Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Kalamata; x; rockrr
Kalamata: "The editor, Roy Basler, commented: No, the truth is quite different.
The truth is Lincoln hated slavery and wished to abolish it everywhere he lawfully could -- in Northern states and Western territories.

As for what was then called "recolonization", that was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson and had been official US government policy since the time of President Monroe, circa 1820.
For decades both Federal and state governments voted large sums to support voluntary recolonization of freedmen to Liberia and elsewhere.
These efforts proved very disappointing -- hugely expensive with meager results.
By 1860 many, especially freed-blacks themselves, had grown disillusioned with recolonization, but Lincoln was determined to give it another try.

President Lincoln's efforts on a vastly larger scale than attempted before also failed and in the end he gave up on recolonization.
The real truth is that most freedmen wanted to remain in the country where they were born, and Lincoln came to realize that having such people as reliable Republican voters would be a good thing.

Curiously, so it's sometimes said, that's what got Lincoln assassinated.

Kalamata: "What is a Neo-Confederate?"

I think for purposes of these threads: Neo-Confederate = Pro-Confederate = Southron = secessionist = anti-American.

Kalamata: "That is not the way Andrew Jackson presented it.
He clamed the rich money-grabbers were those, like Clay, who pushed for a national bank:"

And most curiously, both Jackson and Clay were New Englanders, from those Northeastern states of Tennessee and Kentucky.
And they were initially joined by that other uber-Northerner, John C. Calhoun, from Northern South Carolina, in proposing the 1828 Tariff of Abominations against strong objections from other New England states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.

And this proves it was "Northern oppression" which drove Southern lunatics to secede over tariffs in 1828... oh, wait...

122 posted on 12/17/2019 6:54:04 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK; rockrr; x

BroJoeK to Kalamata; rockrr; x

>>Kalamata wrote: “The editor, Roy Basler, commented: “The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness.” [Ibid. p.23]”
>>Joey wrote: “No, the truth is quite different.The truth is Lincoln hated slavery and wished to abolish it everywhere he lawfully could — in Northern states and Western territories.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “As for what was then called “recolonization”, that was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson and had been official US government policy since the time of President Monroe, circa 1820. For decades both Federal and state governments voted large sums to support voluntary recolonization of freedmen to Liberia and elsewhere. These efforts proved very disappointing — hugely expensive with meager results. By 1860 many, especially freed-blacks themselves, had grown disillusioned with recolonization, but Lincoln was determined to give it another try.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “President Lincoln’s efforts on a vastly larger scale than attempted before also failed and in the end he gave up on recolonization.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “The real truth is that most freedmen wanted to remain in the country where they were born, and Lincoln came to realize that having such people as reliable Republican voters would be a good thing.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “Curiously, so it’s sometimes said, that’s what got Lincoln assassinated.”

Do you have a source for that?

************
>>Kalamata: “What is a Neo-Confederate?”
>>Joey wrote: “I think for purposes of these threads: Neo-Confederate = Pro-Confederate = Southron = secessionist = anti-American.”

I am pro-American, which means I support our Christian heritage, Christian prayer in public schools, and the teaching of the Word of God as history.

How about you? What do you support? The phony “separation of church and state” doctrine of the ACLU? Of course you do.

************
>>Kalamata: “That is not the way Andrew Jackson presented it. He clamed the rich money-grabbers were those, like Clay, who pushed for a national bank:”
>>Joey wrote: “And most curiously, both Jackson and Clay were New Englanders, from those Northeastern states of Tennessee and Kentucky.”

Are you off your meds?

************
>>Joey wrote: “And they were initially joined by that other uber-Northerner, John C. Calhoun, from Northern South Carolina, in proposing the 1828 Tariff of Abominations against strong objections from other New England states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.”

I will assume, for the sake of brevity, that you are off your meds.

************
>>Joey wrote: “And this proves it was “Northern oppression” which drove Southern lunatics to secede over tariffs in 1828... oh, wait... “

Silly Child.

Mr. Kalamata


126 posted on 12/18/2019 3:56:05 PM PST by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson