Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.

Stephen Douglas:

We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.

Abraham Lincoln:

Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.

Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.

[morphing libertarian]

jefferson’s words are an indictment of slavery and justification for slave revolts.

[donaldo]

Here’s Lincoln’s last Senate campaign speech in 1858. Interesting in that he states:

“Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the constitution. The legal right of the Southern people to reclaim their fugitives I have constantly admitted. The legal right of Congress to interfere with their institution in the states, I have constantly denied. In resisting the spread of slavery to new territory, and with that, what appears to me to be a tendency to subvert the first principle of free government itself my whole effort has consisted. To the best of my judgment I have labored for, and not against the Union. As I have not felt, so I have not expressed any harsh sentiment towards our Southern brethren. I have constantly declared, as I really believed, the only difference between them and us, is the difference of circumstances.”

Conciliatory I’d say.

[Pikachu_Dad]

The sorry slaver has been reduced to making extremely weak excuses now!

Pretty pathetic.

The instigators new they were starting a war. They had travelled to be there for the fulfillment if their dreamw.

“...Edmund Ruffin, another noted Virginia secessionist, had traveled to Charleston to be present for the beginning of the war...”

Clearly he was not aware of the details of the ‘action’ between the Lane and the Nashville.

He has been caught with his breeches down, yet again.

1. Now he is trying to claim: ‘still an act of aggression’...
........ Nope. not even close.

2. Then he jumps to: “how would you like it if we had done that...”
........ The petulant child defense. Sigh. Pretty lame.

3. Then he drops that line to go with “...so they may have thought this was an attack”
....... They didn’t think this was an attack. Note the jump to plural ‘flashes of light’ and ‘big booms’ to describe a single shot. Note the use of ‘people on shore’ - he invokes the image of scared civilians instead of trained soldiers...many veterans of the recent Mexican-American war.

4. Then he jumps to: ‘things were tense’
....... Dude, the attack was planned and scheduled. P.T. was a trained vet, not some scared little ‘diogenes lamp’.

“Col. Chesnut considered this reply to be too conditional and wrote a reply, which he handed to Anderson at 3:20 a.m.: “Sir: by authority of Brigadier General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time.” Anderson escorted the officers back to their boat, shook hands with each one, and said “If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next.”

5. Then he tries to blame President Lincoln.
But we all know...

“On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that “an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort.”

6. Then he drops all that to try a ‘but they were lying’ line.
Hmmm, hard to respond to such a vacuous claim.

His vague ‘People’ would be President Buchanan.

The ‘caught and turned around’ would be the democrats firing on the Star of the West starting the civil war.

A normal resupply mission is not a ‘stunt’

7. His final line... ‘’Yeah, I would not be trusting a (redacted) thing they said’

The lad is a wee bit paranoid.

He is probably capable of passing any of the new ‘red flag’ laws.

He knows they started the war, and has been reduced to claiming that they started the war because they were weak, paranoid, and scared.

So, lets get back to reality. Reality:

planned, scheduled and executed.

“we have the honor to notify you that he will open fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time.”

[Pikachu_Dad]

It was the slavery... or ore to the point, the democrats desire to EXPAND slavery to the territories.

"I have no interest in discussing a condition that would have been maintained in the Union had secession never occurred. I find it disgusting when people try to force the Civil War into the straw man of slavery. I consider this a cowardly dodge by people who don't want to address the actual causes of the war."

We are sorry you find facts disgusting.

[Bull Snipe]

People on shore could see flashes of light and hear big booms.

Heavy rain squalls that morning bring suspicion to the veracity of the “eye witness” accounts. Could have been lightning and thunder. Lane only fired one shot

Any naval vessel would have fired a shot across the bow on a ship running dark, and not flying a national ensign off of the entrance to New York harbor. Standard procedure at sea by all navies at the time. As with Nashville, as soon as she identified herself, she was allowed to enter Charleston Harbor.

[crz]

The south cause was never “Independence” so forget that.

It was the continuation of royalists to the old English crown by keeping a system of nobility in place-to keep the peasant class system in place.

Wasnt only about only slavery, since the white dirt farmer was viewed as trash even lower than slaves.

Amazing, claiming to be REPUBLICAN conservatives, yet defend DEMOCRAT history.

[DiogenesLamp]

I said what it said. That’s all I said. I acknowledged he kept slaves.

As did every State in the Union at that time, and their representatives who signed the Declaration of Independence were fully aware of that.

Trying to make the Declaration about slavery because of those five words Jefferson put into it is dishonest. It isn't about slavery. It is about independence.

Yes, Lincoln was lying in his Gettysburg address. He makes it seem as if the founders were intending liberty for slaves, when they were in fact intending liberty for themselves, while they intended that the slaves continued to be kept as slaves.

This is a perfect example of a Liberal reading an interpretation into something that wasn't intended by the framers of a law.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with Abortion, Gay Marriage, or prayer in public schools, but through the power of creative interpretation, they have declared that the 14th amendment justifies their decisions on these matters.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was the slavery... or ore to the point, the democrats desire to EXPAND slavery to the territories.

And here you trot out the same claim that has been said over and over again before and after the civil war.

I have heard this claim all my life, and I used to believe it. Then I decided to look at the matter as an objective observer and I discovered something very wrong with this claim.

Slavery couldn't have "expanded" to the territories, at least not to any meaningful degree. It was simply impossible to bring any significant quantity of slaves into the territories to make enough money to justify it.

Now I don't think you are a reasonable person, but perhaps enough facts will eventually get you to thinking.

This is a modern map of cotton production.

West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California can only produce cotton as a consequence of vast irrigation systems and pumps which did not exist in 1860, and would not exist for at least another 40 years, perhaps longer.

So after removing all the cotton production created by modern irrigation systems, the only thing you have left is a tiny bit in Kansas. The rest of territories? Nothing. Absolutely no cotton production in the areas that were territories in the 1800s.

So what were those slaves going to do in the territories? How was slavery going to expand into the territories when there was no cash crops that could be grown in these territories?

It seems that the danger of slavery expanding into the territories was highly overblown to the point that it appears people must have been lying about it.

So why would people lie about expanding slavery into the territories? If you say "Political power in Congress", go to the head of the class.

[DiogenesLamp]

We are sorry you find facts disgusting.

It is a repeated assertion that people have proclaimed to be a "fact", but when put up against the evidence, it fails to achieve the actual status of truth.

You can't advocate the Corwin Amendment, and then claim you care about freeing slaves.

This is like Bill Clinton feigning concern for rape victims.

[DiogenesLamp]

Heavy rain squalls that morning bring suspicion to the veracity of the “eye witness” accounts. Could have been lightning and thunder. Lane only fired one shot

I think everyone in the city knew the warships were coming. I have read sufficient message traffic for that time period to demonstrate that it was the arrival of the ships which triggered the bombardment.

The ships showed up first, and the information was passed to Beauregard prior to his notification to Anderson that an attack would commence.

Once the ships arrived, he was out of time for negotiations. If the fort wasn't neutralized quickly, he would find his men caught in the crossfire between the ships and the fortress.

A couple of more days delay, and Anderson would have left peaceably.

[DiogenesLamp]

The south cause was never “Independence” so forget that.

Are you saying they didn't want to be independent of Washington DC's control? Why then did they secede? Were they somehow expecting to continue following Washington DC's commands after secession?

If it wasn't about independence, what was it about? What would be different after secession than before?

It was the continuation of royalists to the old English crown by keeping a system of nobility in place-to keep the peasant class system in place.

You mean like we have now with the New York and Washington DC "elite" keeping us "deplorables" in line? There is a reason New York controls almost all the television media nowadays, and there is a reason New York is the center of American Wealth. It is to continue that Aristocratic system of the connected, deep state, influence traders that have relationships with powerful officials in Washington DC, and more or less own a huge number of Congressmen.

Wasn't only about only slavery, since the white dirt farmer was viewed as trash even lower than slaves.

Still are. Look at the map.

The "deplorables" are mostly rural. The "elites" are coastal and Urban.

Amazing, claiming to be REPUBLICAN conservatives, yet defend DEMOCRAT history.

The terms don't mean today what they meant then. In 1860, the Republicans were the party of Urban Liberals, mostly in the North, while the Democrats were the party of mostly rural working men.

I like to simplify the distinction by labeling them as the "Hamiltonians" vs the "Jeffersonians." That way we keep both the ideology and geography consistent between the two groups and the two eras.

The Republicans were the party of big city "progressives" as they later came to be known.

[Bull Snipe]

“it was the arrival of the ships which triggered the bombardment.”

You are correct, Davis had ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort before it could be resupplied. A convoy of unarmed supply ships unescorted by warships would have brought on the bombardment of the fort. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to remain under U.S. control. Even if it meant war, which his Secretary of State (Robert Toombs)warned him would happen.

[DiogenesLamp]

A convoy of unarmed supply ships unescorted by warships would have brought on the bombardment of the fort.

That didn't happen when the Star of the West tried to sneak troops into the place. It also didn't happen when that other ship (I forget the name) tried to come into the harbor.

Beauregard was authorized to hold as long as he thought negotiations were worthwhile. Had those ships not arrived, it is quite likely Anderson and his men would have walked out in a day or so.

Even if it meant war, which his Secretary of State (Robert Toombs)warned him would happen.

How many of his cabinet warned Lincoln? What did Secretary of State Seward say on the matter of sending those ships?

:)

[Pikachu_Dad]

Wow !

What does the democrats desire to expand slavery to the territories have to do with cotton?

Are you slow?

The democrats VERY CLEARLY stated position was that they wanted to be able to take their property (ie their slaves) with them to wherever they desired to settle.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Davis was being urged towards war to force Virginia to join them..

At that point, Virginia had declined to join the Confederacy.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Ah, now I see, you are Joe Biden.

You choose “We choose truth over facts.”

[DiogenesLamp]

What does the democrats desire to expand slavery to the territories have to do with cotton?

Uh, cotton was the number one money making purpose for slavery. Wouldn't think this would have to be explained to people discussing the topic.

Are you slow?

I'm not the one who is having trouble grasping that Slavery=Cotton.

The democrats VERY CLEARLY stated position was that they wanted to be able to take their property (ie their slaves) with them to wherever they desired to settle.

I don't pay as much attention to what people say as I do to what they do. There were 12 slaves in all of New Mexico Territory, and that was when New Mexico Territory looked like this.

Contrast that with 436,631 in Mississippi at that time.

Do you comprehend the difference between 12 and 436,631? Should I graph it for you so that you can better understand that there was no significant effort to put slaves into the territories?

The entire claim was phoney hyperventilating about a non issue, and people like you are still falling for this same claim today.

The issue wasn't about actual slaves in actual territories. It was about whether or not the Southern states would get allied representatives in Congress, and could therefore change the laws that had the Southern states paying 73% of all the taxes, while New York and Washington DC collected 73% of the money for their tax and spend government projects.

[DiogenesLamp]

Can you do better than lame @$$ed name calling?

I noticed you completely ignored the fact that Lincoln was encouraging the nation to pass an amendment to protect slavery.

Don't like ugly truths brought to your attention? Find name calling an easier way of debating than actually trying to learn something?

[Pikachu_Dad]

Oh good grief. Stop being stuck on moron !

Slavery = Slavery.

Breckenridge and his fellow democrats were very clear with their stated intentions.

You do not need to go try revising history to fit your pet theories.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Your retarded claim needed no reply.