topic all based in one direction incorrectly, or purposely, because the desired result was to paint that it was an issue for the Union only?

This was a private meeting between the President & the one providing his recollection from 5 years earlier. The man is a Virginian, who may or may not have harbored biased feeling against President Lincoln.

I had taken the question to be whether there was firm evidence that the statement of Baldwin had been made in the words stated, so I provided the official sworn statement from an official source.

As the referenced meeting between Lincoln and Baldwin was one on one, it is impossible to find any source who was in the room other than Baldwin.

Regarding the dispute over what was said by Lincoln to Baldwin, more information is available, especially in the pamphlet linked below.

Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction

I was working with my old and somewhat decrepit hardcopy but now find an online link:

https://archive.org/details/reportjointcomm00conggoog

In Part II. (Note: each part starts at page 1)

pg. 69 - Sworn statement of John Lewis
pg. 102 - Sworn Statement of John B. Baldwin
pg.114 - Sworn Statement of John Minor Botts

This provides official source for sworn statements.

- - - - -

Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th, 1861; Statements and Evidence (Pamphlet 1866)

I was working with my old and somewhat decrepit hardcopy but now find an online link:

https://archive.org/details/interviewbetween00bald

Col. Baldwin's Statement
Testimony of Johhn F. Lewis of February 7th, 1866
Testimony of John B. Baldwin, February 10th, 1866
Testimony of John M. Botts of February 15th, 1866
Letter of Judge Thomas of June 2, 1866
Letter of Hon. Geo. W. Summers, May 12, 1866
Letter of John Janney, May 25, 1866
Letter of Hon A.H.H. Stuart of May 29, 1866
Letter of Ex Lieut. Gov. Samuel Price of May 29, 1866
Letter of Robert Whitehead, Esq., of May 1, 1866

This provides best source for testimony and letters of various releant individuals.

- - - - -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1934368105/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A1HP2VRR9JDBLP&psc=1

John H. Hildebrand, The Life and Times of John B. Baldwin 1820-1873; A Chronicle of Virginia's Struggle with Slavery, Secession, Civil War, and Reconstruction

I find this now available on Amazon. I got my hardcopy from the Augusta County Historical Society in Staunton, VA shortly after publishing. I find no online copy.

Mainly of interest about the overall life and times of John B. Baldwin.

Yes, revenue was absolutely, & undeniably an issue, and was resolved by the Greenback fiat currency.

I believe that misses two other important parts of the solution. First, there was the unconstitutional unapportioned income tax; second, the Internal Revenue Bureau was created to enforce the unconstitutional unapportioned incme tax. The IRB has existed continuously since the Civil War, with the name changing to the Internal Revenue Service. The first Commissioner of Internal Revenue was George S. Boutwell in 1862.

We haven’t had slavery since 1865 (that’s 158 years), no persons or children of persons enslaved or enslaving are alive, and the repeated ascription to the Democratic Party of today is a sign of a weak mind.

Just one problem with your point.

The IRS wasn't created until 1962, after the Civil War had started. Thus, it had no bearing upon the states that had seceded from the U.S. It was really just a way to retrieve some of the fiat Greenbacks, back into the the government coffers to keep the fiat currency circulating without having to print more which would have devalued their value, just the way it currently does with their quantitative easing tactics.

I tried to verify that claim was unable to do so.

Perhaps you can provide what I was unable to?

I forgot you were a relative newcomer to these discussions. I have posted that information so many times before. It used to be easier, but googleboooks changed their way of showing excerpts.

I have been told by many people that you can find this information in the official records, but I like to use a source from 1860, which was before the war, and therefore could not be tainted by later propaganda or rewriting.

When you calculate the portion from the South against the total, it works out to 72%. (For 1859)

Yes, revenue was absolutely, & undeniably an issue, and was resolved by the Greenback fiat currency. But the confederates also introduced their fiat currency as well, before the Civil War had started.

So, revenue was an issue for both sides, not just the Union side.

Revenue was only an issue for the Southern side because the Northern side had used the Navy to cut off all trade with Europe, which was the primary source of the South's income in 1860.

The South was not trying to stop Northern trade, they were just trying to get the Northerners to stop taking money away from them. The South would have had plenty of money had the North just left them alone.

So, it would be easy to promote the narrative, true of false, that Lincoln was concerned about the revenue, wouldn't it?

It isn't a narrative, it is the actual conditions that existed for Lincoln. The South leaving cut his potential revenue greatly because *THEY* were producing most of the revenue the Federal government had previously received.

So, if Lincoln did raise the revenue issue, could it have not been to make Col. John B. Baldwin think about the same issue in respect that the southern states also faced revenue issues that impacted citizens of both sides?

The Southern states faced no revenue problem until Lincoln used warships to *CREATE* a revenue problem for them. Their leaving the Union would have resulted in about 100 million extra dollars being dumped into the Southern economy, because that is approximately how much the North was sucking out of them by the economic controls imposed by Washington DC. (Thanks to a Northern majority control of Congress.)

What do you suppose an extra hundred million dollars dumped into their economy would have done for them economically?

So, is the topic all based in one direction incorrectly, or purposely, because the desired result was to paint that it was an issue for the Union only?

I think when you are apprised of more information that you do not currently know, you will began to understand that money was a problem *ONLY* for the Union, and it is in fact the primary reason why the North had to have a war with the South.

The South's trade with Europe would have kept them rolling in money, but that money would have come out of the amount that had been previously going to the powerful people in the North.

And the powerful men of the North were not going to allow that to happen.

I forgot you were a relative newcomer to these discussions. I have posted that information so many times before. It used to be easier, but googleboooks changed their way of showing excerpts.

I think searching for a lot of things has gotten much more difficult, on purpose depending on the topic.

That is true. But what you presented is only dealing with exports, as it clearly states in the heading:

United States Exports for 1857 and 1859

So as far as exports go, the South clearly led the North in that category, with a tax bite of 72% for the South & 28% for the North. However, what we need is a source that actually states the income from the states that seceded to compare to the states that remained, for those 2 years presented, to see what the true two entities (seceded & remaining states) in order to obtain the exact total tax impacts & what percentage was lost revenue to the U.S. Treasury. It may prove to be the same or close enough to being the same, but it could also be misleading. I honestly do not now exactly how it might play out when we get the full picture instead of just a subset of the picture.

Revenue was only an issue for the Southern side because the Northern side had used the Navy to cut off all trade with Europe, which was the primary source of the South's income in 1860.

The South was not trying to stop Northern trade, they were just trying to get the Northerners to stop taking money away from them. The South would have had plenty of money had the North just left them alone.

The Southern states faced no revenue problem until Lincoln used warships to *CREATE* a revenue problem for them. Their leaving the Union would have resulted in about 100 million extra dollars being dumped into the Southern economy, because that is approximately how much the North was sucking out of them by the economic controls imposed by Washington DC. (Thanks to a Northern majority control of Congress.)

Here's the problem I have with your claims. You claim this occurred in 1860 (could be you meant to type 1861) before the Civil War began, and that Lincoln was responsible, but Lincoln wasn't inaugurated until March 4, 1861. The blockade wasn't started until the April 19, 1861, after the Civil War started. The Confederate currency began in March Or April of 1961, again before the start of the Civil War or shortly after (based upon which reference I listed below is correct) which the war began on April 12th, 1861 at Ft Sumter. The secession of the states began happening in December of 1860, again before Lincoln had been inaugurated.

The secession of the states began in December 20, 1860 with South Carolina, culminating with the 11th State to secede, Tennessee on June 8, 1861.

So the blockade couldn't have impacted the income of the southern states in 1860. In, 1861 definitely.

References used:

The Union Blockade of the Southern States

&

The Blockading of Southern Seaports during the Civil War

Confederate Dollar (CSD): History, Demise

The one above states the Confederate Dollar began being issued in April of 1861, where as the next one says March of 1861.

Wikipedia: Confederate States dollar

Order of Secession During the American Civil War

Lincoln 1st Inauguration

So as far as exports go, the South clearly led the North in that category, with a tax bite of 72% for the South & 28% for the North. However, what we need is a source that actually states the income from the states that seceded to compare to the states that remained,

Two points.

Firstly, the detailed information about what states produced what is broken down elsewhere in the book. You can skim through the pages of that link I provided to get to the details.

Secondly, you cannot simply take just the states that seceded as the only ones you had to worry about. Lincoln's problem was that if those initial 7 seceded, and suddenly were swimming in far more money from Europe, this would likely induce others to secede as well.

I have argued with others that Southern secession did in fact represent a real and serious threat to the remainder of the Union, but not militarily. The CSA was likely going to continue expanding by acquiring more states which the Union would lose. The Economics were just too beneficial for the border states, (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, etc.) to remain in the Union.

Once it had become clear that the initial states were doing much better than they were before, it would likely induce the other states to leave too. I think Lincoln even said that if he lost Kentucky, the whole thing was lost.

So you must look at the potential losses as well as the real losses as of March/April of 1861.

It may prove to be the same or close enough to being the same, but it could also be misleading.

I'm not sure how you could view it in such a way that it doesn't show the Southern states producing the vast majority of the money, even though they represented about 1/4th of the citizenry.

The Confederate currency began in March Or April of 1961,

Doesn't distract from my point. They had to have their own currency, they couldn't very well have just continued using Union Dollars, and getting a mint up and running would probably take awhile.

My point was that their money was backed by commodities and was in no danger of defaulting *WITHOUT* the Union blockading them. Their currency would have been sound but for Lincoln's actions.

I suppose you see their issuing of paper currency as a signal of economic problems, while I see it as an interim necessity for a government just starting up. How long do you suppose it would take to set up a mint to make metal coinage? And you would have to acquire the gold, and that would likely take some time.

The secession of the states began happening in December of 1860, again before Lincoln had been inaugurated.

Like I said, it would probably take some time to set up a mint, and 3 months isn't much, especially when at the time they were not absolutely certain as to how many states they would have, because others would likely join them at some point.

When did the Confederate congress start conducting business? I think it wasn't till March before they sent that delegation to meet with Lincoln.

The IRS wasn't created until 1[8]62, after the Civil War had started. Thus, it had no bearing upon the states that had seceded from the U.S.

I guess I do not understand your point. The income tax became law during the Special Session of Congress that was called July 4, 1861. Union revenue laws did not effect the Confederacy. No Union laws were enforcable in the Confederacy. The six percent bonds and treasury notes were authorized by the same Act which authorized the income tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

Demand Notes

The first measure to finance the war occurred in July 1861, when Congress authorized $50,000,000 in Demand Notes. They bore no interest but could be redeemed for specie "on demand." They were not legal tender before March 1862 but, like Treasury Notes, could be used to pay customs duties.

United States Notes

The number of Demand Notes issued was far insufficient to meet the war expenses of the government but even so was not supportable.
The solution came from Colonel "Dick" Taylor, an Illinois businessman who was serving as a volunteer officer. Taylor met with Lincoln in January 1862 and suggested issuing unbacked paper money. Lincoln did not like the idea of issuing unbacked paper money, but there was mounting pressure in Congress to do something about the financial situation. The government could either print its own money or go into deep perpetual debt to foreign creditors. This caused President Lincoln to quickly endorse Taylor's proposal. On February 25, 1862, Congress passed the first Legal Tender Act, which authorized the issuance of $150 million in United States Notes.

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/07/27/us-government-financing-of-the-civil-war/

Personal Income Tax
The Revenue Act of 1861 was passed to increase import tariffs, property taxes, and for the first time, to levy a flat rate income tax of 3% on incomes above $800. Its drawback was that it lacked a comprehensive enforcement mechanism. Thaddeus Stevens, chairman of the House Committee of Ways and Means Committee, avowed, “This bill is a most unpleasant one. But we perceive no way in which we can avoid it and sustain the government. The rebels, who are now destroying or attempting to destroy this Government, have thrust upon the country many disagreeable things.”
In 1862, President Lincoln signed a law imposing a graduated income tax. The law levied a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes. The law was later amended in 1864; it levied a 5% tax on incomes between $600 and $5,000, a 7.5% tax on incomes in the $5,000-$10,000 range and a 10% tax on all higher incomes.

1861 saw the Revenue Act with an income tax. It was passed during the Special Session of Congress that began July 4, 1861. 1862 saw the first commissioner of the Internal Revenue Bureau take office to enforce the income tax.

H.R. 54, Inroduced July 16, 1861. Amended July 29, 1861. Became law as Act of August 5, 1861. 12 Stat. 292.

Income tax at Sections 49 and 50.

[Start of Act] https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=323

[Sections 49 and 50] https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=340

Jim, legal slavery has been abolished. My great grandfather lost a leg. His father and brother where killed in the Civil War. The burden on my father and his father was very great.

Sadly, many of those who are enmeshed in today’s human trafficing business are now enslaved victims. It must stop. All of these people ( sadly many younger and older children) need rescue.

We must call those who are slaves what they are: **slaves**!. It is an abomination, especially so with children.

Those who are voluntarily part of the human trafficing business and move on voluntary paid work are in an entirely different moral and ethical category, even if it is illegal.

Republicans ( sadly) use the term “human trafficing” over broadly, when a subset of trafficing should be **clearly** called what it is: Slavery!

No, I have not seen “The Sound of Freedom”. I do not plan to see it.