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

Skip to comments.

New audiobook release: An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes
Librivox ^ | 8/4/23

Posted on 08/04/2023 4:38:50 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

If the contents of The 1619 Project are getting under your skin, here's a new audiobook for you.

Nothing else need be said, book speaks for itself.

An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers, by George Livermore

Book summary: Collects the speeches, writings, public statements and legislative acts of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States against slavery. (Summary by progressingamerica)


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: 1619project; abolitionism; audiobook; constitution; foundingfathers; freeperbookclub; negro; negroe; negroes; negros
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-305 next last
To: jeffersondem
Robert E. Lee took up arms against a government he took an oath to defend.

The treasonous bastard was directly responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 Americans.

If it weren't for political expediency he, along with Jefferson Davis would have been hung.

201 posted on 08/20/2023 2:12:04 PM PDT by jmacusa (Liberals. Too stupid to be idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; BroJoeK; woodpusher; ProgressingAmerica; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; ...

“The treasonous bastard was directly responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 Americans. If it weren’t for political expediency he, along with Jefferson Davis would have been hung.”

Your post gives us no basis to form a reliable opinion about Lee or Davis, Grant or Lincoln.

But it tells us all we need to know about you.


202 posted on 08/20/2023 2:29:55 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; central_va
"However, in the compilation of statements about the 1778 Constitution, slavery gets no mention at all."

Then your source is flawed, missing information, or it is flat-out incorrect in total(or all three) and you should stop using it and embarrassing yourself.

Your scouring the internet to find some unofficial crap that you prefer and that I should stop using my embarrassing source is amusing because you obviously did not do enough homework to identify the author of the text I quoted.

I cited and quoted from:

MASSACHUSETTS - A Manual for the Constitutional Convention 1917

Submitted to the Constitutional Convention by the Commission to Compile Information and Date for the use of the Constitutional Convention

Boston, Wright & Potter Printing Company, State Printers, 35 Derne Street, 1917

The same precise text may be found in different publication with identical text:

A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts

By Samuel Eliot Morison

Reprinted from the Manual for the Constitutional Convention of 1917

Boston, Wright & Potter Printing Company, State Printers, 35 Derne Street, 1917

Dr. Morison also wrote, A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts, Boston: Special Commission on Revision of the Constitution, 1963.

And you have scoured the depths of the internet to come up with Justice Accused by Robert M. Cover, 1975 and History of Westminster by William Sweetzer Heywood, Lowell, MA 1893.

Wow, not a world famous historian commissioned by the state, but some unknown dude who did not write a history of the state constitution but wrote about the history of a single town in the state. As of the 2020 census, the town of Westminster boasts a population of 8,213.

The Robert M. Cover link goes to a free preview of a book.

He makes a few astute observations.

"The 1778 proposal provided a very limited basis for suffrage and this was the primary cause of its defeat."

The reason was not slavery, it was suffrage.

"Moreover, a few towns also noted the condonation of Negro slavery in the 1778 proposal. Article V of that proposal had implicitly recognized the possibility of slavery by limiting the suffrage first to men who were free. The article also discriminated against nonwhites, denying Negroes, Indians, and mullattoes the suffrage even it they qualified in terms of status and property. To Article V the town of Westminster replied

. . . the following articles appear to us Exceptionable viz—Article 5th which deprives a part of the humane Race of their Natural Rights, . . . Which in our opinion no power on Earth has a Just Right to Doe.

The towns, however insubstantial, could voice their disapproval while the proposal was being considered by the legislature. A few towns did so. They did not prevail and the issue was proposed to the people. It would appear that the issue of limited suffrage caused the defeat of the proposal as a whole.

Anyway, a couple of small towns made their opposition known and were dismissed. By 2020, the town of Westminster had now grown to a booming metropolis of 8,213. In 1900, it had a population of 1,327. Clearly, when Westminster speaks, it speaks for the entire state. /s

Chapter I, Section 3, Article IV of the 1820 constitution provided:

Every male person being twenty-one years of age, and resident in any particular town in the commonwealth, for the space of one year next preceding, having a freehold estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to vote in the choice of a representative or representatives for the said town.

That natural law crap only went just so far, even with the New England nutbags. It did not apply to slightly over half the population who were female. It didn't apply to the poor of either sex.

Your usual strawman of "well they objected on these 8 things, see see!" is the height of stupidity. I'm not making the claim you're trying to construct. You're trying to deceitfully insert the word "only" into my posts. That word is your own.

You are a psychotic progressive slimebag.

You do like to make up make believe quotes and argue against them. Besides you, who said, "well they objected on these 8 things, see see!"

I quoted renowned historian Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison at my #185 stating "The 'five intolerable acts' of Parliament of 1774 included an act amending the Province charter by providing that henceforth the Council, instead of being elected by the General Court, should be appointed by the King's writ of mandamus."

The term was not coined by Morison. It dates to the 1774 Acts of Parliament.

[ProgressiveAmerica quoting woodpusher] "I was just quoting the government of Massachusetts itself. It seems the only thing they said about slavery and the 1780 constitution was..."

That full statement was:

I was just quoting the government of Massachusetts itself. It seems the only thing they said about slavery and the 1780 constitution was "Three years later, Article I was held by the Supreme Judicial Court, all the judges of which had been members of the Convention, to abolish slavery in Massachusetts. It is doubtful whether it had been inserted for that purpose."

That is the only statement about slavery and the 1780 constitution in the Massachusetts book, A Manual for the Constitutional Convention 1917.

203 posted on 08/20/2023 2:56:09 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; central_va
I see what is happening here, it's the usual dishonesty from you. This book is terribly summarized since that 1778 Constitution was rejected. Why keep much information about it?

The author, Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison is perhaps the most renowned historian in the history of Massachusetts. Dr. Morison summarized the result as "The Constitution submitted to the people of Massachusetts in 1778 was rejected by the emphatic vote of 2,083 yeas to 9,972 nays." What do you want besides the precise vote count? And the voting people of the entire state numbered 12,055 because natural law or something.

The 1780 Ratification was described by Dr. Morison as "political jugglery" which may have made the certifier of the ratification of the Federal 14th Amendment blush.

4. THE RATIFICATION.

The mode of ratification adopted by the Convention was pe­culiar. Profiting by the experience of 1778, it did not submit the Constitution as a whole to popular vote. Instead, it asked the adult freemen to convene in their town meetings to consider and debate the Constitution clause by clause, to point out objections, if any, to particular articles, and to send in their returns to the secretary of the Convention, with the yeas and nays on every question. The people were then asked to em­power the Convention at an adjourned session on June 5 to ratify and declare the Constitution in force if two-thirds of the voters were in favor of it, or, if not, to alter it in accordance with the popular will as expressed in the returns, and ratify it as thus amended. It was now almost four years since the machinery of constitution making had been set in motion.

About 16,000 people out of a total population of 363,000 voted on the Constitution. This was a larger vote than was cast for Governor during the next six years. The town meet­ings freely accepted the invitation to criticise the Constitution; and their returns are a remarkable testimony to the political wisdom of the plain people of that day. A few objections were grotesque, and certain proposals were reactionary, but many were subsequently adopted as amendments to the Constitution.

On June 5 the Convention convened for its fourth and last session at the old Brattle Street Church in Boston. It had previously invited the towns to replace their delegates by new members if they wished, but only a few did so. A committee was appointed to canvass the returns and report the result to the Convention. This committee adopted a system of tabulation which to-day would be called political jugglery. The towns had not voted on the Constitution as a whole, but article by article; and in many cases they proposed a substitute for an article they objected to, and voted on that instead of on the original. These votes on amended articles were either thrown out or

- - - - -

22

counted as if cast for the original article. Hence it was made to appear that every article of the Constitution had well over a two-thirds majority, although a fair tabulation would have shown only a bare majority for at least two.1 Doubtless the Convention felt justified in this rather questionable work by the imperious necessity of obtaining the adoption of the Con­stitution, for in some parts of the State the cry "No Constitu­tion, No Law," was being raised to excuse men from paying taxes or doing military service. On June 15 the Convention voted that the people have accepted the Constitution "as it stands in the printed form." The next day it provided for the first election of Governor and General Court, and closed "with thanksgiving and prayer." On October 25, 1780, John Hancock was inaugurated the first Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Maybe that is where Biden and Company learned how to count votes.

So, what you quoted is going to stick to the wall after all but not as you had hoped. This is terribly unflattering. It's not that the book is all that bad per-se, it's that you, you're the problem. As usual, you are the problem.

Ah yes! I am the problem for quoting Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison, probably the foremost historian in Massachusetts history. He who compiled the Manual for the Constitutional Convention 1917, and A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts, Boston: Special Commission on Revision of the Constitution, 1963. It would appear the writings of Dr. Morison stuck to the wall quite well.

As usual, you have your head up your butt, resulting in a crappy viewpoint.

Westminster said:

Article 5th Deprives a part of the humane Race of their Natural Rights mearly on account of their color which in our opinion no power on Earth has a Just Right to Doe.

Your usual strawman of "well they objected on these 8 things, see see!" is the height of stupidity. I'm not making the claim you're trying to construct. You're trying to deceitfully insert the word "only" into my posts. That word is your own.

The only strawman argument is your own unseemly crock of crap.

[ProgressiveAmerica #190 quoting woodpusher #188] "I was just quoting the government of Massachusetts itself. It seems the only thing they said about slavery and the 1780 constitution was..."

That full statement was:

I was just quoting the government of Massachusetts itself. It seems the only thing they said about slavery and the 1780 constitution was "Three years later, Article I was held by the Supreme Judicial Court, all the judges of which had been members of the Convention, to abolish slavery in Massachusetts. It is doubtful whether it had been inserted for that purpose."

My statement referred to, and was immediately followed by, a direct quote from A Manual for the Constitutional Convention 1917, by Samuel Eliot Morison; or A History of the Constitution of Massachusetts, alternate publication of identical text by Samuel Eliot Morison. And that was all the book said about the failed effort to get the legislature to propose a constitution banning slavery. After the proposed constitution failed, a Constitutional Convention was required to make another attempt. Westminster voted 47-1 AGAINST holding such a convention.

As a source, your Robert Cover stated at page 46 that "James Sullivan also indicated his belief that the Worcester cases ended slavery in Massachusetts." No Virginia, no decision of a county court has any effect outside of its jurisdiction, the county. The decision of a county court is incapable of doing anything state-wide. No trial court has ever set a precedent.

As Cover noted though, the Massachusetts Historical Society lost an intellectual war against the superior insight of the New York Historical Society, and the institution of slavery probably existed after 1781, and the Massachusetts involvement in the slave trade shamefully persisted well after the Quock Walker case. Battling another historical society, bullshit only went just so far. It talked the talk, but when it went to walk the walk, it fell on its face.

As Moore's Notes on Slavery in the State of Massachusetts stated:

We have been fortunate enough to recover a frag­ment of the debates in the Convention, which bears on our subject. It shows that there was a continued contest in that body between those who supported and those who opposed negro equality, in which the latter carried the day; and also that it was after debate—not unconfciously or without notice—that a majority of the Legislature of Massachusetts, specially instructed to frame the organic law for the new State, delibe­rately, in the year 1778, excluded negroes, Indians, and mulattoes from the rights of citizenship.

[187] Mr. WILLIS.

Please to insert the following in your Independent Chronicle, and you will oblige the publick's friend and humble servant,
JOHN BACON.

Stockbridge, Sept. 10, 1779.

"Open thy mouth, judge righteously, plead the cause of the poor and needy"—KING SOLOMON.

The substance of a speech delivered in the late Convention, on a mo­tion being made for reconsidering a vote, by which this clause, "except Negroes, Indians and Mulattoes," in the twenty-third article of the report of the Committee, was inserted.

Mr. PRESIDENT :—As I have from the beginning of these debates been opposed to that.

[very long speech]

[191] We have already intimated that these liberal and enlightened views did not prevail. On the contrary, the "Conftitution and Form of Government for the State of Massachusetts Bay, agreed upon by the Convention of said State, February 28, 1778, to be laid before the several towns and Plantations in said State, for their Approbation or Disapprobation," has the following article:

"V. Every male inhabitant of any town in this State, being free, and twenty-one years of age, except­ing Negroes, Indians and molattoes, shall be intitled to vote for a Representative or Representatives, as the case may be. . . . ," etc.

[...]

[195] The proposed Constitution failed to pass the ordeal of the popular judgment, so far as an opinion could be gathered from the very partial returns made of the votes. A hundred and twenty towns neglected to express any opinion at all; and but twelve thousand persons, out of the whole State, went to the polls to answer in any way. Two-fifths of them, however, voted in the negative. Adams's Works: iv., 214. Thus the Constitution was rejected, negro cause and all sharing the fame fate. We have no means of as­certaining the exact state of parties on this subject; but there can be no doubt that there was a wide difference of opinions among the people.

While the Historical Society had no way of ascertaining the exact state of the parties on the slavery question, they obviously failed to consult with the all knowing ProgressingAmerica who divines the opinion of the state from a few statements of Tinytown.

The tiny town of Westminster was heard and rejected. The opinions expressed by Tinytown did not indicate the opinions of the state. You continue to attempt to construe the opinions of some in a town of about 1,000 people as the opinion of the entire state.

[199] As late as 1795, the political status of the negro in Massachusetts was by no means definitely determined.

[200] We come now to the Constitution of 1780, the instrument by which it is alleged that slavery was abolished in Massachusetts. In the illustration of our subject, its history is very important, and demands careful and accurate criticism.

[201] The first Article of the Declaration of Rights, as reported to the Convention, was as follows:

"ART. I. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights: among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting their property; in fine; that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." Report, p. 7.

This article, as reported, met with no opposition, elicited little or no discussion, and was accepted with but slight and unimportant verbal amendments. Journal, p. 37. It stands thus in the Constitution of Massachusetts:

"ART. I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying, and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." Constitution, p. 7.

Its language is nearly the same with that of the first article of the Bill of Rights of Virginia, written by George Mason, and adopted by her Convention on the 12th of June, 1776, when "Virginia proclaimed the Rights of Man." Bancroft, VIII., 381. The same language, common in those days, became more familiar in the Declaration of Independence, on the 4th of July, 1776, and in the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, July 15th-September 28 th, 1776; and this affirmation of natural and even unalienable rights had long ceased to be a novelty before Massachusetts repeated it in her Convention of 1779-80. The Constitution was submitted to the people in March, adopted by a popular vote in June, and the new government went into operation on the 25th of October, 1780.

It is a remarkable statement for a Massachusetts writer to make, but it is undoubtedly true, that "much interest has been felt of late years to know when, and under what circumstances, slavery ceased to exist in Massachusetts." M. H. S. Coll., iv., iv., 333. The fact that Daniel Webster had not been able a few years before his death to determine this question satisfactorily, is pretty good evidence that it was doubtful; and will go far to justify a good degree of caution in its decision. In 1836, Chief-Justice Shaw made an interesting statement on this point:

"How or by what act particularly, slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, whether by the adoption of the opinion in Somerset's case, as a declaration and modification of the common law, or by the Declaration of Independence, or by, the Constitution of 1780, it is not now very easy to determine, and it is rather a matter of curiosity than utility; it being agreed on all hands, that if not abolished before, it was so by the Declaration of Rights." Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pickering, 209.

Few persons can now be found hardy enough to date the abolition of slavery in Massachufetts from Lord Mansfield's decision in the Somerset case, or the Declaration of Independence. But the received opinion in Massachusetts is, that the fifth article of the Declaration of Rights was not simply the declaration of an abstract principle or dogma, which might be wrought out into a practical system by subsequent legislation, but was intended to have the active force and conclusive authority of law; to divert the title of the master, to break the bonds of the slave, to annul the condition of servitude, and to emancipate and set free by its own force and efficacy, without awaiting the enforcement of its principles by judicial decision. Compare 7 Gray, 478. 5 Leigh, 623.

We have made diligent inquiry, search, and examination, without discovering the slightest trace of positive contemporary evidence to show that this opinion is well founded. The family traditions which have designated the elder John Lowell as the author of the Declaration, and assigned the intention to abolish slavery as the express motive for its origin, will not stand the test of historical criticism. The truth is, that the bold judicial construction by which it was afterwards made the instrument of virtual aboli­tion, was only gradually reached and sustained by public opinion—the Court having advanced many steps fur­ther than was intended by the Convention or understood by the people, in their decision on this subject. If it were possible that such a purpose could have been avowed in the Convention and wrought into their work, without opposition, it certainly could not have passed absolutely without notice. Such a conversion would be too sudden to be genuine; and if we follow the facts in their natural chronological order, the actual result will fall into its due place and position without force or violation of the truth of history.

Now there is no evidence of opposition, either in the Convention or out of it. Not even a notice of this important revolution, in the newspapers of the day or elsewhere, has rewarded our earnest and careful search. John Adams, the author of the Bill of Rights, was not in favor of immediate emancipation (see ante, p. 110.

The most strenuous anti-slavery men were unconscious of any such intention or result for a long time afterward; and the newspapers continued to advertise the sales of negroes as before. There is no­thing to show that fso great a change was contemplated or realized, and those who maintain it would have us believe that the people of Massachusetts, like the Romans on another memorable occasion, suddenly became quite another people.

The address of the Convention, on submitting the result of their labors to their constituents, makes no allusion whatever to this subject. No one can read it—setting forth as it does the principal features of the new plan of government, the grounds and reasons upon which they had formed it, with their explana­tions of the principal parts of the system—and retain the belief that they had consciously, deliberately, and intentionally adopted the first clause in the Declara­tion of Rights for the express purpose of abolishing slavery in Massachusetts.


204 posted on 08/20/2023 3:01:03 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

I was talking about Lee and Davis and yes, Lee WAS a treasonous bastard and as far as ‘’us’’ I don’t know to whom you refer but I certainly know all I need to know about YOU.

A man who comes to a conservative web site, aka Republican, carrying the torch and bending at the knee for a bunch of treasonous southern Democrats.


205 posted on 08/20/2023 6:20:12 PM PDT by jmacusa (Liberals. Too stupid to be idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; ProgressingAmerica; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; ...
“A man who comes to a conservative web site, aka Republican, carrying the torch and bending at the knee for a bunch of treasonous southern Democrats.”

General and President Eisenhower was a Republican; you dishonor him with your ugly prejudices.

206 posted on 08/20/2023 7:53:49 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem

No you do with your glorification of a Confederate loser. And as to Eisenhower as a general he left a lot to be desired.

He allowed Montgomery to go ahead with operation Market-Garden which was a disaster and his strategy of mounting a frontal assault to throw back the German penetration in the Ardennes resulted in more American casualties than in the initial German attack.

You can prevaricate all you want Reb, it doesn’t change the fact your a Democrat at heart.


207 posted on 08/20/2023 7:58:58 PM PDT by jmacusa (Liberals. Too stupid to be idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
“No you do (dishonor President Eisenhower) with your glorification of a Confederate loser.”

Both President Eisenhower and I honor General Robert E. Lee.

Read with me what President Eisenhower wrote:

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

208 posted on 08/20/2023 8:07:23 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; ProgressingAmerica; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; ...
“No you do (dishonor President Eisenhower) with your glorification of a Confederate loser."

Both President Eisenhower and I honor General Robert E. Lee.

Read with me what President Eisenhower wrote:

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

209 posted on 08/20/2023 8:11:55 PM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
I don't have to agree with Eisenhower's assessment of Robert E. Lee and I most certainly DON'T. The man waged war against the duly elected government of the Untied States. If Eisenhower had had any brains he'd have realized this ''selfless'' man waged war on behalf of an illegal and immoral government bent on enslaving an entire race and as I said caused the deaths of 600,000 Americans in the bloodiest war this nation ever fought. The man was a poor judge of character and an even worse historian.
210 posted on 08/20/2023 9:03:25 PM PDT by jmacusa (Liberals. Too stupid to be idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; ProgressingAmerica; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; ...
“If Eisenhower had had any brains . . . The man was a poor judge of character and an even worse historian.”

Your statement places you on the far-left edge of the Sherman-Chivington Hate Scale.

The only thing I know to recommend is a competent team of psychiatrists.

211 posted on 08/21/2023 5:02:50 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: x; ProgressingAmerica; jmacusa; jeffersondem
x: "During the Civil War Centennial, the Southern writer Robert Penn Warren wrote that since the Civil War, Northerners self-righteously believed that the crusade against slavery had given them a Treasury of Virtue, and Southerners used the destruction of the war as the Great Alibi for their relative underdevelopment."

Sure, I "get" the idea, but I don't know what that term "self-righteous" refers to here.
For comparison, consider this -- I lived and was later stationed in Germany in the decades after WWII, roughly equivalent to the 1870s to 1890s after the Civil War.
We were there to protect against the Old Soviets doing what they're now doing in Ukraine, but also, I'm pretty sure, to make certain the Germans themselves didn't go crazy on us again.

Did that make us "self-righteous"?
I don't remember feeling "self-righteous" towards any Germans I met & knew.
I do remember they treated me & other Americans with a certain amount of respect, but no more than you'd expect from a salesman in any store.
They were simply good people, and we got along fine, I thought.
Today I'm not certain if Americans are as well respected by Germans as we once were, but I don't think it's because of the way we treated them decades ago, but rather because of our many flaws manifesting today.

Now, can we translate that back to the "self-righteousness" some people claim Northern Republicans felt after the Civil War? I don't see it, don't know what the term refers to exactly.

Regardless of all that, the Era of Republican Domination, beginning in 1861, decisively ended in 1933, that's 90 years ago!!
When Democrats took over Federal Government in 1933, they were an alliance of Northern swing states with the Solid South Democrats, and no states voted more solidly for Franklin Roosevelt than the South.
So, from 1933 onwards, whatever Republican "self-righteousness" still existed was a currency with no political value.

Which brings me, finally, to my point: alleged Republican "self-righteousness" is, in reality, nothing more than Democrats being Democrats, weaponizing emotions rather than logical arguments.
Not so long ago, the then equivalent to accusing Republicans of being "self-righteous" was Democrats accusing Republicans of being "mean-spirited", and with that, all rational debate ended leaving Republicans sputtering, unable to answer a charge that was meaningless & irrelevant, but highly effective.

These days we don't hear so many accusations of "self-righteous" (except from Lost Causers) or "mean-spirited", but we do hear many accusations of "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "Islamophobe", "anti-immigrant", or whatever other epithet Democrats can think of to shut down debate.

They do it because they're Democrats and because it works politically for them.

x: "Take that away — make it mandatory to hate Lincoln as a “tyrant” and reverence the Confederates as freedom fighters — and part of our heritage is lost.
I understand that something similar is true of respect for Lee.
A half century ago the country could respect both men.
Now it seems, it’s one or the other — or more often, neither."

Right, like today's Wokesters, our own Lost Causers condemn everyone from our Founders to Lincoln and beyond as slaveholders, or related to slaveholders, or tolerant of slaveholders or certainly "racists" by their latest Woke standards.
If you set your bar of perfection high enough, Christ Himself could not get into Wokester Heaven (Hell to anybody not Woke), though, of course, none of these high standards apply to Democrats themselves -- they are free to hate and persecute whomever they wish, for whatever reasons (or no reasons) they want, and it doesn't count against them.

Bottom line: this is all just Democrats being Democrats, accusing whomever they disagree with of being "self-righteous" or "mean-spirited" or "racists" or whatever they think will work at the moment.
So those terms have no serious definitions beyond their usefulness as political weapons.

212 posted on 08/21/2023 5:36:35 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; ProgressingAmerica; Ultra Sonic 007; woodpusher; x; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; ...
“Did I say that? When? Which post? Show me.”

Please don't forget my request to you in post 177.

I asked you to document the allegation made in your post 147.

You have until noon, Wednesday August 23 to provide documentation or to recant.

Otherwise, regrettably, I will be forced to call you names.

I do my name calling after lunch.

213 posted on 08/21/2023 5:53:36 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; jmacusa; x; woodpusher; ProgressingAmerica; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; ...
jmacusa: "Self-righteousness is just a phony form of respectability."

jeffersondem: "Brings to mind the obituary for General Lee written by the New York Herald."

The New York Herald in the 1850s, like today's media, claimed to be unbiased, but was, in fact, staunchly pro-slavery and pro-Democrat.
After the war the NY Herald naturally wanted to reestablish the old North-South Democrat alliance and so made a point of praising Confederate heroes.

US Grant, also an admirer of Lee, was elected President in 1868, Lee died in 1870, and by 1876 the work of the NY Herald in reuniting Democrats, North and South, paid off in a disputed election, which lead Republicans to remove Union troops from Confederate states and so restored Jim Crow rule, effectively nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments for nearly 100 years.

So, it all had nothing to do with "self-righteousness" and everything to do with raw political power.
Honoring Lee helped put former Confederate Democrats back in control of former Confederate states.

214 posted on 08/21/2023 6:04:05 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
jeffersondem: "“Did I say that? When? Which post? Show me.”
Please don't forget my request to you in post 177.
I asked you to document the allegation made in your post 147."

Ha! Well, then I do apologize, I didn't think I was "accusing" you, because I thought you were rather proud of your claim that U.S. Founders fought their War of Independence to protect American slavery against British abolitionism.

I mean, isn't that kind of a key plank in your argument analogizing 1776 Founders to 1860 Democrat Fire Eaters?
You say, both wanted to protect slavery, didn't they?
Or rather, they didn't want to protect slavery, but {wink, wink}, yes they did?
Or something like that, right?

Seriously, there must be a nuance in your views that I missed, so feel free to explain that to me... with or without insults, it doesn't matter to me.

😊

215 posted on 08/21/2023 6:25:47 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

What complete utter nonsense

Lee had near total respect from former combatants except some radicals


216 posted on 08/21/2023 8:08:10 AM PDT by wardaddy (Why so many nevertrumpers with early sign ups and no posting history till now? Zot them PTB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; Pelham; woodpusher

It’s so weird I’d never seen folks like this prior to entering this forum 22 years ago

And I spent most of 8 years in Manhattan oftentimes in the company of Columbia grad students and faculty and even they didn’t have this revisionist perspective which was early wokism if ever there was

Now this wokism is consuming their stalwarts even like Lincoln and Grant too

Makes you wonder their actual motivation

They are a tiny minority of viewpoint here and one not shared by Donald Trump it should be pointed out


217 posted on 08/21/2023 8:14:17 AM PDT by wardaddy (Why so many nevertrumpers with early sign ups and no posting history till now? Zot them PTB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher; jeffersondem; BroJoeK; Renfrew; wardaddy; Pelham; DiogenesLamp; x; central_va

Sir,

Natural rights = natural rights. Your source is not in conflict with mine.


218 posted on 08/21/2023 9:22:48 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The historians must be stopped. They're destroying everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Bear in mind that Warren was a Southerner (though in later years, he lived mostly in Connecticut and Vermont), so he’s giving a Southern view (though he had become critical of segregation by the time he wrote) — and that was how many Southerners viewed, and some still view, Northerners (especially New Englanders). It was in large part an “eye of the beholder” perception, but it was encouraged by some historians of his day, who blamed the “self-righteous” abolitionists for opening a national wound (slavery) that they assumed would somehow have healed itself.

Warren was also thinking about our national habit of going on crusades abroad. He had the idea that the Northern belief in our national righteousness and innocence led us to view our interventions abroad as moral crusades. I’m not sure that actually works. At least one big war was forced on us. All countries assume that their cause is just when they go to war. Southern presidents (or presidents with massive Southern support) led us into some of those crusades. Still, Warren’s reflections are an interesting example of how one Southerner who was much closer to the war than any of us are — actual, living Civil War veterans and widows in the family and neighborhood — saw things.


219 posted on 08/21/2023 10:05:51 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; wardaddy; jeffersondem; woodpusher

“The treasonous bastard was directly responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 Americans.”

Funny how well that description can be applied to Lincoln.

The Confederacy wanted independence. The same thing that their fathers and grandfathers gained from King George.

The King issued a proclamation declaring all of the Colonial rebels to be traitors and rebels. Which they were

Lincoln, like George before him, wanted submission and obedience to the central government and was willing to kill as many Americans as it required to get that.

Most people can read a map. Where the battlefields are tells you who was defending their land versus who was the aggressor.


220 posted on 08/21/2023 10:18:59 AM PDT by Pelham (President Eisenhower. Operation Wetback 1953-54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-305 next last

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.

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