Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
It used to be that newspapers and magazines employed "fact checkers" to ensure the accuracy of their publications. Prof. Williams could have used one. Rather than reprint the whole article, highlighting the unsubstantiated opinion and factual errors, I'll just point out a few of the whoppers. (The point of posting this piece was not for the editorial content, but to show that econoimist Williams is a weak historian, and as such, how can one judge the quality of his arguements when he makes so many errors?)
"The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today — big, intrusive government." - This is Willaims thesis sentence and the first in the article. He provides no additional support that the Federal government was "big" in 1860, or intrusive, for that matter.
"The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply." - More unsubstantiated opinion, and as any reader of FreeRepublic should know, wrong. This website and its tens of thousands of viewers maintain the "spirit of liberty and constitutional respect" bemoaned by Prof. Williams.
"Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government." - Williams definition of a "civil war" is debatable, and has been debated in this thread. At least he tried to explain himself.
"History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves." - Serious histories of the War discuss the several fundamental causes. Prof. Willaims comment is pabulum and shows his lightweight approach to serious history. A truer statement would be, "... the war was fought to keep slaves."
"Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates." - Neither Lincoln nor Douglas participated in presidental debates! The quote comes from one of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates when both were candidates for the office of Senator from Illinois. In those days, the Senators were elected by the legislature of the State, so Lincoln and Douglas were not only expounding their own political views, but they were trying to get their supporters elected as well.
"Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders. Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed." - It is incorrect to say the previous quote represented "Lincoln's vision." It is Douglas' (mis)representation of Lincon's vision, if Lincoln ever had one along those lines. The last part of the excerpt defies logic - let me rephrase - his vision has gone beyond his vision. This is just libertarian psycho-babbling.
"Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs." - The House passed their version of the bill prior to the Presidental election of 1860. It then stalled in the Senate.
"That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government." - This is the next sentence. The Senate was able to pass the Tariff bill after several Southern Senators walked out, because their states had already seceded. The Bill was signed into law by president James Buchanan. Lincoln had nothing to do with it. The timing of the events is very "germane" to Williams arguments.
"Their (CSA) constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures." - I am not sure, after reading the CSA's constitution where the "business handouts" section is, but what is interesting is what Williams does not note. The CSA proposed to expand to institution of slavery into any all new territories they acquired. At the time of its adoption, the CSA clearly had eyes on western territories (such as Arizona and New Mexico, as well as Texas (not yet seceded) and "Indian Territory." I think there is a hidden point in his comment about a 2/3rds majority for spending measures, but he (again) doesn't explain his position.
"The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery." - This is not even true from a strictly southern perspective. Volumes have been written on the military and medical technology coming from the War. Williams comment is less factual, than it is editorial.
"The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of-the governed" was overturned by force of arms." - From the perspective of the rebel, that may be true, but it is certainly false from the perspective of the winning side. Lincoln's election, and re-election, were valid constitutional exercises. Secession was not (my turn to editorialize). Williams really sticks his foot into it with the follow on sentence ...
"By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined." - I can just imagine Prof. Williams foaming at the mouth as he spoke these words. Despotic? Really Prof. Williams? How so, in a multi-party republican democracy? And, as has been discussed throughout this thread, where was the "right" to secession spelled out? If this supposed right existed in 1860-61, why doesn't it exist today? If, as in Texas v White, the right to secede never existed, then what was destroyed?
"States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification." - State-sponsored nullification hasn't been tried since the Civil War. The US Supreme Court has opined that "nullification" is unconstitutional. Basically, it is anarchical. When states such as South Carolina could threaten nullification or secession, they could try to blackmail the rest of the country. It would not work today, not because of an arrogant or despotic Federal Government, but rather, because such an act would lack popular support.
LOL!- So now YOU have a problem with the accuracy of what the author has written? Then you should be addressing Lerone Bennett with those comments not me.
Again, here is the relevant section of his book.
The white founding fathers, the Byrds, the Mathers, and Winthrops, the Jeffersons, the Washingtons, the heroes of all the Fourths of July: they divided blacks and whites, they sowed the seeds of division and hate and blood.
Bennett himself uses the term founding fathers , he identifies two of them by name [Washington, Jefferson] , and he places them in historical context when he calls them the heros of all the Fourths of July .
Bennett couldn't be more clear about who he was talking about, or what claim he's making against them. Only someone with a penchant for intellectual dishonesty, or someone who is desperately trying to disguise his intentions, would pretend otherwise.
I'll remind you, this conversation began with my stating that I thought Lerone Bennett was a Black Liberation theorist and revisonist historian. I pointed to earlier work to demonstrate that point. You have done nothing to disprove that assertion, yet you continue to use Lerone Bennett as source material for your misguided and hate-filled attacks on Lincoln.
Go peddle your black liberation leftist garbage somewhere else.
slavery was just an EXCUSE for the damnyankees to make war on the new republic.
had the goal been to perserve chattal slavery, there would have been NO NEED for a war as the demise of slavery was NOT of much interest to most free persons ANY place in the USA in 1861.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
When pigs fly or the evidence disappears, which ever comes first.
Caught him swallering from that good old Northern sectionalist triple-rectified bust-head called teleology again, have you? One hundred forty proof Might Makes Right? Good job, s_w, call that boy on it every time he pulls the cork.
Here is what you ACTUALLY said:
Isn't Lerone Bennett a notorious black separatist and revisionist?
The short answer, yes he is. In an earlier revisionist work The Shaping of Black America , Bennett credits the American founding fathers in Virginia with inventing racism as an economic strategy to exploit African, Native Indian, and European workers.
But don't let the inconvienent fact that the Black liberation left agrees with you about Lincoln disturb your closed minds. It would be slothful induction to conclude that as a result YOU endorse Black liberation, American founders inventing racism, or any of the myriad other historical nonsense Bennett and his fellow travelers spew.
Truth is neither black, white, red, brown, nor yellow. Truth is neither left, right, conservative, nor liberal. If something is the truth, I do not care who agrees with it.
What you said was, that Bennett is a notorious black separatist.
Show me where Bennett has ever used the term "Black Separatist."
Show me where Bennett has ever said he was a "Black Separatist."
Provide a quote or link for any reputable source which alleges Bennett is, or ever has been, a "notorious Black separatist."
YOU are the one who said that the short answer is that Bennett is a "notorious black separatist." If he is not just a black separatist, but a notorious black separatist, a source should be easy to find.
Lerone Bennett, Jr.
AWARDS
Book of the Year Award from Capital Press Club, 1963; Patron Saints Award from Society of Midland Authors, 1965; Literature Award from American Academy of Arts and Letters, 1978; honorary degrees from Morehouse College, Wilberforce University, Marquette University, Voorhees College, Morgan State University, University of Illinois, Lincoln College, and Dillard University.
NARRATIVE ESSAY:
Writer and editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., glides gracefully between the worlds of scholarship and journalism, tackling with equal vigor the history of race relations in the United States and the current political environment in which African Americans continue to strive for equality. In his many books and articles, Bennett proves himself not merely an insightful observer of society's racial injustices, but an activist articulating the ways in which people of color can overcome bigotry and a history of subjugation. Bennett has trained his sharp, analytical eye to spot lessons from history that others might overlook or dismiss narrow-mindedly. And he uses a spirited writing style laced with drama and punch to ensure that his insights enliven rather than depress the debate over the nature of race in America.
* * *
In subsequent books, Bennett continued to document the historical forces shaping the black experience in America but offered more of a sociological perspective as well, concentrating on the emergence of the civil rights movement and its effect on the foundations of the American political system in the 1950s and 1960s. His 1964 book What Manner of Man, a biography of Morehouse classmate Martin Luther King, Jr., was welcomed as an even-handed analysis of the black leader's life and his role in fundamentally changing the nature of racial dynamics in the United States. Paul Schlueter wrote in a 1965 Christian Century review that although the book on one level is a "sensitive account of the Negro-white confrontation of our time,"it also serves to dispel "claims that only active and overtly violent behavior can effectively change the course of history."
* * *
Also in 1964, Bennett published The Negro Mood, a collection of essays that demonstrated a sharper editorial bite than his previous works. Probing such issues as the failed integration of blacks into American life and the ways in which blacks are denied the fruits of society, Bennett takes aim at the white liberal establishment for ignoring the accomplishments of African Americans and for just mouthing the words of racial justice rather than performing the actions that might remedy it. He argues that white liberals have not changed the political system they repeatedly label as unfair, and that their reaction to black violence, for example, dramatically illustrates the dangerous hypocrisy of their political positions. "White violence, though deplorable, is endurable, and white liberals endure it amazingly well," Bennett wrote. "But Negro violence creates or threatens to create a situation which forces white liberals to choose sides; it exposes their essential support of things as they are."
But Bennett is equally critical of the black establishment. In his 1965 publication Confrontation: Black and White, the author points to the mixed messages of various black leaders--ranging from support of nonviolent social action to the promotion of more aggressive black power tactics--as a source of divisiveness in the black community. In addition, he criticizes the leadership of the black power structure--including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Urban League--for being out of touch with the black masses who experience daily the prejudice and institutional discrimination that the organizations were ostensibly created to combat. Bennett also rebukes the "talented tenth" theory that an elite core of African Americans can lead the rest; instead, he argues for large-scale political organization, embracing people of color from all economic and social stations, to effect meaningful social change.
* * *
Blacks and whites, Bennett wrote in The Negro Mood, must turn their backs on racial stereotypes and celebrate the contributions blacks have made to the United States despite the odds. "America would not have been America without the Negro and America cannot become America until it confronts not only the Negro but the gifts the Negro bears. What is required now is an act of the spirit. We must abandon our shallow trenches and confront each other as co-inheritors of a common land, which is to say that we must meet and know each other as brothers in a marriage of visions, as co-conspirators in the making of a dream, as fellow passengers on a journey into the unknown."
[nc] I have no problem with what Bennett said in that passage. You have a problem with reading comprehension.
[garbage truck] Again, here is the relevant section of his book.
[garbage truck] The white founding fathers, the Byrds, the Mathers, and Winthrops, the Jeffersons, the Washingtons, the heroes of all the Fourths of July: they divided blacks and whites, they sowed the seeds of division and hate and blood.
[garbage truck] Bennett himself uses the term founding fathers , he identifies two of them by name [Washington, Jefferson] , and he places them in historical context when he calls them the heros [sic] of all the Fourths of July .
[nc] No, nimrod. This is a list, with punctuation. He does not identify the Byrds, the Mathers and Winthrops as heroes of the Fourth of July. He includes in his list all the heroes of the Fourth of July. By name, his list includes the Byrds, the Mathers, the Winthrops, Washington and Jefferson. He also includes all the heroes of the Fourth of July. Learn to read. Gte Wlat ot hlep.
[nc] Bennett uses the term "Founding Fathers" and clearly applies it to colonists of the 17th century. It is the Founding Fathers of America, going back to the early colonies. What you seem too obtuse to comprehend is that, for the slave, the 4th of July and the Declaration of Independence were a fraud. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When the slave woke up on the 5th of July, he was still a slave.
[garbage truck] Bennett couldn't be more clear about who he was talking about, or what claim he's making against them. Only someone with a penchant for intellectual dishonesty, or someone who is desperately trying to disguise his intentions, would pretend otherwise.
[nc] You are correct, Bennett could not be more clear. You are just too obtuse to read at that level.
[garbage truck] I'll remind you, this conversation began with my stating that I thought Lerone Bennett was a Black Liberation theorist and revisonist historian. I pointed to earlier work to demonstrate that point. You have done nothing to disprove that assertion, yet you continue to use Lerone Bennett as source material for your misguided and hate-filled attacks on Lincoln.
[nc] So far you have proven nothing except that you cannot comprehend the written word very well.
[garbage truck] Go peddle your black liberation leftist garbage somewhere else.
I think I probably was made permanently ineligible for all of the Wlat Brigade's leftist, socialist, pinko, liberal organizations Friday afternoon when I participated in the local Freep of the Hitlery tour.
Regressing back through this conversation, I just want to remind you that you and the rest of the Wlat Brigade are still defending the great James Mitchell.
1963-1960-1958-1956-1953-1913-1823-1819-1780-1774-
1760-1751-1744-1741-1740
LINK to Brigade Commander 1785
With all the desperate changing of subject the Wlat Brigade has attempted, I just want to remind you that you are defending James Mitchell, see 1740, whom your Brigade Commander (1785) described as "a very loyal and capable Union man" and a "true patriot".
[nc] It is not just Bennett you have to fight. I can repeat my Wlat-like collection of quotes by contemporaries of Lincoln if you would like. I have been challenging the Brigade to produce favorable quotes about Lincoln while he was alive by people who knew him. So far the Brigade has produced one polite statement by Douglass at the inaugural where he had to be polite, and one insignificant statement by a crooked politician, Thurlow Weed, upon meeting Lincoln for the first time. If you have lots and lots of time and nothing to do, you could try to improve on Thurlow Weed.
As for peddling garbage, you are the garbage truck liberal troll from the Wlat Brigade.
Oh yes, do provide an exact quote from that same of the book.
halfwit -- I'm bruised. I sincerely doubt that I could ever rise to such heights of originality. meager capabilities -- Now I am doubly bruised. I will simply have to see if I can conjure up some sort of rejoinder from that same of the language.
I must say that I do appreciate your thought process. What passes for a thought forms within you, it passes through the alimentary canal, and your turd-like thought slides into the world past the hemorrhoid extruding from your neck.
But I do not worry about you slinging your turds of thought at me. As they approach my computer, I use the force to redirect them to my printer. I then carefully remove your crap from my printer and cut it into little four-inch squares and take it to the little reading room. There, your crap and mine amalgamate, so to speak. After careful study, it has been determined that, even in this case, my pantsload exhibited greater intellect than your truckload.
free dixie,sw
I need a date on this. Besides it is completely at odds with other statements Lincoln made.
President Lincoln wanted black soldiers to have the vote and was working towards that end when he was killed.
Walt
nothing was beneath him. NOTHING.
face it, lincoln was just a cheap politician, of the same exact sort as wee willie klintoon. all either of them desired was POWER & $$$$$$$$$$$$.
free the southland,sw
[Wlat] I need a date on this. Besides it is completely at odds with other statements Lincoln made.
The CW 3:79 indicates The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume 3, Page 79.
The challenged statement is from a speech on August 31, 1858 at Carlinville, Illinois. Not only is it NOT at odds with other statements Lincoln made, it is Lincoln quoting Lincoln's own prior statement from an 1854 speech in Peoria, Illinois.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.
Speech at Carlinville, Illinois [1]
August 31, 1858
He [Lincoln] said the question is often asked, why this fuss about niggers? It is dictated that their position is a small matter, but let us inquire whether it is or not. His speech at the June convention had been much commented upon, and he read an extract from it, and showed wherein it had been misrepresented as to the ultimate triumph or extinction of slavery; that, although the agitation of the question was commenced in '54 with the avowed object of putting a stop to it, yet, the agitation was still increasing. The policy then adopted professed to leave the subject to the people of the territories and save politicians further trouble. Buchanan and Douglas have often promised us that this agitation would cease, but it is still going on, and only last winter was the hottest of any time yet.
The measures of '50 settled it for a time, only to be reopened in '54 in a worse and more malignant form in a territory where it had been previously at rest. Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Benton have gone but we still have the slavery agitation, and will have it till a more conservative and less aggressive party gains power. The north is not alone to blame---for churches and families divided upon this question---is it then a little thing?
In view of its importance and aggressive nature, I think it must come to a crisis---that it will become national by court verdicts or local by the popular voice. We have no idea of interfering with it in any manner. I am standing up to our bargain for its maintenance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 78
where it lawfully exists. Our fathers restricted its spread and stopped the importation of negroes, with the hope that it would remain in a dormant condition till the people saw fit to emancipate the negroes. There is no allusion to slavery in the constitution---and Madison says it was omitted that future generations might not know such a thing ever existed---and that the constitution might yet be a ``national charter of freedom.'' And Keitt [2] of S.C., once admitted that nobody ever thought it would exist to this day.
If placed in the former attitude we should have peace. But it is now advancing to become lawful everywhere. The Nebraska bill introduced this era---and it was gotten up by a man who twice voted for the Wilmot Proviso and the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific. This change in our national policy is decided to be constitutional---although the court would not decide the only question before them---whether Dred Scott was a slave or not---and did decide, too, that a territorial legislature cannot exclude slavery in behalf of the people, and if their premises be correct a state cannot exclude it---for they tell us that the negro is property anywhere in the light that horses are property, and if the constitution gives the master a right of property in negroes above the jurisdiction of the territorial laws, enacted in the sovereignty of the people---it only requires another case and another favorable decision from the same court to make the rights of property alike in states as well as territories, and that by virtue of the constitution and in disregard of local laws to the contrary---Buchanan takes this position now. Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers.
Douglas insists that I am in favor of perfect uniformity in the institutions of all the states. I believe in their right to do just as they please in this matter. But he is not quite so vain as to say that the good man uttered a falsehood when he said, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' Does he believe this thing will always stand as it now is---neither expand or diminish?
In '32, I voted for Henry Clay, in '36 for the Hugh L. White ticket, in '40 for ``Tip and Tyler.'' In '44 I made the last great effort for ``Old Harry of the West'' with my friend there, Dr. Heaton. [3] But we got gloriously whipped. Taylor was elected in '48, and we fought nobly for Scott in '52. But now Douglas snatches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 79
the robes of Clay and dubs me an abolitionist! How do the principles of the two men agree? Clay always opposed the rightfulness of slavery---Douglas always took the opposite, or kept mum. I can express all my views on the slavery question by quotations from Henry Clay. Doesn't this look like we are akin?
Douglas tries to make capital by charges of negro equality against me. My speeches have been printed and before the country for some time on this question, and Douglas knows the utter falsity of such a charge. To prove it Mr. L. read from a speech of his at Peoria in '54 in reply to Douglas as follows:
``Shall we free them and make them politically and socially our equals? MY OWN FEELINGS WILL NOT ADMIT OF THIS, and if they would the feelings of the great mass of white people would not. Whether this accords with strict justice or not is not the sole question. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot safely be disregarded. We cannot then make them our equals.. . . When they remind us of their constitutional rights I acknowledge them fully and freely, and I would give them any legislation for the recovery of their fugitives, which would not be more likely, in the stringency of its provisions, to take a man into slavery than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent man.''
There is no reason in favor of sending slavery to Kansas that might not be adduced in support of the African slave trade. Each are demanded by the profitableness of the traffic thus made in opening a new slave mart, and not from the rightfulness of it. They are upon a common basis, and should be alike condemned. The compromises of the constitution we must all stand by, but where is the justness of extending the institution to compete with white labor and thus to degrade it? Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories? Mr. L. then read from another speech of his in '54, showing that Douglas there attempted to gain the public favor by pandering to the prejudices of the masses, in disregard of truth. Negroes have natural rights however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here, and even Taney once said that ``the Declaration of Independence was broad enough for all men.'' But though it does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position, yet no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind. It has proved a stumbling block to tyrants, and ever will, unless brought into contempt by its pretended friends. Douglas says no man can defend it except on the hypothesis that it only referred to British
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 80
white subjects, and that no other white men are included---that it does not speak alike to the down trodden of all nations---German, French, Spanish, etc., but simply meant that the English were born equal and endowed by their Creator with certain natural or equal rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that it meant nobody else. Are Jeffersonian Democrats willing to have the gem taken from the magna charta of human liberty in this shameful way? Or will they maintain that its declaration of equality of natural rights among all nations is correct?
Douglas pretends to be horrified at amalgamation, yet had he not opened the way for slavery in Kansas, could there have been any amalgamation there? If you keep the two races separate is there any danger of amalgamation? Is not slavery the great source of it? You know that Virginia has more mulattoes than all the northern states! Douglas says he does not care whether they vote slavery up or down in Kansas; then I submit it to this audience which is the most favorable to amalgamation, he who would not raise his finger to keep it out, or I who would give my vote and use my lawful means to prevent its extension. Clay and other great men were ever ready to express their abhorrence of slavery---but we of the north dare not use his noble language when he said, to force its perpetuation and extension you must muzzle the cannon that annually proclaims liberty, and repress all tendencies in the human heart to justice and mercy. We can no longer express our admiration for the Declaration of Independence without their petty sneers. And it is thus they are fast bringing that sacred instrument into contempt. These men desire that slavery should be perpetual and that we should not foster all lawful moves toward emancipation, and to gain their end they will endeavor to impress upon the public mind that the negro is not human, and even upon his own soil he has no rights which white men are bound to respect. Douglas demands that we shall bow to all decisions. If the courts are to decide upon political subjects, how long will it be till Jefferson's fears of a political despotism are realized? He denounces all opposed to the Dred Scott opinions, in disregard to his former opposition to real decisions and the fact that he got his title of Judge by breaking down a decision of our supreme court. He has an object in these denunciations, and is it not to prepare our minds for acquiescence in the next decision declaring slavery to exist in the states? If Douglas can make you believe that slavery is a sacred right---if we are to swallow Dred Scottism that the right of property in negroes is not confined to those states where it is established by local law---if by special sophisms he can make you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 81
believe that no nation except the English are born equal and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, upon their own soil, or when they are not constitutionally divested of the God-given rights to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, then may we truly despair of the universality of freedom, or the efficacy of those sacred principles enunciated by our fathers---and give in our adhesion to the perpetuation and unlimited extension of slavery.
Annotation
[1] Carlinville Democrat, September 2, 1858.
[2] Congressman Laurence M. Keitt.
[3] Probably Dr. O. B. Heaton, who practiced in Greene and Macoupin counties.
That sums him up pretty well.
LINCOLN ADOPTS ANTI-SLAVERY
Antislavery leaders had been trying unsuccessfully since the Compromise of 1850 and passage of the Fugitive Slave Law to arouse the North by stressing the threats to Negro rights and the basic guarantees of the Constitution. But the vast majority of Northern Whites, Lincoln above all, remained remarkably unconcerned about Negro rights and the threats to the Constitution until Douglas came forward with a double-edged gift that seemed to be a direct threat not to Blacks but to White farmers lusting after Western land and big entrepreneurs chafing under the restrictions of the slave power.
It was at this precise moment that a new phenomenon in world history, the antislavery Abraham Lincoln, made his debut, coming as usual, late to the struggle and talking, as usual, on both sides of the issue. Lincoln was a down-on-his-luck Illinois politician who had blown his one big political chance in Congress and who was widely believed to be in the rigor mortis stage of a once promising political career (HW 47-8). For five years, ever since he left Congress in disfavor, he had been sniffing around the edges of the arena, trying to find or manufacture an issue that would get him back in the game. By 1853, it was clear to him, Donald W. Riddle says, that there was only one issue that could help him recoup his political fortunes (246-7). That issue was the antislavery issue, which was churning up constituencies all over the country. The only problem was that Lincoln had never been identified with that issue. No matter. Riddle and others, including the author, believe that Lincoln deliberately used the antislavery issue to get back in the game and to salvage his personal career. "Never before [the Kansas-Nebraska Act] had Lincoln run for office on the slavery issue," Riddle says, "but never afterward would he run on any other" (252).
Citations:
HW = Herndon's Lincoln, by William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik. Cleveland, 1930.
Riddle, Donald W., Congressman Abraham Lincoln. Westport, 1979.
Forced Into Glory,, Lerone Bennett, Jr., 1999
" In a passionate, eloquent address, Bennett asked for reparations for "the greatest crime in human history"--"The 500-year ordeal of Africans and African-Americans, which consisted of three major events: The 400 years of the African slave trade, which coincided with the 205 years of American slavery, followed by 100 years of forced labor and sharecropping" Bennett, author of the Black history classic Before the Mayflower: A History Of Black America and the new critically acclaimed book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, pointed out that the resolution "calls for an end to the time of weeping and cursing and the beginning of healing and reconciliation." He said that "if it does that, the price of reparation, however astronomical, will be a bargain." Bennett emphasized, "We must make amends by, first, apologizing for the slave trade and slavery and the forced labor of sharecropping." The next step, Bennett said, should be "establishing a schedule of payments. There's been a lot of discussion about how difficult this would be, but it is not hard to give away several hundred billion dollars; and it's not hard to create a panel representing all major Black interests to define priorities which, I hope, would include economic development plans for Black communities and GI-bill-type disbursements for scholarships and home purchases."
Make your reparations check payable to Leronne Bennett, nolu chan. I'm sure he'll get the money where it will do the most good.
Yes it is.
"When you give the Negro these rights," he said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood."
And later:
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.