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 ...
LOL! I thought that might generate a response from you! I think I’ll grab a beer, pop some popcorn, and see how long this thread goes.
Wait, how did he know we'd elect Obama in 2008?
That tidbit is so rarely taught as to be extinct in modern education, but it is the most critical point in today's racial discussions. Where would you want to be if we would send you anywhere in the world?
Racism isn't causing poverty and the dissolution of the black family. Urban Democrat governing policies are.
You have simply been conditioned to think it is a big deal for people to naturally wish to associate with their own kind. Try thinking for yourself and escape the confines of your box.
Yes well it appears that we have both been conditioned to think in different ways.
I have been a professional life scientist for most of my life. I make observations and collect data. I write scientific papers. What do you do besides call people names that disagree with you?
What “names” has DoodleDawg called anyone?
“moron”
I said your statement was moronic. If you want to project that into being called a moron then so be it. But I’ll stand by my opinion of what you said.
Yea, I don’t think so. But what I have noticed is that, for a “life scientist” your posts have heavily leaned on an emotional appeal or projection - neither one a particularly laudable trait.
How about arguing the relative merits of the topic?
Using pejorative terms to make a personal attack instead of refuting a statement is simply the approach used by sniveling liberals. Come up with a reasoned comment rather than the name calling. It is called keeping the discussion on an adult level.
Strategic depth means that the defender can yield huge chunks of territory to the invader and still not be forced to engage decisively to stay in the field. Where could Hood go after he was forced to abandon Atlanta?
If you read the history, you will see that the "Kansas" issue was settled before Lincoln was elected. As to the "border war", the pro-slavery forces that invaded Kansas territory to rig elections played a very large role in the outbreak of violence, as did the pro slavery Democrat party power structure in Washington under President Buchanan.
"Bleeding Kansas" had become the focal point of the slavery crisis. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, signed three years before Buchanan came to power, allowed Kansans to decide by election whether to be a free or slave state. Chaos had ensued as Missouri "border ruffians" crossed into Kansas to vote for a proslavery territorial government in 1855. Free-Soilers opposed to slavery subsequently formed their own government and boycotted a call for a constitutional convention for the new state, which the proslavery forces then dominated.
Buchanan, eager to retain the support of proslavery Democrats, endorsed this proslavery constitution known as the Lecompton Constitution, though the document had been supported by only a minority of whites in Kansas. Even Buchanan's own territorial governor urged him not to accept these results. Instead, Buchanan sent a message to Congress urging acceptance of Kansas as a slave state. In Congress, Senator Stephen Douglas boldly challenged Buchanan's endorsement of the Lecompton plan and derailed it. He claimed that it was a fraud, passed by only a small minority of the voters in Kansas and therefore violated the principle of "popular sovereignty." Nevertheless, Buchanan prevailed over Douglas in the Senate.
In the House, a prolonged debate, with pro-Douglas Democrats joining Republicans, led to a compromise solution: the Constitution would be returned to Kansas for another vote. A new election was held in Kansas for a constitutional convention. This new convention soundly rejected slavery and set the stage for the admission of Kansas as a free state in June of 1861.
Source: http://millercenter.org/president/buchanan/essays/biography/4
The Missouri-Kansas Border war continued even after the end of the north-south war. People in western Missouri were murdered by Kansas killers that invaded the region, stole property, and murdered men, children, and even some women. Lincoln gave the order to offer no quarter to people who resisted the federal authority. I suggest you read a well-documented history of the region complete with references from the time, not some modern day rewrite of the victor’s version only. During the Civil War, the western front was the scene of some of that conflict’s bloodiest and most barbaric encounters as Union raiders and Confederate guerrillas pursued each other from farm to farm with equal disregard for civilian casualties. Historical accounts of these events overwhelmingly favor the victorious Union standpoint, characterizing the Southern fighters as wanton, unprincipled savages. But in fact, as the author, himself a descendant of Union soldiers, discovered, the bushwhackers violent reactions were understandable, given the reign of terror they endured as a result of Lincolnís total war in the West.
Civil War on the Missouri-Kansas Border Hardcover – November 30, 2005
by Donald Gilmore (Author)
Thank you for explaining.
Given that explanation...I can only agree.
The South never forgave Douglas for this defeat.
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.