New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes

Librivox ^ | 8/4/23

[ProgressingAmerica]

If the contents of The 1619 Project are getting under your skin, here's a new audiobook for you.

Nothing else need be said, book speaks for itself.

An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers, by George Livermore

Book summary: Collects the speeches, writings, public statements and legislative acts of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States against slavery. (Summary by progressingamerica)

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "That Eisenhower spoke of Lee in the terms did certainly didn't endear him to me.
I always felt he was barely qualified to command American forces.
D-Dy came off, but barely, the Normandy Campaign came off but barely and The Hurtgen Forest Campaign was an absolute slaughter, Market-Garden was a complete screw up . . ."

jeffersondem: "Now we have a little more insight into your ill-feelings toward American heroes."

In all fairness to Eisenhower, nobody ever claimed he was the world's greatest general, unlike many others we can name, from Lee & Grant to MacArthur and Patton.
But what's always said of Ike is that he was the right man for his job, he was more of a diplomat who got along with and kept united some very strong and often conflicting military personalities.

Regarding D-Day, we need first to remember that the Allies conducted many dozens of successful amphibious landings during WWII -- in the Pacific, Mediterranean and Atlantic.
These varied in size from a few brigades "island hopping" in the Pacific to unimaginably massive landings such as Operation Iceberg (Okinawa, Japan) and Operation Neptune (D-Day, Normandy).

We can debate which one was the largest landing overall -- Iceberg or Neptune -- but what's certain is they were both huge and produced many American casualties.

Operation Iceberg on Okinawa took three months, included seven divisions, eventually over 250,000 troops landed and suffered over 50,000 casualties.

Operation Overlord at Normandy also took three months, initially landing 10 divisions with 156,000 troops, eventually 39 divisions with over 2 million troops, suffering over 250,000 total casualties, including around 36,000 killed in action over the three months.

Of all those dozens of amphibious landings, very few went perfectly, but only one I can think of actually failed -- the British raid on Dieppe France in August 1942.
Also, arguably, the results of the Allied landing at Anzio, Italy, January 1944, were less than sterling -- it took over four months to break out of the beachhead there.

Bottom line: Eisenhower never lead troops in combat, but he was a great chief of staff in organizing and maintaining good relationships among different military branches from different countries commanded by some very difficult personalities.

Market Garden was Montgomery's baby.

The Hurtgen Forest was Omar Bradley's 12th Army Group and Courtney Hodges First Army, under Bradley.

I would put Eisenhower's biggest failure as his inability to see warning signs of Hitler's December 1944 Ardennes Offensive, the "Battle of the Bulge".
That cost the allies around 81,000 casualties, including nearly 9,000 killed in action.
It's at least arguable that had Eisenhower warned his commanders ahead of time, they would have been better prepared and faster to respond, perhaps saving many allied lives.

[jmacusa]

Good analysis Joe. As Supreme Allied Commander of The Anglo-American Forces in the ETO Eisenhower was the boss.

Montgomery pressured Eisenhower to let him undertake the mission. And as you point out Eisenhower was more a diplomat and he had to keep a contentious coalition of allied force(and egos) in snyc and working together. So he let Monty go ahead with it.

Eisenhower was Montgomery’s boss and Bradley’s too. It’s always the man at the top who takes the heat.

[jeffersondem]

“That Eisenhower spoke of Lee in the terms did certainly didn't endear him to me.”

It must have stung when it was discovered President Eisenhower repudiated you before you were born.

Let's start right now looking at the list of world leaders that admired General Lee and compare with your ill-disposition.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

January 16, 1907

To the HON. HILARY A. HERBERT, chairman,
CHIEF JUSTICE SETH SHEPHERD, GENERAL MARCUS J. WRIGHT,
JUDGE CHARLES B. HOWRY, MR. WILLIAM A. GORDON,
MR. THOMAS NELSON PAGE, PRESIDENT EDWIN ALDERMAN,
MR. JOSEPH WILMER, and others of the
Committee of Arrangement for the Celebration of the Hundredth Anniversary
of the Birth of General Robert E. Lee.

Gentlemen:

I regret that it is not in my power to be with you at your celebration. I join with you in honoring the life and career of that great soldier and high-minded citizen whose fame is now a matter of pride
to all our countrymen. Terrible though the destruction of the Civil War was, awful though it was that such a conflict should occur betweenbrothers, it is yet a matter for gratitude on the part
of all Americans that this, alone among contests of like magnitude, should have left to both sides as a priceless heritage the memory of the mighty men and the glorious deeds that the iron days
brought forth. The courage and steadfast endurance, the lofty fealty to the right as it was given to each man to see the right, whether he wore the gray or whether he wore the blue, now make the
memories of the valiant feats, alike of those who served under Grant and of those who served under Lee, precious to all good Americans. General Lee has left us the memory, not merely of his extraordinary skill as a general, his dauntless courage and high leadership in campaign and battle, but also of that serene greatness of soul characteristic of those who most readily recognize the obligations of civic duty. Once the war was over he instantly under took the task of healing and binding up the wounds of his countrymen, in the true spirit of those who feel malice toward none and charity toward all; in that spirit which from the throes of the Civil War brought forth the real and indissoluble Union of to-day. It was eminently fitting that this great man, this war-worn veteran of a mighty struggle, who, at its close, simply and quietly undertook his duty as a plain, every-day citizen, bent only upon helping his people in the paths of peace and tranquillity, should turn his attention toward educational work; toward bringing up in fit fashion theyounger generation, the sons of those who had proved their faith by their endeavor in the heroicdays.

There is no need to dwell on General Lee s record as a soldier. The son of Light Horse Harry Lee of the Revolution, he came naturally by his aptitude for arms and command. His campaigns
put him in the foremost rank of the great captains of all time. But his signal valor and address inwar are no more remarkable than the spirit in which he turned to the work of peace once the war was over. The circumstances were such that most men, even of high character, felt bitter and vindictive or depressed and spiritless, but General Lee s heroic temper was not warped nor his great soul cast down. He stood that hardest of all strains, the strain of bearing himself well through the gray evening of failure ; and therefore out of what seemed failure he helped to build the wonderful and mighty triumph of our national life, in which all his countrymen, North and South, share. Immediately after the close of hostilities he announced, with a clear sightedness which at that time few indeed of any section possessed, that the interests of the Southern States were the same as those of the United States ; that the prosperity of the South would rise or fall with the welfare of the whole country; and that the duty of its citizens appeared too plain to admit of doubt. He urged that all should unite in honest effort to obliterate the effects of war and restore the blessings of peace; that they should remain in the country, strive for harmony and good feeling, and devote their abilities to the interests of their people and the healing of dissensions. To every one who applied to him this was the advice he gave. Although absolutely without means, he refused all offers of pecuniary aid, and all positions of emolument, although many such, at a high salary, were
offered him. He declined to go abroad, saying that he sought only “a place to earn honest bread while engaged in some useful work.” This statement brought him the offer of the presidency of
Washington College, a little institution in Lexington, Va., which had grown out of a modest foundation known as Liberty Hall Academy. Washington had endowed this academy with one hundred shares of stock that had been given to him by the State of Virginia, which he had accepted only on condition that he might with them endow some educational institution. To the institution which Washington helped to found in such a spirit, Lee, in the same fine spirit, gave his services. He accepted the position of president at a salary of $1,500 a year, inorder, as he stated, that he might do some good to the youth of the South. He applied himself to his new work with the same singleness of mind which he had shown in leading the Army of Northern Virginia. All the time by word and deed he was striving for the restoration of real peace, of real harmony, never uttering a word of bitterness nor allowing a word of bitterness uttered in his presence to go unchecked. From the close of the war to the time of his death all his great powers were devoted to two objects: to the reconciliation of all his countrymen with one another, and to fitting the youth of the South for the duties of a lofty and broad-minded citizenship.

Such is the career that you gather to honor; and I hope that you will take advantage of the one hundredth anniversary of General Lee s birth by appealing to all our people, in every section of this
country, to commemorate his life and deeds by the establishment, at some great representative educational institution of the South, of a permanent memorial, that will serve the youth of the comingyears, as he, in the closing years of his life, served those who so sorely needed what he so freely gave.

Sincerely yours,

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

[woodpusher]

Sure, I fully understand, woodpusher, because you are a Democrat....

You fail to understand because you are a Communist.

[jmacusa]

Reb you can get testimony from The Lord God Almighty himself and keep on trying to get me to buy the premise of your argument. Save your breath.

I’ll tell you again: Robert E. Lee was a treasonous bastard who caused the deaths of some 600,000 Americans in the pursuit and preservation of an evil cause.

And for what he’d done he should have been hung.

[x]

Eisenhower grew up at a time when America was still putting North and South together. Reconciliation was the political correctness of its day. It was a priority and it was important for the military to contribute. Ike’s whole career took place in an age of historical revisionism (1910 to 1960), when the war was blamed on unreasonable men unwilling to compromise (the abolitionists very much included) and the Southern view of Reconstruction was widely accepted by historians and teachers. Ike was, of course, educated at West Point, where Lee had been an exemplary student and then later superintended. So it was inevitable that President Eisenhower thought as he did. I don’t see any reason why we have to immediately and automatically accept or reject his view (or that of the doctor who wrote to him). Who’s right and who’s wrong is for us to figure out based on what we know now.

Theodore Roosevelt’s mother was a Georgian and his father was of course a New Yorker. His uncles had supported and served the Confederacy. His father had kept out of the war, perhaps out of deference to Teddy’s mother. The reconciliation project c. 1890-1910 was not only a national necessity for Teddy, but it had a very personal meaning for him, so of course he’d do what he could to support it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Someone who loves the founding is proud to say so.

Your disrespect of their memory throughout this discussion has been clear.

[woodpusher]

[ProgressingAmerica #224] This is a tame version of what you might see, and the Founders couldn't even be named specifically(as a group) here, which is a bit shameful. We know who you're talking about with the fathers and grandfathers comment.

"What is shameful about a state, or group of states, wanting independence?"

Abraham Lincoln stated,

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

Lincoln expressly stated that the right to shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better is not confined to cases of a whole people, but that any portion of such people may make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit. What is shameful about what Lincoln said?

- - - - -

[ProgressingAmerica #236] Do you love the Founding Fathers or not? Let's be direct here.

[ProgressingAmerica #236] Do you love the Founding or not?

When you work up the courage, I would love answers to my questions.

[ProgressingAmerica #247] Someone who loves the founding is proud to say so. Your disrespect of their memory throughout this discussion has been clear.

Clearly, you are too much of a coward to defend your attribution of shame to people who sought independence, precisely as Abraham Lincoln said "Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit." Your cowardice manifests itself by your desperate attempt to divert away from your claim that seeking independence is shameful.

Did Lincoln advocate for things that were shameful? Do you believe the Founders actions were shameful? Apparently you do. You have expressed your belief that doing what the Founders did was shameful.

So who do you "know" was being spoken of with reference to fathers and grandfathers?

When did you stop beating your dog?

[jeffersondem]

“I’ll tell you again: Robert E. Lee was a treasonous bastard who caused the deaths of some 600,000 Americans in the pursuit and preservation of an evil cause. And for what he’d done he should have been hung.”

But General Grant opposed that didn’t he?

In your opinion, was General Grant so dumb that he was out maneuvered by Lee in the legal sense, or was General Grant himself a traitor for protecting traitors?

We want to know; speak freely even if it is just another of your unsupported opinions.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "You fail to understand because you are a Communist."

Calling me a "Communist" is insane because you have no facts to support such a claim, you are simply doing what Democrats do when they've lost an argument -- they call us crazy names like "racist" or "mean spirited" or "self-righteous".

But facts demonstrating you are indeed a Democrat include the following:

1. You hate the United States.

2. You hate your fellow Americans.

3. You think nullification, secession and war against the United States are good ideas.

4. You think the Lost Cause is real history.

5. You love to call people crazy names.

6. You blame Republicans for anything you imagine is wrong.

7. You blame Northerners for your own feelings of inadequacy, i.e., their "self righteousness".

8. You define "racist" to mean everyone who disagrees with you on the subject.

The only word I can think of which fits all those characteristics is "Democrat", perhaps Old Time Southern Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

x: "Theodore Roosevelt’s mother was a Georgian and his father was of course a New Yorker."

TR's insane behavior in 1912 was essential to getting Democrat Woodrow Wilson elected President.
I've long wondered what motivated him to do that, and now think maybe it was something to do with his mother and uncles?

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher to ProgressingAmerica: "Lincoln expressly stated that the right to shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better is not confined to cases of a whole people, but that any portion of such people may make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.
What is shameful about what Lincoln said?"

Context, context...
In January 1848, 38-year-old Whig Congressman Lincoln supported the Whig party line, which was to oppose Democrat President Polk's war against Mexico but support our forces in hopes of electing a Southern Whig, Gen. Zachary Taylor, President, which they did in November 1848.

Lincoln's speech, often quoted by woodpusher and others, refers to Americans in Texas declaring independence from Mexico and can be put under the category of a "right of revolution".
Of course, everyone recognizes a "right of revolution" under certain circumstances, the debatable issue is, what exactly are those circumstances?

Our Founders gave their answer in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, citing necessity, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Young Congressman Lincoln, in 1848 gives a somewhat different answer.
Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government"
So, for Lincoln in 1848 it was less a matter of "absolute despotism" forcing revolution and more a matter of "being inclined and having the power" to make their own government.

Neither our 1776 Founders nor 1836 Texans fantasized that their revolutions could succeed without war, or in the absence of having the power to win the war.
Nor did they fantasize they could start & declare war on the British or Mexican governments without having to actually fight and win it.

Nevertheless, young Lincoln's 1848 words may help explain why he was reluctant in his March 4, 1861 1st Inaugural Address to insist on anything more than the bare necessities of Federal government, notably collecting import duties.

But all of these fine points of political philosophy were rendered mute in April 1861, when Confederates fired on and forced surrender of Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear act of war.
Then on May 6, 1861 the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States and from that point on, there was no turning back.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Theodore Roosevelt was a GLOBALIST, that is what his motivation was for helping Woodrow Wilson claim victory in the 1912 Election.

[x]

I think it was more TR’s ego that led him to challenge Taft and to form a third party when he didn’t get the nomination. There was an aspect of the campaign that’s much talked about lately. He wanted to build the Progressive Party in the South. This led him to accept segregated “lilywhite” Southern state delegations to the Progressive Party convention. And that cost him Black votes in the North and led to the tragicomic spectacle of Black progressive leaders supporting Wilson, who definitely didn’t have their best interests at heart. Was it Roosevelt’s Southern connections that led him to make that choice?

David Hackett Fischer in “Albion’s Seed” an important study of American political cultures, grouped FDR with the New England culture (his mother and grandmother were of New England stock) and TR with the backwoods, largely Southern, Scotch-Irish culture (his mother was from Georgia). I don’t know if he’s right, but TR did have a very different style from FDR.

One of TR’s uncles served in the Confederate Navy. Another was a business agent in Britain for the Confederate Navy. Both lived in Britain after the war. TR’s great interest in naval affairs and combat may have come from them (FDR’s may have come from his New England ancestors who were ship captains).

TR was a globalist, but in his day, a “globalist” wanted to expand American power outward, rather than give up American sovereignty at home. In that sense he could be a globalist (that is, an imperialist) and a fierce nationalist. TR and Taft didn’t disagree about empire and expansion. TR and Taft both had ideas about a League of Nations, but later TR rejected Wilson’s rather different proposed League. Taft had qualms, but didn’t object to it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"TR and Taft both had ideas about a League of Nations"

Yes, this is the globalism I'm referring to. TR was very open about his fondness for an international league of nations.

Opposing globalism and opposing Wilson's plan for globalism are two extremely different things.(As you rightfully point out)

[jmacusa]

Grant favored pardoning him. Lee was pardoned, officially by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Lee wasn't pardoned immediately after the war but his citizenship was restored. Try another trick question you moron.

[jeffersondem]

“Grant favored pardoning him (General Lee).”

And Grant was adamant that General Lee should not be persecuted after the war.

All this is different from your ugly talk about hanging General Lee and other southerners.

You have refrained from denouncing General Grant or calling him a traitor for respecting General Lee.

I feel I am beginning to modify your behavior by presenting you with additional information.

This is good.

[jmacusa]

No he wasn't a traitor. He, along with Lincoln realized that atrial, which should have been undertaken would delay reconciliation. You're not modifying anything in me Reb. Lee committed treason, re Article 3 of the Constitution.

Here are some facts for you.
1. Lee committed treason.
2. Secession was illegal.
3. Southern shore batteries opened fire on Ft. Sumter. 4/ I'm not disparaging Southerners. I'm disparaging the Confederacy and all who support it 5. The South launched a war it had every intention of winning. It lost. 6. The Confederacy was created by The Democrat Party. You keep trying to drag this argument into the weeds of moral and historical relativism and it's not working. You can't bring yourself to admit you're not only a Confederate sympathizer but you're a Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

x: "There was an aspect of the campaign that’s much talked about lately.
He wanted to build the Progressive Party in the South.
This led him to accept segregated “lilywhite” Southern state delegations to the Progressive Party convention.
And that cost him Black votes in the North and led to the tragicomic spectacle of Black progressive leaders supporting Wilson, who definitely didn’t have their best interests at heart.
Was it Roosevelt’s Southern connections that led him to make that choice?"

Thanks, I always wondered, what was the real root-cause of black Republicans shifting their political allegiances to the Democrats?
I had always assumed it was Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" welfare spending, beginning in 1933 -- what else could explain African-Americans voting for the same party that still held them in subservience in the South?
I didn't know that Republican Teddy Roosevelt had actively courted Southern Whites to his Progressive "Bull Moose" party, thus potentially disillusioning loyal black Republican voters, once the two Republican wings were reunited.

1912 Presidential Election by county -- blue = Democrat Wilson, Green = Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, Red = Republican Taft:

[woodpusher]

Lincoln's speech, often quoted by woodpusher and others, refers to Americans in Texas declaring independence from Mexico....

Why the need to lie, Brother Joe?

Lincoln's speech expressly referred to all or any people. As I quoted Lincoln in the post in your response is a blatant lie:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of their territory as they inhabit.

You must be really desperate to lie that the above statement of Lincoln only referred to Texas. It expressly refers to "any people anywhere," and Lincoln's remarks were universal in application, "to liberate the world." But that is what communists do. It's Pravda truth.