Posted on 06/16/2020 3:17:15 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
Democrat Senator and former VP running mate of Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine (VA) on Tuesday said the United States created slavery.
To think this degenerate liar almost became Vice President of the United States.
“The United States didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it,” said Tim Kaine as he droned on about racism in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
apparently, that moron kane never saw the movie “Spartacus” ...
The only reason the weak and cowardly progressives have dispatched their servants to push this weak anti-Lincoln narrative is they’re still mad.
They lost the war and they lost their criminal ownership of slaves.
Face it. Lincoln freed the slaves. Do you need to read his writings to understand it was a life mission for him?
Politician sucking up.
He’s a democrat.
He doesn’t have to or need to be accurate.
He just needs to be PC enough.
Concerning the influence of Jefferson on the decisions of the Massachusetts court. No, we have not discussed this before,
I do not recall in all these years you connecting the two. Just the usual diatribe’s against activist Massachusetts judges, taking the law into their own hands, making law from the bench based on their own personnel desires. Not one word that it may have been the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson that inspired their judicial rulings.
General Grant owned slaves” (and he did, by virtue of marriage— ie. his wife’s family slaves) as it is to claim General Lee owned slaves (he did— they were Mary Custis Lee’s inherited slaves from her father George Washington Parke Custis.
Not the case. Grant personally owned a slave given to him by Fredrick Dent, his father in law. Grant freed the man after about a year.
Mary Custis did not inherit the slaves her father owned. In the Custis will, the slaves remained the property of the estate. The will required the slaves to be freed once the debts and legacies of the estate were paid, but not longer than 5 years after Custis death. Lee was one of four executors to the Custis will.
There is some evidence, sketchy at best, that Lee may have owned some slaves inherited from his mother’s estate in 1822. Lee’s son said his father freed the last of them in 1838.
Actually they were built by craftsmen and paid workers; houses were built for the workers at the building sites. More in history , this is short.
The year round work force was as you described. However during the annual Nile floods, a much larger work force was conscripted from the Egyptian population. This was the labor force that actually moved the majority of the thousands of stone blocks to the pyramids and placed them. This labor force was fed and housed near the work sites. When the flood subsided these people returned to their property and started to plant the next crops.
I guess his history learned starts and ends in America. A product of the education system fail
Most probably the stone blocks were moved by Egyptians, conscripted for the task during the annual Nile flood, when they could not work in the fields.
Yes I know the Greeks and Romans had slavery, but it was not chattel slavery. I was sticking to the topic of the pyramids not writing a dissertation on slavery
Lincoln did not oppose slavery completely and absolutely. He wrote a letter stating that his goal was to preserve the Union, and that if he can preserve the Union by preserving slavery, he would do that, but if he can preserve the Union by abolishing slavery, he would do that. When he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, he did so as a war-time measure, and admonished abolitionist zealots against preying on the slave-owners of Kentucky, Maryland, et al., because they were not in rebellion, so did not fall within the purview of the Proclamation. He also offered the secessionist states, prior to Sumter, to guarantee that they may remain slave states forever, so long as no new territory would be allowed to become a slave state. They rejected the offer. But he made it.
And just how were the pyramids made there Timmy boy ya dumb ass?
This is an illusion. The Republicans pretended to be against slavery, but they were really against the "expansion" of slavery. They were fine with it continuing to exist in the places where it existed, they just didn't want it getting any more representation in Congress.
This massive disagreement became a national political conflict, and then a civil war.
So we have been led to believe, but the schism was more about representation in Congress than it was about actual slavery. It's been prettied up to make it look like altruism, but in reality it was all self interest.
The President does not sign Amendments. There is no constitutional role in the Amendment process for the President.
But there is pretty good evidence that Lincoln wrote the amendment. William Seward who was his Secretary of State is greatly responsible for it getting passed in the Senate. Lincoln did a lot of work behind the scenes to get this thing approved because he wanted to reassure the Southern states that all that blather about him doing away with slavery was just politicking to get votes.
Lincoln did take the unusual step of writing letters to the Governors of every state informing them that the Corwin Amendment had passed the House and the Senate, and now it was up to their states to ratify it.
Five Northern states, controlled by "Republicans" did vote to ratify this amendment, and William Seward (Senator and former governor of New York) declared that he could guarantee it's passage in New York. If the 16 slave states would have voted for it, this thing would have very likely become the 13th amendment to the US Constitution.
And Lincoln's fingerprints are all over this slavery protection amendment.
The Republicans were the "progressives" in 1860. They were big city tax and spend liberals who wanted power so they could funnel money into their crony capitalist allies.
They didn't actually care about slavery, they just used it as a tool to get votes. What they cared about is taxing the South at 73% of total Federal revenues and spending the money on projects that benefited themselves and their crony friends later known as "Robber Barons."
They lost the war and they lost their criminal ownership of slaves.
It was completely legal under the laws of the United States to own slaves at that time.
Face it. Lincoln freed the slaves. Do you need to read his writings to understand it was a life mission for him?
I've read quite a bit of his writings. He was an excellent writer, and I do not doubt that he disapproved of slavery, but he was not as committed to it's eradication as people have been led to believe. One does not urge passage of the Corwin amendment and claim that slavery was an imperative moral issue.
Abolition of slavery was a tool that Lincoln used, but one which he had never intended to use when the war was launched against the South.
After it had become so bitter, Lincoln decided it was better to break their economy so as to keep them from ever recovering enough power to challenge Washington DC and it's New York Crony Robber Barons, again.
If he was doing it out of concern for the slaves, he would have done it in April of 1861. The fact that it took to 1863 to issue a decree to free some of the slaves in areas of the country he did not control, shows that it was a tactical move, not a moral move.
Even his own Secretary of State (William H. Seward) was so disgusted with his hypocrisy that he said:
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
If the war was about slavery, they could have started abolition with Maryland and Delaware. The fact that they tolerated slavery in the North all through the war demonstrates they weren't all that concerned with slavery.
Then I must be mistaking you for someone else. Jefferson's words were adopted by Massachusetts in their 1776 constitution, and formed the basis for a court challenge to the institution of slavery based on a deliberate misreading of the intent of the drafters and voters. It was liberal courts reading a meaning into verbiage which was not intended to mean what they claim, much like 14th amendment "privacy" creates a right to abortion.
Just the usual diatribe’s against activist Massachusetts judges, taking the law into their own hands, making law from the bench based on their own personnel desires.
Well this is correct. A non activist judge would have rejected attempts to present this little snippet as the intent of the voters to abolish slavery.
If that had been their intent, it should have been stated clearly and without ambiguity, because it had the potential to affect so many people. Sneaking it in through deliberately misinterpreted words is a typical trick of activist judges.
Just the usual diatribe’s against activist Massachusetts judges, taking the law into their own hands, making law from the bench based on their own personnel desires.
Well I've said on numerous occasions that Thomas Jefferson's five words did more to abolish slavery than any actions by other person of that era. It was the inspiration that caused them to act to make those words a reality.
I don't agree with their methods of lying about the intent, but I agree with the outcome.
they could have started abolition with Maryland and Delaware.
What Constitutional authority would have allowed Lincoln to abolish slavery in Maryland and Delaware?
The same constitutional authority that allowed him to do it anywhere.
Meaning none.
So, you are saying he could not have abolished slavery in those states in the Union.
Fair enough.
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.