Skip to comments.Frederick Douglass in 1852: "What to the Slave is the 4th of July?"
Posted on 01/15/2018 11:17:47 AM PST by GoldenState_Rose
Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.
They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.
They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was settled that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were final; not slavery and oppression.
(Excerpt) Read more at teachingamericanhistory.org ...
They were killed so that the Deep State "Establishment" might continue to rule an Empire. Oh, and they freed the slaves, not because they gave a rat's @SS about them, but because it would help prevent the South from getting revenge for the bloodshed perpetrated upon them by the New York/Washington DC power cartel. It would break the South's financial system, and it would weaken their political power greatly. *THAT* is why they decided to free the slaves.
Lincoln had no plans to free any slaves when he started the Civil War.
One of the things Douglass resented about the U.S. in his day was that even most of the abolitionists in the Union states didn’t see blacks as equal to whites. These abolitionists wanted to end slavery, but they were perfectly content to treat freed and escaped slaves as second-class citizens in the Union.
I believe you are mistaken about that.
Slavery was ended *because* of much bitter bloodshed. When the war began, there was no intentions at all of freeing the slaves. It was nearly two years later that Lincoln decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed some slaves, and was seen as a war tactic to weaken the South.
Once the war was over, Lincoln pushed for the 13th amendment because if the South was allowed to keep their slaves, their economic engine would have once more produced massive amounts of Foreign Trade, but this time the South would be intent on using that money to get revenge for the bloodshed perpetrated upon them.
They would have minimized their investments in Northern Shipping or New York businesses such as banking, insurance, warehousing, and they would have insisted on using Southern companies for all their transactions. Additionally, there would never be another Southern vote in the Congress for anything wanted by the Republicans. The entire block would be forever voting against anything desired by the power block which won the war.
By freeing the slaves, not only did the Washington/New York power axis dissolve most of the capital held by Southern interests, they also prevented them from reestablishing their former profits from foreign trade. Additionally, by giving these freed slaves the right to vote, they diluted the political power of these Southerners who would be otherwise expected to do everything of which they could think to thwart the political desires of the Northern power block.
Freeing the slaves solved a lot of potential political and economic problems for the Northern Interests who needed to stop the South from gaining economic independence from their control.
But don't think anyone did it because it was the moral thing to do. This was a calculated move to retain power, and nothing else.
Also, technology was going to make slavery obsolete anyway.
Most Northerners wanted them expelled from the nation. Illinois passed a law forbidding blacks from settling in their states. I believe several other Northern states did so as well. Lincoln himself was an officer in an organization dedicated to getting blacks to leave the US.
“Its “I’m Not Going To Grow Old And Die In A Shithole Country Day.””
Alternatively, it’s “I’m not going to catch a waterborne fecal-based disease and die young in some third-world shithole run by corruptocrats or “helped” by the Clinton Crime Family Foundation Day”.
Oh, so Lincoln had Union troops fire on a supply ship and then a few months later fired on Ft.Sumter. I guess my history books got it all backwards. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, but it was going to take awhile. If I recall properly, the first practical machine for picking cotton didn't arrive until the 1940s. Social pressure and exhaustion of the cotton fields would have likely ended it before then.
Plantation slavery was really impractical within the USA in anyplace outside of the South. The Western states couldn't grow cotton, and neither could the Southern states (without irrigation) west of Texas.
He was a household helper and escaped when he was 20.
The people who fired on the Supply ship (star of the west) were not part of the Confederate Army, they were cadets at the Citadel, and they had no instructions from the Confederate government to do so. They took it upon themselves to do that.
Additionally, the reason the confederates attacked Ft. Sumter was because Lincoln had sent a fleet of warships to Charleston with orders to attack the confederates if they refused to allow them to resupply fort Sumter.
Facing a possible simultaneous attack from the guns of Ft. Sumter and the cannons of the war ships, the Confederates decided to neutralize the one threat before they would have to face the other.
It was the arrival of the war fleet that triggered the firing on Ft. Sumter, but the fact that Lincoln sent those warships to attack the Confederates is never taught in the history books, because it makes it look like Lincoln deliberately started the war.
Which he did.
This is obviously in the public domain.
Why the excerpt?
A while back several of us went round and round with this; I don’t feel like getting into it again. Thanks.
You sound like a communist.
Party pooper. :)
DiogenesLamp, you got some issues, FRiend.
Really? Where in any of my writing have you seen any "share the wealth" commentary?
Communists are just thieves, in my opinion.
I don't like the fact that a very significant period of history has been covered up and whitewashed into something that it never was. The Civil War was a horrible tragedy that should not have happened, and it has taken me a long time to learn the details of why it happened.
It wasn't what I had been led to believe for most of my life.
But for Johnson's "Great Society". Unless they're islamists, blacks are still on the periphery of the democrat plantation. Unfortunately, many still in that slavery - regardless of their race! - are plainly too stupid to realize it.
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.