Posted on 05/09/2005 9:35:24 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Bingo! Right on the money! "Neo-confederate mythology" is exactly the main issue. The most hardcore will either publicly attempt to ignore the adverse realities of the slavery machine for the cotton empire. Also today's most ardent neo-confederates whitewash or soft peddle the 100 years of post Civil War, state mandated, degrading segregation, along with painting the perpetrators of mob rule and brutal lynchings as somehow being the 'real victims'.
Another question should be why are the arch neo-confederate spin masters so intent on deliberately masking their current & future agenda(s)?
Idiot.
Great posts, Pelham.
Man, you grey boys are sensitive. I was just kidding about Robert E. Lee...
Because most Freepers would be "violently opposed" to anyone attempting to rip the United States apart, but that is exactly the agenda of these League of the South trolls that populate these threads.
Lincoln could not free slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation because its authorizing legislation, the Confiscation Act of 1862, pertained to slaves held by rebels.
And only a small percentage of Germans worked in concentration camps during WWII. What's your point?
This element and other like it, should be considered subversive groups and a threat to the American Republic.
Excellent point!
If Lincoln was the worst bigoted beast the world, as the neo-confederate propagandists continue claiming, then he would have led the pro-slavery insurrectionists to expand slavery throughout the United States, as was attempted, and failed.
So far you have offered up only your opinion, and not a single word of Wilson's. Where's the beef?
If I did I'd probably think you were the soul of wit. But it's my opinion that when someone begins with a paltry attempt at insult, it's because it's the best he has to offer.
Webb's statistics are for slave holding states as a whole and include those 4 states that did not participate in the rebellion.
And where did you get that nugget? It's not in Webb's text. Did you make it up? If not, pony up the footnote that shows his source.
A much more reasonable figure than your 5%
The 5% figure is Webb's, not mine. I thought you were familiar enough with his writing that you could even add missing information, as with "the 4 states that did not participate in the rebellion."
I'm not sure what your point is here.
The point was Webb's.
Those are Douglass words. He doesn't retract them in the later part of the speech, rather he gives Lincoln credit for ending slavery. Apparently you find the first section objectionable, and can't figure out how to rid yourself of it other than to charge those who cite it with "outright lies". Tactically, I don't think employing the ad hominem makes your case any better. You're still stuck with explaining away what Douglass was saying in that first section.
Apparently we have wandered into a cabal dedicated to searching out secret hardcore neoconfederates. It's something like a snipe hunt led by Thaddeus Stevens and John Brown.
It took 67 posts to get the first Nazi reference, albeit an oblique one.
Since Washington and Jefferson were part of the small percentage of Americans who owned slaves, do you want to make them honorary concentration camp guards as well? Or do they somehow get an exemption? And if they are exempt, give us the reasoning.
Washington and Jefferson did not kill U.S. troops in defending a slave regime. Your Confederate heroes did. That's the difference.
Killing U.S. troops, whether for slavery or for Allah, will get no defending from me. That's your speciality.
Sure. Here is a Link to the 1860 census information. It has the raw data there. Here is another Link where the math and the breakdown have been done.
I have no need to "explain it away." Doglass was exactly correct in his reading of Lincoln. You Lost Causers invoke simplistic nonsense that if Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist, he must have been unconcerned with slavery. You attempt to destroy the man by painting false choices is childish.
The abolitionists, for all of their fever, could not have ended slavery. They did not have the popular support to do so and Lincoln understood that. In 1860, he favored a gradual means of ending it which began with isolating it in the states where it then existed. That first meager step was correctly understood by the slave power to be a clear and present danger to their economic and social power, and they revolted as a result. As a result of the war, popular opinion shifted dramatically and people correctly saw that slavery was the cause and that a nation could not endure, half-slave and half free, and Lincoln promptly capitalized on that shift in opinion to end slavery.
As Douglass said, Lincoln only went so far as the people would allow.
It's even simpler than that. If the Republican party platform had been adopted, no new slave states would have lead to slavery having minority support in the Senate. And back then a filibuster couldn't be wielded willy-nilly. All business stopped.
Killing U.S. troops, whether for slavery or for Allah, will get no defending from me. That's your speciality.
"That's your specialty" What is this, a schoolyard? Ad hominem isn't a substitute for argument, but perhaps it's the best you can muster.
As to the problems with your argument, there were no "U.S. troops" for Washington to kill, so that claim is ahistorical. But there were British troops and Washington killed plenty of them. Washington was still a British subject, a rebel and a traitor against his government, terms the Union would apply to the Confederates 90 years later, when like the Crown they sought to crush a rebellion.
As to Washington and Jefferson not defending a slave regime, both were slaveowners and slavery was part of the United States "regime" that they helped bring to independence.
A further problem with your argument is that the last British governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, in 1775 declared all slaves free who were loyal to the Crown and willing to fight for it. It is the first American emancipation proclamation, and rebels like Washington and Jefferson were fighting on the side of slavery against the forces of emancipation.
A strawman argument. No one on this thread suggested that Lincoln should have been an abolitionist. That bit of simplistic nonsense is yours alone. Apparently bringing up aspects of the historical Lincoln, such as his support for colonization and his preference for maintaining the Union ahead of addressing slavery, upsets you. If so you had best stick with the mythic Lincoln, as facts are irrelevant in his case.
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.