Replies

I watched the entire episode, and later read the text to make sure what I saw. Frankly, he poses this idea that slavery is perfectly ok, if you are creating a country and opposing some British king. I had some trouble with this concept, and I suspect most folks would have trouble.

So I went back to history, and what is really known. Most people (likely to be eighty percent) of the New England colonies...were opposed to slavery in any fashion. When they sent their representatives to organize the Declaration of Independence...they likely had the idea that this would be worked out. It wasn’t. Like the dimwits we have in office today....everyone just stood up and said they’d overlook slavery and just keep going.

I respect the General, and regard him as an intelligent individual. But on this case....he decided that the Tea Party is hindering the operation of the government. I suspect if his wife had ran up a $100k credit card bill...the general would kindly ask her to hand over the cards and they’d live tight for a while....in order to pay off the credit card mess and get back to stability. He kind of refuses to recognize the same issue with the federal government. So, he’s part of the problem....rather than part of the solution.

Naturally...1860 comes around, and this Tea Party-like mentality comes up in the New England States again (and the Ohio Valley states), and this stand is finally mounted to take down slavery. We can make the case that Lincoln took advantage of this Tea Party-like mentality, and did what finally had to be done. Right was established over wrong.

The case can also be made that freeing the slaves was an unintended byproduct of the war, harped upon by revisionist historians to justify the overthrow of the southern states.

""If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

"I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept." - 1863

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." - 1858

-Abraham Lincoln

We can make the case that Lincoln took advantage of this Tea Party-like mentality,

Lincoln was a racist to the nth degree and was no abolishionist. He opposed slavery in the territories because he wanted the territories reserves for the white race. Slaves allowed in the territories were going to pollute its lily whiteness.

Lincoln's big plan was to send freedmen to Haiti or Liberia.

they likely had the idea that this would be worked out. It wasn’t. Like the dimwits we have in office today....everyone just stood up and said they’d overlook slavery and just keep going.

It most certainly was worked out!

In deference to slave owners and the financial impact of doing away with slavery immediately, the Constitutional convention opted for a twenty year plan. Their feet unfortunately didn’t feel any heat as time passed.

Historical documents indicate this item in article 1 section 9 was not merely for the slave trade, but slavery in general.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the “Importation” of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

Above paragraph from:http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

IMHO Congress should have been on top of the situation right from the beginning with the countdown of the 20 years and the date certain, in order to end the slave trade and slavery in the process. The civil war was an unfortunate result of their error.