Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteram to jeffersondem: "I think I’ve explained it simply enough that even you can understand it."

You certainly did.

[BroJoeK]

DrewsMum: "Lincoln didn’t free the northern slaves because he didn’t want to live amongst blacks and neither did most northerners.
That’s the truth."

No, it's total nonsense.
First of all, in 1860 there were almost no "Northern slaves" -- zero, none, nada outside New Jersey which still had 18.
Second, at the same time there were 250,000 freed blacks living in the North, with rates of population growth double freed blacks in the South.

Slaves in Union slave-states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri -- are a different matter.
Maryland & Missouri proved eager to abolish slavery on their own, Kentucky & Delaware not so much.
But in Delaware in 1860 90% of African Americans were already freed and in Kentucky by 1865 90% of slaves had either already been freed or had escaped.

Abolition had nothing to do with "living amongst blacks".

My question is, why is it so important to you people to convince us that "Republicans hate blacks"?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Still, the post about Founding Fathers as yapping dogs was a disturbing read."

Only in your fantasies as a weapon you can use to change the subject when you need to escape from a close call, such as, do you agree or disagree that Union troops should have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters"?

You can't answer, it's not on your script to answer and so what do you have to do?
Change the subject, of course, let's talk about yapping dogs, OK?

Well... first you answer my question, FRiend, and then if you are still worried over "yapping dogs", we can get into it, maybe.

[rockrr]

Wonder all you like. It doesn’t make any difference to the FACT that it ain’t “enshrined” if they can’t even bring themselves to call it by name.

[jeffersondem]

“It doesn’t make any difference to the FACT that it ain’t “enshrined” if they can’t even bring themselves to call it by name.”

“Enshrine” is just another word for “include.” Something they call a synonym.

Now, reread the previous posts and they will make more sense.

And don’t ask me for another word for “synonym.”

[HandyDandy]

I would just like to add that President A. Lincoln signed the 13th Ammendment well before it was passed, even though his signature was not required. He wanted very much to have his name on it. It passed after he was assassinated. Of course, he was assassinated not long after he made a speech that mentioned giving blacks the right to vote. A certain idiot who was in the crowd for that speech, thought he could stop that from happening by assassinating President A. Lincoln. So he did. But he did not become a hero to the South like he thought he would. In fact his action caused all “goodwill for all, and malice toward none” to go right out the window, as the North then came down hard on the South in a way that resounds to this day.

[rockrr]

“Enshrine” is just another word for “include.”

You're grasping - and lost your grip.

[HandyDandy]

No doubt you are aware that Article IV, sec 2, clause 3, “enshrined” Free-States just as well as “slavery”?
In fact, one might say that everything included in the US Constitution is “enshrined” in it. But next to nobody does.

[jeffersondem]

“Only in your fantasies as a weapon you can use to change the subject when you need to escape from a close call, such as, do you agree or disagree that Union troops should have returned fugitive slaves to their Confederate “masters”?”

Brother Joe, you have lost track of your posts, among other things.

If you will reread my post 92 it does mention the yapping dog slur but not to change the subject under discussion. I used it by way of agreement with something another member of the board said. It was not you. You were not copied on the post. You were not mentioned in any way.

That did not stop you from boiling-in (your post 100) and making a two-way conversation into something bigger and breathing oxygen onto the old slur. Why, I don’t know.

[an amused spectator]

If Robert E. Lee had been able to steal a P-38 with the help of the flux capacitor, he might have singlehandedly won the war, Nazi SS uniform or not.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " 'Enshrine' is just another word for 'include.'
Something they call a synonym."

Just so we're clear on this point, the new Confederate constitution "enshrined" three new protections for slavery, not included in the old US Constitution:

1. No laws against slavery
2. No restrictions on movement & sojourn of slaves
3. No prohibitions on slavery in Confederate territories.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Brother Joe, you have lost track of your posts, among other things."

I notice your memory still works great on your own posts, not so much on mine.

jeffersondem: "If you will reread my post 92 it does mention the yapping dog slur..."

You were enjoying a mocking laugh with a fellow Lost Causer by claiming "someone" said, "that Thomas Jefferson was a yapping dog."

Well, that's not what I said, though I did report accurately that Jefferson is included in the list of anti-Federalists who opposed ratifying the Constitution, and as leader of the anti-Administration & old Democrats he proposed policies (i.e., Nullification) to defeat it.

Rather that take that point seriously, you reduced it to "yapping dog" for purposes of bonding with a fellow Lost Causer.
But Jefferson never "yapped".

[DrewsMum]

You say zero slaves in the northern states then proceed to list all the ones who had hundreds of thousands of slaves.

Thank you for rebutting yourself and saving me the work.

[HandyDandy]

By golly! Excellent point. The word “slavery” is not even “included”. And if “included” is synonymous with “enshrined”, then neither is it enshrined.

[DrewsMum]

“Abolition had nothing to do with “living amongst blacks”. “

That was the main reason that the union was by and large NOT pushing for slavery to end in the south in the beginning.

The flip that to that is that it was a motivation to end it in their states previously. They didn’t want anymore blacks coming in.

That’s very well documented.

And the main reason several banned blacks from even coming into their states.

Sorry if i’ve tainted your view of the union/ north with the cold hard facts of their white supremacy also.

[jeffersondem]

“Just so we’re clear on this point, the new Confederate constitution “enshrined” three new protections for slavery, not included in the old US Constitution:”

Sure, the CSA had slavery in their Constitution. They had slaves.

And the USA had slavery in their Constitution. They had slaves. The USA had slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation - and after.

But of the original 13 states in the USA, only 13 of them had slaves.

[sparklite2]

But of the original 13 states in the USA, only 13 of them had slaves.

---

Heh, I see what you did there.

[jeffersondem]

“By golly! Excellent point. The word “slavery” is not even “included”. And if “included” is synonymous with “enshrined”, then neither is it enshrined.”

Of the original 13 slaves states in the USA, all 13 of them voted against having slavery as part of the US constitution.

Does this sound right?

[rockrr]

Your weasel-word sophistry ill becomes you.

[jeffersondem]

“By golly! Excellent point. The word “slavery” is not even “included”. And if “included” is synonymous with “enshrined”, then neither is it enshrined.”

The following message was apparently intended for you but came to my address: “Your weasel-word sophistry ill becomes you.”

I'm forwarding to you as a courtesy.