Posted on 09/27/2014 12:46:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Editor’s note: For those who are wondering about the retro title of this black-history series, please take a moment to learn about historian Joel A. Rogers, author of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, to whom these “amazing facts” are an homage.
Amazing Fact About the Negro No. 92: When President Abraham Lincoln met with free black leaders in 1862, what did he propose?
Today marks the anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s “shot heard ’round the world.” I’m referring, of course, to the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation he fired off from the White House on Sept. 22, 1862, five days after the real bullets had been fired 70 miles outside of Washington, D.C., at the Battle of Antietam (then and now the bloodiest day in American history, with close to 23,000 casualties).
What little Union victory there was in Gen. Robert E. Lee’s withdrawal from Maryland gave Lincoln the opening he needed to issue the Confederacy his ultimatum: If it remained in a state of rebellion come Jan. 1, 1863, he would sign an executive order rendering “all” of its “slaves … then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
For any student of American history, this is well-trod ground. But here’s what you may not know about those crowded days of late summer 1862. While weighing emancipation, Lincoln also had a very different kind of ultimatum on his mind—for African Americans. For much of his first years in office, Lincoln was obsessed with solving America’s seemingly intractable race problem by persuading free blacks to lead the way for an exodus that would wash the United States of the original sin of slavery—without having to live alongside those it had enslaved....
(Excerpt) Read more at theroot.com ...
Cry me a river. That is just an excuse. Blacks are as racial as they come. Doesn’t matter where in the world they are at. Let’s look at black criminality and any number of black pathologies and then get back to me.
Uh huh.
The war started in 1856 in Missouri and Kansas. Read your documented history and note when Lincoln gained power he began stirring the war pot going on between these two states. This border war was the precursor and was started by people primarily from Massachusetts.
One was a revolution against a tyrannical king from across the ocean that killed 25000. The other was a war against fellow Americans from the south that refused to fall easily under the thumb of the DC empire politicians and lawyers that killed 650,000. Hopefully you now see a difference.
I have read my history and if memory serves by the time Lincoln was inaugurated seven states had already seceded, several forts were under siege, and the Confederacy had already been building their army. And since I live next door to the state I also know that Bleeding Kansas was equally the result of the thousands of pro-slavery Missourians who moved there as well as all these Massachusetts people you speak of (actually anti-slavery people from all the Northern states, not just Massachusetts).
OK, look at race relations in this country and what blacks went through between 1865 and 1965 and get back to me.””
Blacks have always had problems with behaving in a civilized society. Check out those in Africa too. Check out every city where they rule. Check out the crime stats. It ain’t a pretty picture.
I honestly don't know how to reply to a statement as moronic as that.
You ignore calamitous suffering so easily it is frightening.
I ignore nothing. That you so easily scapegoat the terrible mistakes of your progenitors is disappointing.
I’m not a Southerner, I live in Indiana, and my mind is not bent to the winds of historical correctness. I tell you two problems that you have. 1. Half a million Americans die. 2. Lincoln was the captain in charge as that massacre unfolded. Flowery language does not mend bone, flesh, and families. If Lincoln had assembled an army to invade the South and free the slaves, you would have an argument. He did no such thing.
Where is anyone trying to inject “historical correctness”? You aren’t making any sense.
Nuance is lost on you, so we’re done here.
Run away!
How tyrannical the British king was, in any historical sense, is at minimum debatable. George III was quite possibly the most decent human being to ever sit that throne, admittedly not a high standard to beat.
Our second civil war was against Americans who rebelled against a constitutional system they had themselves helped to set up, but in which they refused to accept the perfectly legitimate results of a free election, launching a horrific war in response.
May I suggest you watch the Movie “Cotton Comes To Harlem”. It will explain everything just listen to Coffin Ed Johnson and Grave Digger Jones two of NYPD’s finest and they will sort it all out for you
I suggest you stand back an observe cities and countries where they hold power. Look at their progress in the absence of foreign intervention. It is a matter of simple observation, nothing more or less complicated.
Some people place more value on politicians and their constructed pieces of paper (ie their laws) than they do human life.
Lincoln’s stated objective was to “hold the union together,” no matter how many other people’s lives it cost. He would have sacrificed 10 million to satisfy his political ambitions. What difference did it make to him as long as he could still draw breath?
No, I'm sure it's not complicated for you at all.
Well, Lincoln had many queer ideas! Most of them had to do with people of his same race and gender, but many queer ideas he had.
But at least he wasn’t a cross-dresser like jeff davis ;’)
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.