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 ...
Good posts.
At their core, today’s liberals have the same racial attitudes of the abolitionists that so disturbed Douglass.
Thanks. I’m still a voice calling out in the wilderness. :)
They are effectively the same people. Mostly well-to-do urban Liberals that the rest of the country regarded as "kooks", as were abolitionists regarded in their day.
As Charles Dickens said on the subject:
"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."
And for what it's worth, Charles Dickens was very anti-slavery.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Douglass got to know the prominent abolitionists very well. He had no illusions and should be admired for doing what he had to do on behalf of his people. Decent people should take the same approach when dealing with liberals. You may have to deal with them, but you should know better than to ever trust them.
You have no idea of the hate that went back and forth then mostly aimed at me from pro-Civil War fanatics. Thanks but no thanks.
You have no idea of the hate that went back and forth then mostly aimed at me from pro-Civil War fanatics. Thanks but no thanks.
It’s my opinion based on circumstantial evidence.
1. During republican primary elections, Limbaugh consistently pushes the establishment candidate while talking down the most conservative one. In 2008 he talked down Thompson while pushing Romney. In 2012 he spoke against Gingrich and Santorum respectively, but only at times when each of them could have made strategic gains.
2. Limbaugh was consistently anti-Trump during the primaries and the general. I don’t care if he’s good at nuance, in the end his inclination was always anti-Trump. What Limbaugh is good at (and I don’t consider this a mark of intelligence, only a mark of deceptiveness) is to say just enough to make it appear that he’s in favor of something conservative or pro-American, but pulling back enough and going in the other direction enough that when it could make a difference, his commentary subtly supports the deep state narrative. No different from the Medveds and the Ingrahams.
3. Limbaugh made his money, his fame and his career on the deep state system. As part of the system. Not as an agent opposing it. In my opinion, there’s no way he could be anything but deep state.
The war is not democrat vs republican, and it’s not liberal against conservative.
It’s deep state vs the American people.
???
No, he didn’t have any plans to free the slaves. But he was definetly anti-slavery and had been from a young age. He expressed this many times in his writings and speeches, you should read them.
The Republican Parties official platform for the election states in section 8;
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
It was clear that the final goal of the republican party was to get rid of slavery.
He was a chattel slave. He was a household slave at times, but he was also put out on the plantation, and in the ship yards.
I've been arguing the Civil war for several years, and I try not to take anything or make anything personal. I see the whole thing as a great tragedy that could have been avoided. Yes, people get nasty with me sometimes, but it isn't going to upset me.
But I understand your reluctance to bother with it.
Amazingly thoughtful speech that sought to rally Americans against the cause of slavery as antithetical to ideas of liberty and freedom contained in the Constitution and to the precepts of Christianity.
Well considering what the US stands for, it should be held to the highest standard.
I have read sufficient of them to convince me that Lincoln very definitely opposed slavery, and that this was a heartfelt position by him. But I've also read enough about him to understand that his opposition to slavery would take a back seat to what he regarded as his primary concern, which was to advance his political philosophy of "Mercantilism".
It was clear that the final goal of the republican party was to get rid of slavery.
I used to believe that. Now I am not so sure. I have been persuaded that there is more to these events than meets the eye. If looked at from a basis of power, all of their moves seem to be directed at acquiring and keeping power, both political and financial. The Anti-Slavery rhetoric seems to just be propaganda for the rubes.
Limbaugh was consistently anti-Trump during the primaries and the general
////////////////////////
Who was Rush for in the general election?
From the beginning, Rush has stated to his audience that his number one priority is the success of his show and making himself look good. At best, conservatism and American values take second place.
The success of his show depends on powerful deep state actors. To think they tell him what he can say and what he can’t say to advance their agenda is just common sense.
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.