Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
From the time Abraham Lincoln entered the White House nearly a century and a half ago, there has been an anti-Lincoln tradition in American life. President John Tyler’s son, writing in 1932, seemed to speak for a silent minority: “I think he was a bad man,” wrote Lyon Gardiner Tyler, “a man who forced the country into an unnecessary war and conducted it with great inhumanity.”
Throughout his presidency Lincoln was surrounded by rivals, even among his own cabinet. Outside the White House, his many enemies included conservative Whigs, Democrats, northern copperheads and New England abolitionists. Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy, sniped that Lincoln was a
“worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”
Shortly before his reelection Pomeroy added: “The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.… And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
For Lee, slavery was good for Black people. God ordained it, and human beings shouldn't meddle with it. Where do you see "anti-slavery" in that?
No thanks. If I'm going to dilute my conservative country then I'd rather take on Washington. The eastern part of the state is pretty conservative and all we'd have to worry about is King county. I see no benefit to including Texas. You're welcome to become your own country.
And the only thing that allowed the government to seize your slaves, or any other property, was your rebellion. The only thing that justified it was the fact that slaves were used to further the rebellion. Without that the government wouldn't be seizing anything.
Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.
When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.
Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.
Then had the Southern states not left and pulled their senators the Morrill Tariff would have gone down to defeat in March 1861 by a vote of 25 to 28. So then those claiming that the tariff motivated the Southern states to rebel are pulling their facts out of thin air.
He had to free his father in law’s slaves.
He went to court three times in an attempt to overturn the provisions of his father in law’s will requiring him to free the slaves.
The first thing he did when he arrived on leave from the Army as executor of his father in law’s estate was to put up whipping posts. (Ok, he probably spent some time in the bathroom first).
Lee was known as a cruel master in the press before the war started. Many of the Lee family slaves were white, some decended from Lee family men, others kidnapped and detained with false papers. Lee paid more for the ‘recovery’ of young girls than for young men. He is recorded as being most enthusiastic about the whipping of young slave girls.
People did benefit from the war.
Certainly the slaves that would no longer be routinely raped, or assaulted benefited.
Certainly the people who would no longer be routinely kidnapped by slave catchers benefited.
Certainly southern women who were passed diseases by their husbands, after said husband spent a few hours in the slave cabins raping slaves benefited.
Certainly the laborers whose wages would no longer be depressed by slave competition benefited.
Certainly the white southern militia no longer coerced to go on slave patrol benefited.
Slave catchers, slave rapers, and those who gained sexual satisfaction from assaulting slaves probably cried a lot.
Let’s recap.
In your #143 you attempted to conflate the Nullification Act (which happened in 1832) with Lincoln somehow “nullifying the 10th” (a process you never explained).
In #146 I asked what happened with SC’s nullification ordinance?
In #147 you responded, “Lincoln and Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs”.
Since 26 years had transpired between SC’s attempt at nullification and the passage of the Morrill tariffs it was difficult to imagine that you were trying to link them, but very reasonable to presume that you were confusedly speaking of THE Tariff Act (the “Tariff of Abominations”) and not the Morrill tariff (which had nothing to do with SC’s attempt at nullification - which never involved Lincoln.
I’m not sure why you choose to lay blame at Lincoln’s feet for something he was never involved with - why not Jackson?
I see it as liberal bigotry, bias, prejudice, and unfounded animosity. Rather juvenile, actually. On one hand they hate they southerners but on the other they claim Lincoln was right to keep the south. Total bigotry.
If a southern state wanted a fort removed, they had the obligation to pursue that peacefully, by law, with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.
They knew they would lose. They never tried it.
Nothing funnier than two guys from solid Blue states complaining about liberals.
And if the southern states had kept their representatives in the Senate, the new Tariff could not have passed.
They pulled them out for secession to support slavery, and only then did it pass.
Deflection, the last refuge of a pseudo intellectual.
And besides, they don’t feel pain like we do...
*rollseyes*
“”Africa was such a horrible place to live that many Africans volunteered to come to America as slaves.” — Tau Food
“Some slaves were mistreated, but most were treated as beloved members of the family much as pets are today.” — Texas Freeper 2009”
Hate to tell you but neither one of those statements are in support of slavery. The first one is somewhat, but debatable.
Africa was terrible enough that many people came here as indentured servants for 7 years.
Many slaves were treated well. Nothing pro-slavery about that.
Many blacks are still enslaved on the democrat welfare plantation, so the first comment is roughly true; they weren’t ready for freedom and they still aren’t able to grasp it and take advantage of it. I can’t for the life of me understand why a free man would vote Democrat. I don’t. Never did.
That doesn't state Lincoln's view of negros, it states his view of the law. When you see the same error a hundred times, and see it corrected, you start to doubt the honesty of the person offering it.
Explain please how anything I said constitutes a “deflection”.
“People did benefit from the war.
Certainly the slaves that would no longer be routinely raped, or assaulted benefited.
Certainly the people who would no longer be routinely kidnapped by slave catchers benefited.
Certainly southern women who were passed diseases by their husbands, after said husband spent a few hours in the slave cabins raping slaves benefited.
Certainly the laborers whose wages would no longer be depressed by slave competition benefited.
Certainly the white southern militia no longer coerced to go on slave patrol benefited.
Slave catchers, slave rapers, and those who gained sexual satisfaction from assaulting slaves probably cried a lot.”
Ironic you mention this because that was something the southern slave experienced but not the northern slaves that the war did not free. That’s right, Lincoln did not free the slaves with the emancipation proclamation. It took the 13th Amendment to do that .
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.