Obama garbles U.S. history in human trafficking speech

The Washington Times ^ | Sept. 25, 2012 | Dave Boyer and Susan Crabtree

[Free ThinkerNY]

NEW YORK — President Obama called on nations Tuesday to end the modern slavery of human trafficking and, in the process, got his U.S. Civil War history a bit garbled.

In making an impassioned plea for the international community to crack down on trafficking, Mr. Obama pointed out that his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative was taking place a few days after the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

“With the advance of Union forces, it brought a new day — that all persons held as slaves would thenceforth be forever free,” Mr. Obama said.

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in 10 Southern states who were, at the time, mostly beyond the control of the federal government. And the document didn’t free an estimated 500,000 slaves in four slave-holding border states — Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware — that were loyal to the Union. Slavery was ended in those states by various state and federal actions later on.

But Lincoln’s goal was indeed to end slavery, and Mr. Obama said ending human trafficking is “one of the great human rights causes of our time.”

[x]

The fact is Lincoln wasn’t interested in freeing slaves, he was interested in holding the Union together at any cost.

Pretty simplistic to think that anyone in politics (or out of politics) has only one goal to be attained "at any cost."

[colorado tanker]

Mr. Obama pointed out that his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative was taking place a few days after the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

Nope. January 1, 1863. In September 1862, Lincoln told the confederates the slaves would be freed if they did not return to the Union by January 1.

[Genoa]

It surely would have been interesting if Lincoln had included all slaves anywhere in the United States. I guess we’ll never know what would have happened next. There is a chance that the border states would have won a challenge in the Supreme Court, a very slim chance. There is a better chance that they would have bolted. The House of Representatives certainly would not have impeached Lincoln for freeing slaves anywhere. Lincoln’s political opponents and the Democrat newspapers certainly would have had a field day. He might not have been reelected. The South might have won the war. (Good material for the alternative history writers!) Still, I doubt that Lincoln differentiated between any two parts of the Union (as he understood it) when assessing his constitutional powers. He might have made a case for ending slavery throughout the United States as a wartime necessity. But it would have been a foolish decision politically.

[aruanan]

Here's a relevant portion of his remarks at the debate in Ottawa:

...but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

[greatvikingone]

You can read his writings for yourself.

[ExTxMarine]

...And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

I am pretty certain that the anointed one stares into the mirror wearing one of Lincoln's actual hats quoting those words above, BUT with one minor change: "...And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the BLACK race." And then he and his lovely wife, Chewbacca, probably cackle until they cry at the divisiveness and pain they have caused the American people!

[FredZarguna]

But it would have been a foolish decision politically.

I don't dispute that this is one reason it wasn't done. But it was NOT the legal reasoning.

Lincoln wanted to end slavery. Lost causers want to argue he only wanted to save the Union ("at all costs"). Actually he (and all Republicans) wanted both. And while it is true that they wanted to save the Union more, that fact is too often used to support a claim that Lincoln "didn't want to end slavery," or that the primary cause of the Civil War was not slavery. Neither of those statements is true.

[x]

You mean the letter to Greeley?

Lincoln said saving the union was his "paramount object in this struggle," but didn't say that it was the only objective he would ever have as president or that he'd pursue it at all costs.

Saving the union was the main objective. Others were subordinated to that. But that didn't mean Lincoln was wholly without other concerns.

The fact that he refused to accept the expansion of slavery into the territories as the price of union indicates that.

[Right Wing Assault]

I wonder if obama knows his muzzlem brothers are very keen on slavery.

mohamhead and allah will not be happy.

Of course, he will be against slavery in public and for it under the table and will proclaim how hard he is working to stop it. Typical muzzlem-speak.

[greatvikingone]

His letters, his speeches, his actions - his total disrespect for the Constitution.

[aruanan]

But Lincoln’s goal was indeed to end slavery, and Mr. Obama said ending human trafficking is “one of the great human rights causes of our time.”

Hey, Barry, how about our slavery to the federal government? The lifetime expropriation of a slave's productive life in the South by his owner was about 10% (see Time on the Cross, Robert W. Fogel). A very large portion of Americans now pay far in excess of this to the federal government under exactly the same extortionate conditions: "Hand it over or we will hurt you." And YOU, Massah Barry, are planning to make it much, much worse.

[Genoa]

We agree! Lincoln did want to end slavery, and the existence of slavery was the precipitating cause of the chain of events that led to the outbreak of hostilities.

Can we also agree that Obama is a fraud and a fiasco?

[aruanan]

But Lincoln’s goal was indeed to end slavery, and Mr. Obama said ending human trafficking is “one of the great human rights causes of our time.”

Hey, Barry, how about our slavery to the federal government? The lifetime expropriation of a slave's productive life in the South by his owner was about 10% (see Time on the Cross, Robert W. Fogel). A very large portion of Americans now pay far in excess of this to the federal government under exactly the same extortionate conditions: "Hand it over or we will hurt you." And YOU, Massah Barry, are planning to make it much, much worse.

[Bigg Red]

Historical facts? We don’t need no steenkin’ facts at the WH, especially since we have pledged to “rewrite our history”.

[rockrr]

He had the authority to put down insurrections and delivered the Emancipation Proclamation under that authority.

[Razz Barry]

To fight this enslavement Obama will further enslave the American taxpayers and their progeny. He'll borrow more money from China leaving our posterity worse off for it. Just more generational tyranny. Will Americans ever again have leaders who stand up for us? We need something like PETA. We could call it PETAC. People for the Ethical Treatment of American Citizens.

[FredZarguna]

Can we also agree that Obama is a fraud and a fiasco?

Yes! [Provided we agree that those are probably his best features.]

[x]

The Constitution doesn’t demand that the president remain passive in the face of threats to the country.