Posted on 01/19/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by kosciusko51
When are you people down in the South going to give it a rest. It was filled with a bunch of racists who thought that was fine to own another person based on the color of his skin.
(Believe me, the truth will set you free—and you will probably be a lot happier that all of this is over—which should been a hundred years ago. Now, if I hear anymore Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union from anymore psuedohistorians, who think that textbooks should banish everything that has to do with slavery— all I got to say was the South started when they thought that he was going to free the what-—what’s that you say—the slaves.
And remember the South started when they even plotted to kill Lincoln even before he was sworn in)
Yes I do. And so did Frederick Douglass. I have no reason to suspect otherwise.
Remember the South used the States’ Rights arguement when they wouldn’t let black people even use the same water fountains. Do you honestly think that they are going to say—on tv-no less— “Yes, we’re a bunch of snivelling biggots, and we don’t care what you say.” At least, people like Wallace were honest about it...
"Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President" by Thomas L. Krannawitter
The Union - the United States minus the Confederate States of America - the ones who wore blue - the part that used the American flag.
He had no legal authority to free any slaves in the Confederacy.
I suppose we should all be glad you weren't around in the past. "Why the heck would you want to go to that deathtrap in Plymouth? How about I find you a nice owner instead?" or "You want to go where??? Do you know how many people die in those wagon trains? Why not stay here where it's safe?"
I cant stand this.
If it wasn’t about slavery, then why is slavery the main issue in each states secession orders??
The emancipation proclamation was a convienent way to conscript blacks into the US Army as the supply of willing Irish was runnong low. Lincoln needed more bodies to put between DC and the CSA’a Army of NoVa.
“He had no legal authority to free any slaves in the Confederacy.”
The official position of the U.S. government was that there was no Confederacy. Only naughty little states. Even if that was a legalistic fiction, the Union army in due course made it hard fact.
They won the war, after all, right? Certainly at some point former members of the CSA came back under federal authority, yes? Well, then, mark it there that the slaves became free.
“The emancipation proclamation was a convienent way to conscript blacks into the US Army as the supply of willing Irish was runnong low”
Whatever. I never said it wasn’t. That was Lincoln’s position, as well, if you’ll recall. Not in those exact words, but it was presented as a necessary wartime measure.
By the way, it wasn’t only that. For it proclaimed slaves in the rebellious states would be free “hereafter,” meaning FOREVER. And forever was expected to extend beyond the war.
As per the US Constitution, the President had no authority to free slaves in areas of the Union not in rebellion.
That is where I was marking it.
Hence, in 1863, he did not free any slaves in the Confederacy.
[ If it wasnt about slavery, then why is slavery the main issue in each states secession orders?? ]
BECAUSE!!!... of the controversy of demographics.. whether slaves would be considered citizens or “how much” of a citizen they were(1/3;1/2;1/4 etc.).. Determining “how many” representatives each State would have in the House of Representatives.. i.e. Apportionment.. Thats WHY?.....
The Civil War was “ABOUT” States Rights.. Not-> Slavery.. but slavery was indeed “an issue”..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
I think you said it perfectly. My family - Georgia and Texas. The wounds are deep. The south has a long memory. Yankees don’t seem to understand that.
Today’s civil war is being fought on cultural and ideological lines rather then the Mason/Dixon line. Also, between the states and the invasive Federal government. We are in the early stages of the war. Maybe we can back the enemy down, but at this point, I kind of doubt it. It’ll probably get worse before it will get better. States rights all over again!
In other words...it all comes back to slavery.
To a Race PimP, it does all relate to slavery..
Well that certainly advances your “argument” /s
I see that you've been with Free Republic since 2008.
I've been with Free Republic since 2003, and in all that time I've never seen anyone make such a claim -- except Lost Causers like youself pretending someone else said it.
So it seems to me you're just battling against old ghosts.
Maybe you should consider discontinuing whatever drink it is that brings those out?
;-)
Everyone who's studied this knows that slavery in the North was abolished slowly, slowly beginning somewhere around 1777, and even by 1860 there were still occasional black "servants" in such places as New York City.
And here is Krannawitter's silly book being systematically debunked: Vindicating Lincoln?.
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.