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 ...
Those who treated their slaves with dignity, freed them after reasonable periods, and didn’t rape, torture, or kidnap them certainly were admirable.
The law, sadly, did not distinguish between those who raped, and those who didn’t. The law made it progressively more difficult to free slaves. As slave law evolved, even freed slaves lost rights.
As an example, North Carolina permitted freedmen to vote until 1835, and after that, forbade it. Freed slaves were in some cases forbidden to live in the same state as their family that had not been freed.
Some resorted to clever legal approaches. Some created corporations, so they were still slaves (to the corporation that they owned) and could continue to live near their families. Black owned corporations had more rights than freed blacks. Their corporations would often turn a profit, and they could buy more family members, effectively into freedom. When the family was all owned by the corporation, they could at their discretion sell their shares, buy themselves, and head out for a free state.
Sure, probably half the whipping posts were put up so the slaves could whip the masters as much as the masters would whip the slaves.
And those female slaves kept sneaking into the big house to have good times with the master.
Those slave patrols were merely traveling the roads looking to turn back stray northern folks trying to sneak south so they could enjoy the happy times of being a slave. (/sarcasm)
Most people on welfare are white.
And that is not counting ‘corporate welfare’ like Solyandra, or other such scams.
Your constant ramblings on slavery is almost perverse, does your wife whip you dressed like a 19th century whore? It’s like you relish it or something.
I agree completely. It would be more difficult to justify a return to slavery now.
Also, I suspect that the transition to emancipation would have proceeded more quickly had it not been for the many Northern politicians who quietly but effectively put the brakes on any gradual emancipation because they knew that an end to slavery would result in many new House seats for Southern politicians. So long as the 3/5 rule existed, the South was cheated out of its proper proportion of seats in the House of Representatives.
But, you're right. I would not now support a return to slavery, with or without the 3/5 rule. Times have changed.
You're right, there's really nothing new about fetishes.
The first ‘white man’ in Chicago is supposed to have been a black man. He didn’t need slavery to take care of himself.
Jean Baptiste Point DuSable, a Haitian of African and French descent, who in 1779 established the trading post and permanent settlement which would become known as… Chicago.
They named the African American Museum in Chicago (Located in Hyde Park) after him.
On economic causes of civil war
Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler
“the Yankees were for the most part fighting not to abolish slavery, but for their economic interests...the tariff became the single most important domestic economic issue prior to the Civil”
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Civil-War-Evidence-1-Africa/dp/0821360477
So being sold “down” (Southward) the river should have been a joy?
The manner of dealing with slaves DID vary through territories that allowed it, of course. Some were essentially willing servants and would live off the grounds of the plantations where they served. Others were dealt with harshly as perpetually distrusted captives. And there was everything in between. I do remember of being at a farm where once they had slave stalls with chains for traveling parties... they were filled in at the end of the slave era, but it’s simply harrowing to contemplate. It was a spiritual abomination.
Just those that seek to justify the insurrection to further, protect, and extend slavery need to have it rubbed in their noses.
Your fantasies are none of my concern. You might check the mirror.
Slavery brought bad juju on all territories that permitted it.
I have previously pointed to New Jersey, that had laid down a path to gradual emancipation, and then followed it.
Slaves were converted to ‘apprentices’. Older slaves were permanent apprentices, so they could not be cast off after a lifetime of service. Younger slaves served the term of their apprenticeship, not to exceed 7 years.
By 1860 there were 18 permanent apprentices left in New Jersey.
It is a pity that the southern states didn’t follow that path.
Really, have you read what President Eisenhower said about Robert E. Lee?
I suppose it could be an economic interest not to have someone declare war on you.
That puts a lot of space between you and your hero King God.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
There were some exceptionally able blacks in the North, like Frederick Douglass. Of course, he devoted too much of his time to sponsoring homicidal terrorists like John Brown.
The big mistake of the South was a public relations mistake. They should not have urged preservation of slavery as a ground for their war for independence. But, how were they to know that in the twenty first century, culture would be dominated by liberal elitists?
How were they to know there was a God in Heaven who frowned on it, is more the tale... bible slaves were POWs or willing indentured servants. Negroes were kidnapped and owned by family.
Slavery did not exist in the United States for 100 years.
Mr Lincoln gave a speech once that started “Four Score and seven years ago....”
Before that, slavery existed because it was British policy to have slavery in the US. Thanks to Rev. Wilburforce and others, that policy changed.
Certainly slavery was abolished in the US after Mexico, but before it was abolished in Brazil or much of Africa. Muslim countries still have slavery. The Sudan just fought their recent civil war over slavery.
But culture is not dominated by liberal elitists.
When given a chance to vote for homosexual marriage, people vote it down.
The Democrats lie about their people and their policies, much as the lost causers lie about the confederate people and the confederate cause. That they have to lie shows that the truth would not convince.
There were some exceptionally able blacks in the south too. Some of the more clever owners would provide schooling to their slaves/sons, expecting that higher productivity gain would recompense them. Douglass was, probably, the son of a white slave owner who had him educated to work in a shipyard. Douglass left bondage so he could keep the future profits of his labor, just as any apprentice would.
The New Jersey path! A wonderful opportunity for southern slave owners to not make a big mistake.
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.