Posted on 09/02/2019 4:35:14 PM PDT by 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.
Because 2016 is/might be a turning point when the first CONSERVATIVE president since BEFORE R Reagan was elected.
Might be that you prefer to call those states-Wisconsin, Michigan, Pa, etc a one off? He nearly won MN also.
So which side you on?
You would be surprised.
There have been two basic types of slavery throughout recorded history. The most common has been what is called household, patriarchal, or domestic slavery. Although domestic slaves occasionally worked outside the household, for example, in haying or harvesting, their primary function was that of menials who served their owners in their homes or wherever else the owners might be, such as in military service. Slaves often were a consumption-oriented status symbol for their owners, who in many societies spent much of their surplus on slaves. Household slaves sometimes merged in varying degrees with the families of their owners, so that boys became adopted sons or women became concubines or wives who gave birth to heirs. Temple slavery, state slavery, and military slavery were relatively rare and distinct from domestic slavery, but in a very broad outline they can be categorized as the household slaves of a temple or the state.
The other major type of slavery was productive slavery. It was relatively infrequent and occurred primarily in Classical Athenian Greece and Rome and in the post-Columbian circum-Caribbean New World. It also was found in 9th-century Iraq, among the Kwakiutl Indians of the American Northwest, and in a few areas of sub-Saharan Africa in the 19th century. Although slaves also were employed in the household, slavery in all of those societies seems to have existed predominantly to produce marketable commodities in mines or on plantations.
Thank you for the historical perspective. Remember that all men are created equal means all of us individually and the power to group together and form our own government and to break away from a government we no longer want.
My history major always serves me well, especially around people who have it all figured out.
When the Corwin Amendment was on the table, the slaves were being tossed out of the bargain. When the Emancipation proclamation was on the table, the Slaves were tossed back into the bargain.
Looks to me like old Charles Dickens pretty much nailed the political reality of this era. And by the way, he was vehemently anti-slavery.
Right, because like the Borg, Northerners didn't have separate minds and personalities and ideas. They only had one consciousness and only acted as one 20 million headed creature.
I ask you to consider the fact that New York city voted for Barack Obama by 83%. Hillary got 79% in 2016.
They are not exactly the Borg, but to a large extent, they do indeed work similar to a hive mind, and they always have. Getting your information from the "New York Times" and the News Networks, it's easy to see how they are so badly misinformed.
New York is the herd leader. Whatever the New York bull decides to do, the other Liberal cows follow.
You are still writing in cliches and overgeneralizations and not seriously considering the diversity of opinion that prevailed in the free states.
There was a teeny tiny minority that opposed slavery because they believed it to be morally wrong. They have been made to appear far larger than they were through subsequent propaganda highlighting their role. The vast majority of northerners hated black people, didn't care what happened to them so long as it was far away from them. They hated slavery because they saw it as an economic threat to their own interests, and because they hated the idea of black people being in their country.
Are you aware of any other category of northern American that hated slavery? It pretty much boils down to those two categories, with the later being the by far dominant position of most Americans in the North.
People voted as they did for different reasons, some noble, others not.
Most were not noble. You can see it in state laws passed to control black immigration and residency in their states. There were quite horrible laws passed in many northern states, and they clearly indicate what the public really thought of associating with black people.
Only a bigot or a hack propagandist reduces those reasons to one oversimplified motivation.
You think it is oversimplified? I think I just cut out all the bullsh*t. I have divided northern hatred into two categories. If you wish to suggest another or even more categories for why Northern people wanted slavery abolished, I would like to hear them.
You create a straw man of a pure moral North and then knock it down with your own straw man of a racist, mercenary North.
It isn't a straw man when I can point you to the laws the Northern states enacted. By no stretch of the imagination can you conceive of these laws being motivated by the same morality that motivated the radical abolitionists.
Nolu Chan has posted quite a lot on the subject, but I have been told he was banned and suspended because people were offended over his quotes of past historical figures and their laws.
If we had to wait for everyone to act in loving kindness before any injustice or abuse could be ended, we would still have slavery.
The USA usually acts when the rice bowl of the wealthy New Yorkers get threatened. Such was the case in 1861. Then they slapped a claim of "morality" on the entire affair, and have been hammering this claim ever since.
“moral objections”, Really not quite that cut and dried.
Up until Scott V. Sanford in 1857 The Abolitionists were pressing the Federal Government to take action to end slavery in the states. After the Scott decision abolitionists realized that their original demand for Government action to end slavery in the states would no longer work. So they shifted their demands to the Government limiting slavery to only those where it was legal and preventing slavery from expanding into the Territories of the United States. The Republican Party adopted this line in the 1860 election and Lincoln supported the concept. There was some moral objections to the expansion of slavery into the territories.
The reality is that it was mostly an issue of political power for the control of Congress.
2016 shows fewer states voting Republican than 2004. Now if you take it down to the county level, it becomes clear that Liberal big cities vote Liberal, and all the rural counties in a state usually vote Conservative.
Might be that you prefer to call those states-Wisconsin, Michigan, Pa, etc a one off? He nearly won MN also.
From what i've been reading, he is likely going to win MN this next year.
Pennsylvania and Ohio are swing states, and Michigan is now in play. I think Trump is going to win harder in 2020 than he did in 2016, and I can't wait to see the liberal news media meltdown over it.
The only reason elections are distorted in the US is because New York has so much control over mass communications, and they simply inject their liberal pollution into the national conscience on a daily basis.
Okay, I'll grant you that some were used for "social status". In elite social circles, house servants sent a social message to peers, but this was not the dominant purpose in the USA, and without the field slaves producing excess income, the house slaves likely wouldn't have existed.
House slaves were a luxury the wealthy could afford, but could not have existed without profit slaves.
That is what it means in Christian doctrine. That is what it is taken to mean now. That is what it should have meant then, but what we wish were so does not always correspond to what is actually so.
My history major always serves me well, especially around people who have it all figured out.
The only such people I know who have it all figured out are fools. Objective people never have it all figured out, they have a model in their mind, and they add to it or take away from it as new information presents itself, but it is almost always a work in progress.
No. Teeny tiny minorities believed that the races were equal and that slavery should be immediately abolished. The number of those who believed that slavery was morally wrong was larger than that. But they felt that it wasn't their place to demand its abolition. They figured the problem would resolve itself somehow, sometime.
Why is this so hard to grasp? We can believe that what happens in Darfur or Bosnia or Rwanda or Syria is morally wrong, and yet still believe that it's not something we can prevent or solve ourselves. We can condemn injustice or brutality without expecting the victims to move in next door, and hesitation about them moving in doesn't mean that we hate them or that we don't care about injustice.
The vast majority of northerners hated black people, didn't care what happened to them so long as it was far away from them.
If African-Americans were that far away, maybe Whites didn't think about them very much at all. Or if they did think about them, maybe it wasn't in terms of Blacks moving in and taking away their jobs or land. If you lived in Vermont or Maine, you might actually have some sympathy for what slaves were going through. You might not expect that they'd all be moving to your town (and they haven't yet after over a century) and you might not necessarily hate them. If you did hate Black people, you might well thank slaveowners for keeping them far way and in chains.
I don't discount the fact that many Northerners did hate colored people or want them kept at a distance (not exactly the same thing), but to make them representative of the vast majority of Northerners is to engage in caricature. Probably most of the time, many Northerners didn't think about Blacks at all. And when many did think about slavery it wasn't in terms of racial equality or Blacks moving into their neighborhood. It was about liberty or about cruelty or about Northern pride or anger at injustice. As one historian said, race is our obsession, it wasn't necessarily the obsession of 19th century Americans - at least not to the degree that we now think it would be.
Agree with all of that. For the dedicated abolitionists, it was a moral issue. I fully agree that if you feel that something is morally wrong, you should use all means of which you can think in an effort to change it.
But these people were simply used by the larger powers in the same manner that the LBGQT, Feminists and other minorities are used by the existing larger powers.
The larger powers do not actually care about morality. They care about a tool they can use to get and hold power, and if morality can be such a tool, they will use it.
The situation was similar in Missouri. There were one or two areas in the state that grew cotton, but it was a slave state with a Southern oriented culture, and probably sent pro-slavery Democrats to Congress even from areas outside the cotton-growing regions.
This is plausibly true. How much was it worth in congressional seats for a few token slaves to go to New Mexico territory?
It wouldn't have been hard to find uses for those slaves. Many slaves worked in crafts other than plantation agriculture.
I have driven through New Mexico several times in my life. I honestly don't know how anyone there makes a living now. I can't imagine how people could have made a living there then. Same thing with Arizona.
Let me be clear in pointing out that I have never said there would be no slaves in New Mexico territory, there just wouldn't have been enough for people to justify the huge outcry against the idea.
The dominant reason for keeping slavery out of the territories was to keep more congressional representatives away from allying with the Southern states.
The situation was similar in Missouri. There were one or two areas in the state that grew cotton, but it was a slave state with a Southern oriented culture, and probably sent pro-slavery Democrats to Congress even from areas outside the cotton-growing regions.
This is exactly right. There were two coalitions with different financial means and different financial goals, and people would ally with the groups that most represented their interests.
Seems reasonable.
We can condemn injustice or brutality without expecting the victims to move in next door, and hesitation about them moving in doesn't mean that we hate them or that we don't care about injustice.
True, but the picture changes when you pass actual laws to stop them from moving in. The representatives had become an active part of the suppression, and they are speaking for the larger body of people.
If you lived in Vermont or Maine, you might actually have some sympathy for what slaves were going through.
I think this is quite right. The information these people would have would be what they were told by others, and many of these others would be abolitionists attempting to influence them. I suspect a lot of cherry picked evidence was provided in this effort to influence them.
If you did hate Black people, you might well thank slaveowners for keeping them far way and in chains.
I think that if anyone thought that, they were very few indeed.
I don't discount the fact that many Northerners did hate colored people or want them kept at a distance (not exactly the same thing), but to make them representative of the vast majority of Northerners is to engage in caricature.
Were there not such horrible laws passed in northern states, there would be no basis on which to present such a caricature.
Probably most of the time, many Northerners didn't think about Blacks at all. And when many did think about slavery it wasn't in terms of racial equality or Blacks moving into their neighborhood. It was about liberty or about cruelty or about Northern pride or anger at injustice.
That sentiment was being constantly stirred, so I do not doubt it grew over time. Especially as when it was seen to align with their own interests.
As one historian said, race is our obsession, it wasn't necessarily the obsession of 19th century Americans - at least not to the degree that we now think it would be.
I generally ignore race. Christianity teaches that all men are brothers, and that is what I learned growing up.
Christianity is what made those five words of Jefferson resonate. Had we held a different religion, or no religion, those words would have fallen on deaf ears.
“The only reason elections are distorted in the US is because New York has so much control over mass communications, and they simply inject their liberal pollution into the national conscience on a daily basis.”
Cant disagree on your point. But its called propaganda.
It is entirely up to us to get the truth out there. And his record is truth. Thee most conservative president (up until now) since before I was born. AND, he was touted to be a wolf in sheeps clothing and actually a liberal.
I voted for him because he wasnt a practicing politician or lifetime establishment insider-of the DC sort.
Like the man said, What the hell did we have to lose?
Fully aware of it, but most of the American public is not. Too many are sheeple who will simply buy whatever the News people sell them.
Thee most conservative president (up until now) since before I was born. AND, he was touted to be a wolf in sheeps clothing and actually a liberal.
I thought he would be a liberal. He is a wealthy New Yorker after all, and most of the other examples always turn out to be a liberal. Now that he has revealed his positions on the issues, I am delighted with him. I now believe he is the only one who could have beaten the Hillary witch. I think we struck the jackpot with Trump.
Like the man said, What the hell did we have to lose?
Amen.
Expecting Slo-Joe be surprised? Not likely. Slo-Joe is in denial.
For example, Slo cannot fathom why the slavers were trying to expand into the territories.
There would *BE* no significant slavery in the territories regardless of what anyone said, because there was no profit in it.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the democrats were aggressively trying to expand into the territories.
In November 1854, thousands of armed pro-slavery men known as "Border Ruffians" or "Southern Yankees", mostly from Missouri, poured into the Kansas Territory and swayed the vote in the election for a non-voting delegate to Congress in favor of pro-slavery Democratic candidate John Wilkins Whitfield.
The following year, a congressional committee investigating the election reported that 1,729 fraudulent votes were cast compared to 1,114 legal votes.
In one location, only 20 of the 604 voters were residents of the Kansas Territory;
in another, 35 were residents and 226 non-residents.
Slo-Joe is on the side of the slavers. Clearly he is a democrat.
...Yeah, and that's why there was no slavery in Texas.
The U.S. did not obtain New Mexico until 1846.
The Mexican government also did not allow slavery in Texas. The status of allowing the territory to be free/slave was still being disputed in Congress.
Texas gained independence in 1821. The new Texas government allowed and encouraged slavery.
In 1821 at the conclusion of the Mexican War of Independence, Texas was included in the new nation. That year, the American Stephen F. Austin was granted permission to bring Anglo settlers into Texas. Most of the settlers Austin recruited came from the southern slave-owning portions of the United States. Under Austin's development scheme, each settler was allowed to purchase an additional 50 acres (20 ha) of land for each slave he brought to the territory.
It might help improve your grasp on reality if you stop inhaling that 'cotton'.
The Virginia secession convention provides plenty of detail as to the cause of the secession and the resulting war.
The DEMOCRATS initiated the secession AND the war because they wanted to SPREAD slavery.
The REPUBLICAN party was formed in direct opposition to Douglas (D) “Kansas-Nebraska” act. This act violated the Missouri compromise of 30 years prior that sought to limit slavery. It allowed both Kansas and Nebraska tertitories to become slave states by majority votes.
This ill considered law gave us ten bloody years in Kansas before the civil war.
DEMOCRAT fireeaters - led by the treasonous vice president John C Breckenridge were not content to keep their slaves. THEY WERE SEEKING TO EXPAND SLAVERY. They wanted to take their ‘property’ to every location they could settle.
SO DEMOCRATS SECEEDED AND THEN INITIATED HOSTILE ACTION.
On the other hand,
REPUBLICANS were adamantly opposed to slavery but were seeking to remove the institution in a peaceful manner.
President Lincoln sought one compromise after another to avoid the bloody civil war - up to and including the Corwin amendment.
So the REPUBLICAN and LINCOLNS initial purpose for fighiting was to ‘PRESERVE THE UNION’.
However, after much bloodshed, Lincoln expanded his goals to ENDING SLAVERY. The horrible consequences having already been thrust upon the nation by toxic, treasonous DEMOCRATS.
At the Virginia Secession convention - a near thing - speakers from the Seceeding States spoke to the convention to give their reasoning for their actions. Here are the words of the Georgia delegate to Virginia. The cause of the Civil War between Republicans and Democrats does not get any clearer than this.
First paragraph:
“I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention (Virginia), the ordinance of secession of Georgia,
and further, to invite Virginia, thorough this Convention, to join Georgie and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission….”
Second paragraph:
”What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession?
This reason may be summed up in one single proposition.
It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia,
that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery.
This conviction, sir, was the main cause.
It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil,
.... {Note: This ‘fugitive slave evil’
.... being the the refusal of some Republicans
.... in Northern States
.... to refuse to return escaped slaves}
and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil.
.... {Note: This ‘territorial evil’
.... would be the Missouri compromise
.... from thirty or forty years prior
.... where the territories were declared free
.... and slaves were not allowed.
.... The democrats wished to take their slaves
.... with them.}
But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken.
It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.”
………..Honorable Henry L. Benning, of Georgia
……………addressing the Virginia State Convention
……………on Monday, February 18, 1861
……………the Fifth day of the Convention
....
.... The second speaker from the other States after Mississippi.
Of course you don’t care because it doesn’t support your argument.
The Declaration of Independence is based on the natural law of the right of rebellion. Nowhere in the Declaration or in any of the founders writing do they claim England should just let them go. Just as there is a natural right to rebellion the existing government has a natural right to defend itself and try to suppress said rebellion. When you invoke the natural right of rebellion you must still win your independence by force of arms. Even Lincoln acknowledged this when he was a congressman.
People, including you and me, also have a right to look at the causes and reasons put forth by both sides and make a moral determination on who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
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.