America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

UK Daily Mail ^ | October 1 2021 | MORGAN PHILLIPS

[BroJoeK]

quoted: "Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524)."

Why Davis would lie about this is obvious -- because slavery was the sticking point that kept European powers like Britain & France from openly supporting the Confederacy.

Nevertheless, the truth is that Davis was not a 1860 Fire Eater and so Davis began the Corwin amendment in December 1860 as a proposal for "compromise" legislation guaranteeing slavery, hoping to keep his home state of Mississippi from seceding.

"December 1860 Compromise Proposal by Jefferson Davis of Mississippi

Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof."

But Davis' proposals were rejected by Republicans and so Mississippi did declare secession, their official "Reasons for Secession" document making clear that slavery was the only major issue:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

So Jefferson Davis' home state made perfectly clear why they seceded -- Davis himself was not part of that, tried to prevent it with a Corwin-like proposal, but Davis' proposal was rejected by Republicans.

After seven Deep Cotton South states declared secession, Democrats tried again with numerous proposals, all rejected by Republicans, until RINO Corwin's proposal, still rejected by the majority of Republicans, but just barely enough RINOs (lead by Senator Seward) supported unanimous Democrats to pass it.
Corwin may (or may not) have helped keep Border South states from seceding in 1861.

Bottom line: when Democrat Jefferson Davis claimed secession was not about slavery, he was simply lying, being a Democrat, doing what Democrats by their natures do -- concocting nonsense to explain the inexplicable and justify the unjustifiable.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter."

DiogenesLamp even argues that all slaves freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation should have been returned to their alleged "masters" after Confederate surrenders, but before ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
It's a ludicrous argument.
At most you might say that freedmen, once freed, could only be returned to slavery if they volunteered, or if, as the 13th Amendment provides, as punishment for crime.

[jmacusa]

Jefferson Davis was an extremely difficult man in his temperament. He was stubborn, held public grudges with his peers and subordinates and was simply an arrogant man..

While in Congress his stubbornness and arrogance had others
in the Senate calling him “Majesty Davis’’.

A journalist once wrote of him by saying that Davis was ‘’unforgiving as a Spaniard to those whom he fancies his foes’’.

His own wife Varnia said of him that he was a ‘’nervous dyspeptic by habit’’.

If it can be said that the strength of a group depends on the will of it’s leader, well, Jefferson had the will alright but he didn’t have the way.

With people that is.

Little wonder the Confederacy fell apart.

[wardaddy]

Varina Davis was to say the least outspoken as hell....a fembot in her era

Pot calling kettle black about strident personality in my opinion tween those two

She married 17 years older Davis for the financial security her daddy being broke and her not having other prospects and her used to being rich

She did however have SIX KIDS with him...can’t have hated him too much.

Davis however she was to her credit did her duty when called upon her whole life

People today have no concept of duty

Nobody could have administered a Richmond victory except in a quick victory of “ok you can leave but let’s have understandings” compromise

A war of attrition despite Lees luck and skill was sure defeat given your arms and manpower superiority in the long run something Grant understood well and took advantage of

It was as you are prone to say ad nauseum here....a Lost Cause ...baring extraordinary luck..from jump street

[woodpusher]

woodpusher: "Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter."

DiogenesLamp even argues that all slaves freed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation should have been returned to their alleged "masters" after Confederate surrenders, but before ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

It's a ludicrous argument.

At most you might say that freedmen, once freed, could only be returned to slavery if they volunteered, or if, as the 13th Amendment provides, as punishment for crime.

Bullshit attribution. That is not a quote of woodpusher, it is a quote of history scholar Dr. James G. Randall, Ph.D. Dr. Randall was President of the American Historical Association and one of the most critically acclaimed Lincoln scholars. The quote was attributed to Randall and blockquoted by indenting below the attribution, as shown below. It is not an opinion of woodpusher you label as "ludicrous," but the opinion of one of the foremost history scholars.

James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, 1951, at 382-385: (footnotes omitted)

Its legal effect is a different matter. Slavery existed on the basis of law; and if it were to be permanently abolished, this would have to be done by some process of law. Just what would have been the status of slavery if there had been no anti-slavery amendment, is a diffi­cult question. While insisting that the freedom declared in his proclamation was irrevocable, Lincoln had doubts as to the manner in which the courts would treat his edict. He thought that it was a war measure and would be inoperative at the close of the war, but he was not sure. His attitude toward the Thirteenth Amend­ment showed how conscious he was of legal deficiencies in the proclamation, and these doubts were reflected in Congress where proposals to incorporate the proclama­tion into Federal law were presented by supporters of the administration.

One of the ablest lawyers of that day [Richard H. Dana] put the matter thus: “That an army may free the slaves of an enemy is a settled right of law. . . . But if any man fears or hopes that the proclamation did as a matter of law by its own force, alter the legal status of one slave in America ... he builds his fears or hopes on the sand.

It is a military act and not a decree of a legislator. It has no legal effect by its own force on the status of the slave. ... If you sustain the war you must expect to see the war work out emancipation.” And Secretary Welles of the Navy wrote in 1863: “What is to be the ultimate effect of the Proclamation, and what will be the exact status of the slaves . . . were the States now to resume their position, I am not prepared to say. The courts would adjudicate the questions; there would be legislative action in Congress and in the States also.” He added, however, that no slave who had left a “rebel” master and come within the Union lines, or who had served under the flag, could ever again be forced into involuntary servitude.

Hare, a reliable authority on constitutional law, is somewhat more positive as to the permanent effect of the proclamation. It was, he said, a mere command which could effect no change till executed by the hand of war; “but if carried into execution it might, like other acts jure belli, work a change that would survive on the return of peace.” Admitting the right of emancipa­tion as coming within the jus belli, one could say that the liberated slave would be as secure in his altered status as contraband property, if seized, would be in its new ownership. This would apply only to those slaves actually liberated by the incidents of war.

Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter.

In substance, Lincoln made the same argument to Orville Browning. Far from being ludicrous, as you claim in ignorance of the law, Randall and Lincoln knew full well what the law was, and that the confiscation of slaves due to a war measure could not lawfully change the status of property after the war. After the war, the 13th Amendment was a necessity.

Lincoln wrote to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861:

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply dictatorship.'' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases—confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure I have no doubt would be more popular with some thoughtless people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position; nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S.—any government of Constitution and laws,—wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?

CW 4:531-32

Randall's Lincoln: An Academic Scholar's Biography
JAMES HARVEY YOUNG
Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association
Volume 19, Issue 2, Summer 1998, pp. 1-13
Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0019.203

https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/james-g-randall

Excerpt (footnotes omitted)

Constitutional Problems under Lincoln was published in 1926. A reviewer asserted that Randall had shown "a quality of mastery, which will give his treatment such finality as one may expect from mortal historians." Randall next collaborated with his colleague, Theodore C. Pease, in editing The Diary of Orville Hickman Browning, a Quincy lawyer and friend of Lincoln who succeeded Stephen A. Douglas in the Senate. Randall pondered writing a constitutional history of the nation, but instead he vastly expanded the scope of his study of both the Civil War and Lincoln, the first academic historian to undertake this enormous challenge. His decision was confirmed when he was invited to prepare the Lincoln sketch for the Dictionary of American Biography. This was the DAB's longest entry, and Randall wrote eleven other sketches, including that of Mary Todd Lincoln.

Urged by Allan Nevins, Randall devoted the early 1930s to manuscript research, leading to a scholarly synthesis in The Civil War and Reconstruction, published in 1937. The book proved to be a best-seller among specialized textbooks and was revised by Randall's student, David Herbert Donald, in 1961. The textbook finished, Randall turned to his magnum opus, Lincoln the President. The first two volumes, subtitled Springfield to Gettysburg, were published in 1945. The third volume, Midstream, mostly about the year 1863, was published in 1952 and won the Loubat Prize. Randall lived to write half the concluding volume and to draft suggestions for themes to be included in the second half. At his death, he left the suggestion that his final volume be completed either by Allan Nevins or by a young Illinois colleague, Richard N. Current, with whom Randall had become acquainted. When Nevins declined, Current accepted the responsibility and concluded the Lincoln biography in a way he deemed consistent with Randall's perspectives. Last Full Measure, published in 1955, was accorded the Bancroft Prize, a tribute to the overall biography.

...

In 1920, at the age of thirty-nine, Randall moved to Lincoln country, joining the history department at the University of Illinois. The Randalls moved into an apartment a short distance from the campus where they were to dwell for the rest of their lives, researching, writing, and entertaining students.

https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/james-g-randall/

Illinois Distributed Museum

From 1920 until 1949, Randall served as a faculty member in the history department at the University of Illinois. During this time, Randall confronted the question of “Has the Lincoln Theme Been Exhausted?” His extensive list of publications covering Lincoln and the Civil War shows that his answer was “no.” …

As a historian, Randall served in leadership positions for regional and national historical associations. Randall used his platform to advocate for greater objectivity in historical scholarship. Randall believed that people should expect objectivity in history just as they did in science. To define historical objectivity, Randall used the metaphor of a judge, writing, “It is not the duty of a fair judge to issue no opinion, but to see that there is no tampering with the scales.” (Randall, 1952) Studying Lincoln became a Randall family affair. In fact, James G. Randall’s wife, Ruth Painter Randall, wrote Mary Lincoln: Biography of a Marriage. To find a memorial to the Randalls, you can travel to Gregory Hall where you can find a plaque outside of the east entrance to the building. Just a few steps north, you can visit Lincoln Hall, where Randall held his office hours for almost thirty years. In addition, you can stop by the Illinois History and Lincoln Collections of the Library to peruse the James G. Randall collection.

Demonstrating the fragility of seizure by unlawful action, even by the Federal government, the United States had its claimed title to Arlington National Cemetery voided by the U.S. Supreme Court as the land was found to have been wrongfully seized. It was subsequently purchased from the rightful heir of the owner of the land at the time of unlawful seizure.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882).

See also Bigelow v. Forrest, 76 US 339 (1869)

From the headnotes:

3. The act of July 17th, 1862, "to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," and the joint resolution of the same date explanatory of it, are to be construed together.

4. Under the two thus construed all that could be sold by virtue of a decree of condemnation and order of sale under the act was a right to the property seized, terminating with the life of the person for whose pffence it had been seized.

5. The fact that such person owned the estate in fee simple, and that the libel was against all the right, title, interest, and estate of such person, and that the sale and marshal's deed professed to convey as much, does not change the result.

Opinion of the Court at 351-52:

It is true, the cause in the district court was entitled, "United States against all the right, title, interest, and estate of French Forrest in and to all that certain piece, parcel, or lot of land" (describing it), but all this is descriptive not of quantity of estate, but of the subject of seizure, and that was land. The proceeding was required by the act of Congress to be in rem, and the decree condemned not the estate of French Forrest, but, using its own words, "the real property mentioned and described in the libel." The marshal was ordered to sell the said property, the boundaries of which were given in the title to the decree. Had the purchasers looked at that decree (and knowledge of it must be attributed to them), they would have seen that it was a decree of confiscation of the land, and they were bound to know its legal effect. It is therefore a mistake to argue that the plaintiff below was permitted to impeach collaterally the decree under which the marshal's sale was made, or that the judgment of the court in this case impeaches it. The argument assumes what cannot be admitted, that the decree of the district court established a confiscation reaching beyond the life of French Forrest, for whose offense the land was condemned and sold.

It has been further argued on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the plaintiff below was barred against maintaining his suit by the latter clause of the fifth section of the act of 1862, which enacted that it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or use of such property or any of it to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in the section. The agreed statement of facts, in lieu of a special verdict, finds that the plaintiff is one of the persons described in said section fifth; but it immediately explains this by adding, "that is to say, he acted as an officer of the army and navy of the so-called Confederate States from and after the passage of said act until April, 1865." Was he therefore barred from maintaining the ejectment? The land was not seized or condemned for any act of his. He had no interest in it when it was declared forfeited. He could not have been heard in opposition to the decree of forfeiture. That proceeding was wholly inter alias partes. If, therefore, he is not at liberty to assert his claim, he is denied the right to his property without trial, without any procedure in due course of law, and the practical effect of the bar is to assure to the purchaser at the marshal's sale the enjoyment of the property after his right has expired, and to give him by estoppel a greater estate than he purchased. No construction of the act of Congress that works such results can be accepted. It is plainly against the true meaning of the act. We have already remarked that the act and the contemporaneous resolution must be construed together. The latter declares that the act shall not be construed to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life. It can do this neither directly nor indirectly. The punishment inflicted upon him is not to descend to his children. His heritable blood is not corrupted.

[jmacusa]

Lee got his ass kicked at Gettysburg. When are you Rebs going to ever give it up?.

The Confederacy got it’s ass kicked. Arms and numbers don’t mean a thing without brains behind them. The Union Army outfought the Confederacy.

The South went to war with no chance of winning.

It went to war without a navy. Stupid move because the first thing the North did was blockade Southern ports.

The Confederates won some battles but lost the war.

But not before they managed to get 600,000 Americans killed.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "It is not an opinion of woodpusher you label as "ludicrous," but the opinion of one of the foremost history scholars...

Far from being ludicrous, as you claim in ignorance of the law, Randall and Lincoln knew full well what the law was, and that the confiscation of slaves due to a war measure could not lawfully change the status of property after the war.
After the war, the 13th Amendment was a necessity."

If you'll go back and read it again, you'll see my word "ludicrous" applied to my rehearsal of DiogenesLamps' arguments -- that slaves freed by Lincoln's 1862-3 Emancipation Proclamation should have been returned to their alleged "masters" after Confederate surrenders in April 1865 and before the 13th Amendment's ratification in December 1865.

You yourself, woodpusher, have not yet made that exact argument, you've merely said, correctly, that after the war the 13th Amendment was "a necessity", presumably to both clarify the legal status of freed slaves and to free those few still remaining to be freed in Union states like Kentucky & Delaware.

But any suggestion that freed slaves should be returned to slavery after April 1865 flies in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation language:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Lincoln's words were clear, "forever free", so returning such freedmen to slavery, without due process, was a practical impossibility, even if legally conceivable.

Now I'll admit it's possible you do intend to support DiogenesLamp's argument -- that freedmen should have been returned to slavery post-bellum -- and if so, then you're as ludicrous as he is.
But I read your words as walking right up to that line, without actually crossing over it.

Feel free to correct my understandings of your opinions.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Nobody was concerned about that at the time....nor the self determination of Indians, nor of women, etc

The abolitionists were and there were enough of them to win. The slave holding states noted them as being one of the reasons they were seceding.

By getting him to write it.

What?!? According to you it was passed by the congress and signed by the president, but it was never writ...oh never mind.

They offered it. Lincoln did so in his first inaugural address. I've posted it here before. Lincoln orchestrated its passage and was a big advocate of it.

It never passed. It was passed by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, then died. It was never ratified by any states until after the slave holding states had seceeded and the war had already started.

It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down.

Did the original 7 seceding states abolish slavery? No.

The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.

Then it was ratified by enough Northern states to make it law, is that what you're saying? If not, then it was nothing.

Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?

Calling blacks inferior and saying their best use was as slaves is your idea of citing "examples of the Northern states violating the constitution"? Seriously?

Sure I read that. Those sentiments were common....the abolitionists were a tiny minority. The Northern states had incredibly discriminatory Black Codes on the books at the time.

When I search for this, all of the examples that come up were from the South. How about posting something in support of this?

"“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861"

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

"“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/"

Did he free the slaves after saying any of this? No. His mouth said one thing, but his actions said another.

Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

The issue wouldn't have even come up if it the war wasn't about slavery, never mind whether we have to believe JD.

Odd. You care about what Lincoln has to say and yet he said the same things about Negroes (ie Blacks) being subordinate and inferior and Whites being superior. This was the overwhelming view at the time. What we would consider to be massive egregious racism was the norm the world over in the mid 19th century.

I'll grant that, but there is a difference. The confederacy held on to their slaves until forced by defeat to release them. Lincoln and the North freed them. Whatever racist demons Lincoln had prior, he overcame them to get abolition done.

We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.

I can accept there were thousands, but how many?

Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.

I posted two referces from two different sources that showed that Dickens supported the South over the North because he didn't believe the North was serious about freeing the slaves. Here they are again.

From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."

And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."

Where was that refuted?

He was right.

Do you mean slavery wasn't abolished after the war?

[TwelveOfTwenty]

You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority.

Why would I? Everything is at the link. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to flood our generous hosts' resources with tons of spam repeating what can be found simply by clicking on the link and reading.

Here I come to save the day!

You would do better to save FR some bandwidth by just making your point without spamming the forum with other people's writings that happen to agree with you.

So let's go over what you needed to post from a book to explain.

Blacks served in the confederate military. Everyone knows that. What we disagree on are the numbers who did so by choice.

The confederacy literally drafted every white male they could find before becoming desparate enough to allow blacks to serve.

Many in the North discriminated against black troops.

Everybody knew all of this before you flooded FR's disks with everybody else's work. It doesn't change the facts that the confederacy fought to preserve slavery, and the North abolished it.

"It was a fact that black casualties in the Union army were far higher than white casualties. Of the approximately 180,000 black troops eventually recruited, about 37,000 died. That death rate amounted to slightly more than 20 percent, as compared with a death rate of 15.2 percent among white troops and only 8.6 percent in the regular army."

Thank you for admitting the confederacy was more likely to kill black troops than white troops. I'm sure they felt it was justified, considering those black troops were fighting to abolish slavery.

Now that you've admitted to the extreme, vile racism of the confederacy, let's see what else you have.

Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin. Let us examine what you dragged up and brought in here. You are free to attempt to pass off this radical partisan as a serious scholar, whose words carry significant weight.

I offered three sources that helped to cooborate each other, but it comes as no surprise that you chose to attack his personal beliefs instead of answer the validity of the combined arguments. OK, we'll go there.

First of all, the confederacy amen corner doesn't have any more credibility than lefties do with a lot of us on this issue. Both of you are on the same side. The lefties want to stick us with their history, and you want to accept it on our behalf.

In a tweet of 22 Oct 2021 (today), Levin proclaimed, "I got through about 15 minutes of "4 Hours at the Capitol" before I had to turn it off. There is something downright obscene about giving a platform like this to insurrectionists."

You must think that's worse than the confederacy's defense of slavery.

But getting back to using the review itself, my search turned up very little else on the books you referenced. It doesn't seem that anyone outside of the confederacy amen corner has even taken notice of them.

Kevin M. Levin, is regularly published in the failing far-left magazine, The Atlantic. Shocker, I know.

He's a leftist. So what? I don't see the defenders of the confederacy as being any more credible. You're both on the same mission, which is to stick the right with the democrats' history.

And again, I posted three links which should help cooborate each other.

https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Battle-Crater-Directions-Southern/dp/0813169720 (one of your references)

Yes, I always go to Amazon.com when I want to learn about history, never mind the history they helped make in 2020.

"The battle of the Crater is known as one of the Civil War's bloodiest struggles-a Union loss with combined casualties of 5,000, many of whom were members of the United States Colored Troops (USCT) under Union Brigadier General Edward Ferrero. The battle was a violent clash of forces as Confederate soldiers fought for the first time against African American soldiers. After the Union lost the battle, these black soldiers were captured and subject both to extensive abuse and the threat of being returned to slavery in the South. Yet, despite their heroism and sacrifice, these men are often overlooked in public memory of the war."

It is idiocy to argue that the Confederate soldiers were committing murder. They were the uniformed armed forces an officially recognized belligerent power engaged in a lawful war...Levin seems to think that if the Union leaders attack idiotically, the Confederates should not shoot them. And if they do shoot, that's murder. A rabidly partisan writer, who presents a one-sided view based on his prejedices, is not an historian.

The former slaves were fighting for the freedom of their race, against an entity that was actively enslaving them. The fact that you would post this as a defense of the confederacy in 2021 is appalling.

You failed to provide a link or source for your quote. I'll do it for you.

I was ready to hit the abuse button and report you for lying about me, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Judging from the fact that you insist on flooding FR with all of the text rather than posting simple links, I'm going to assume you don't understand the rules of the net.

Below is exactly what I posted here.

Having seen the full context, I stand corrected. You are right on this, but that isn't the whole story. Lincoln wanted to avoid alienating the border states. From David Hunter

Had you clicked on David Hunter which anyone who knows anything about the Internet at all would have recognized as a link, you would have seen the exact article you linked to.

As expected, you get your mythology from Wikipedia, your bible of history.

I understand the limits of Wikipedia (which you also referenced BTW) but the text was linked to references that anyone could click, so I don't see your problem.

There is still only one meaning for emancipation.

Yes. It's what the North did for the confederacy's slaves after winning the war.

Hunter declared the slaves within his jurisdiction to be free. Lincoln reversed that and the slaves declared free by Hunter remained slaves, by order of Abraham Lincoln the great abolitionist and emancipator, in the war to end slavery.

From Lincoln's letter rescinding the order, "Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system."

And Hunter was relieved of his command.

Not that I agree with the decision legal or otherwise, but it was for insubordination.

BTW, "President Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the Confederate Army were furious when they heard of Hunter's actions and orders were given that he was a "felon to be executed if captured.""

Your quote of me seemed to just stop abruptly.

Frederick Douglas wrote the quote you posted in 1861, expressing frustration with how slowly the issues of slavery in general were being dealt with. He made no secret that abolitionists were frustrated with how slowly everything was happening. That is something else everyone knows but you keep posting because you think it proves something. The North opened up recruitment to blacks in 1863.

Now hop into your time machine and go to 1876, after the war and after abolition, when he wrote "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Looking at it in hindsight, he could understand what Lincoln was up against and why abolition took so long.

Well, it's unanimous. I said nothing about all of anybody. I cited and quoted Frederick Douglass talking about many black men, real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops. And it is clear that you were not talking about all black men. There it is. Nobody was talking about ALL black men. Douglass did not specify how many such men there were, but it is certain that it was not too few for him to mention.

We all know there were blacks who served in the confederacy in various roles and for various reasons. The problem is you haven't posted anything to substaniate your 300,000 estimate.

If I had written something like that, you may have quoted me doing so. Instead of addressing the question, you hide, duck, and weave by a diversion.

That was no diversion. Your question was "If Lincoln had succeeded, and he had restored all the late states in rebellion to the Union as though they had never left, with full representation in Congress, when do you think the 13th (or 14th, 15th) Amendment would have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States?" That implied that the former slave holding states wouldn't have ratified abolition.

To answer your question, I don't know when or even if they would have ratified the amendment. When do you think they would have voted to ratify it?

I already quoted Lincoln on the applicable law. I'll do it again, and then quote Randall so you may enjoy an educational experience.

That was neither enjoyable nor an educational experience. Just more cut and paste.

"Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter."

We know this. Slavery couldn't have been abolished completely until the confederacy was defeated in 1865, and President Lincoln had to keep the border states in line until that happened. He did, and slavery was abolished. I again refer you to Frederick Douglas' statement above.

[FLT-bird]

The abolitionists were and there were enough of them to win. The slave holding states noted them as being one of the reasons they were seceding.

They were a tiny minority and there were nowhere near enough of them to win. What abolitionists candidates were elected prior to 1860?

What?!? According to you it was passed by the congress and signed by the president, but it was never writ...oh never mind.

The amendment was written by Thomas Corwin. Thus the name.

It never passed. It was passed by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, then died. It was never ratified by any states until after the slave holding states had seceeded and the war had already started.

It did not pass because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority.

Did the original 7 seceding states abolish slavery? No.

Is that relevant to the Corwin Amendment? No.

Then it was ratified by enough Northern states to make it law, is that what you're saying? If not, then it was nothing.

Did it have to be ratified by enough states before it passed the Congress with the necessary supermajority and before Lincoln offered it in his inaugural address? No. By the way, Lincoln had not started the war yet when he gave his inaugural address.

Calling blacks inferior and saying their best use was as slaves is your idea of citing "examples of the Northern states violating the constitution"? Seriously?

Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution by the Northern states is not proof of them violating the constitution? Seriously?

When I search for this, all of the examples that come up were from the South. How about posting something in support of this?

"the Prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the states where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern state." Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America

So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle. -Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America", Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.

“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale." - Charles Dickens

"There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, 'They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.' Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there." (John Franklin and Alfred Moss, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185.

"For all the good intentions of many early white abolitionists, blacks were not especially welcome in the free states of America. Several territories and states, such as Ohio, not only refused to allow slavery but also had passed laws specifically limiting or excluding any blacks from entering its territory or owning property." (Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War, p. 54)

". . . in 1862 white laborers erupted into mob violence against blacks in a half-dozen cities across the North. . . . The mobs sometimes surged into black neighborhoods and assaulted people on the streets and in their homes. . . .

"'Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275)

". . . discouragement was deepened by the outcome of three Northern state referendums in the fall of 1865. The legislatures of Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Minnesota placed on the ballot constitutional amendments to enfranchise the few black men in those states. Everyone recognized that, in some measure, the popular vote on these amendments would serve as a barometer of Northern opinion on black suffrage. The defeat of the amendments could be seen as a mandate against black suffrage by a majority of Northern voters." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 501)

"Numerous [Union] army officials who advocated the use of black troops viewed Negroes as little more than cannon fodder. 'For my part,' announced an officer stationed in South Carolina, 'I make bold to say that I am not so fastidious as to object to a negro being food for powder and I would arm every man of them.' Governor Israel Washburn of Maine agreed. 'Why have our rulers so little regard for the true and brave white men of the north?' asked Washburn. 'Will they continue to sacrifice them? Why will they refuse to save them by employing black men? . . . Why are our leaders unwilling that Sambo should save white boys?'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 93)

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, state legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut took away Negroes' right to vote; and voters in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin approved new constitutions that limited suffrage to whites. In Ohio, Negro males were permitted to vote only if they had "a greater visible admixture of white than colored blood." (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 54)

Here is a whole website that goes over slavery and discrimination in the North in great detail. http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm

Did he free the slaves after saying any of this? No. His mouth said one thing, but his actions said another.

You seem to not grasp that secession and the war might have been about something other than slavery AND at the same time, one did not need to be an abolitionist to say so.

The issue wouldn't have even come up if it the war wasn't about slavery, never mind whether we have to believe JD.

Patently false. Just because some Northerners thought it was "about slavery" does not make it so. Most in the South did not think so and as we've already gone over, the vast majority of Northerners were not abolitionists.

I'll grant that, but there is a difference. The confederacy held on to their slaves until forced by defeat to release them. Lincoln and the North freed them. Whatever racist demons Lincoln had prior, he overcame them to get abolition done.

Actually he didn't. The 13th amendment passed after his death. The North held onto its slaves until after the war and only finally abolished slavery to try to claim a moral high ground it did not possess. They did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again.

I can accept there were thousands, but how many?

That is difficult to say exactly. 19th century record keeping was not up to modern standards. We can safely say many thousands. That one report said 3,000 in Jackson's Corps alone.

I posted two referces from two different sources that showed that Dickens supported the South over the North because he didn't believe the North was serious about freeing the slaves. Here they are again.

No, he knew the North did not go to war to put down slavery as they themselves said over and over again. Lincoln said it. Congress passed a resolution saying it. Furthermore, he also knew what the North was really interested in was holding on to its cash cow. It was about money.

Where was that refuted?

Did you see the one about how he said the war was waged on the part of the North for economic gain/control over the Southern states? That's what I've said all along. That's what Dickens said numerous times. I posted the quotes.

Do you mean slavery wasn't abolished after the war?

Do you mean the North did not offer slavery forever by express constitutional amendment, did not emancipate their own slaves and did not expressly say they were not fighting to abolish slavery?

[DiogenesLamp]

But any suggestion that freed slaves should be returned to slavery after April 1865 flies in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation language:

Unless Lincoln is the dictator that many of us claim he was, his "language" is not law. Law is law, and you cannot create law by Presidential diktat.

Article IV, section 2 specifically *REQUIRES* slaves to be returned to their masters. Your argument is with constitutional law. I am merely reminding you of what it actually says on the matter.

[FLT-bird]

This is typical of the PC Revisionists here. They claim to be conservatives.....yet they happily get in bed with open and avowed Leftists like Levin to make their arguments. The demonization of the South and all things Southern has always been led by Leftists. These are people who love centralized power and who hate the country and its founding. After all, most of the Founders were Virginians, thus Southerners and a good many were slaveowners. Those who could not see that the PCers would eventually try to attack American history the same way they started attacking Southern history in the 1980s were blind.

[FLT-bird]

I see BroJoeK is pushing more of his crackpot PC Revisionist theories in a desperate attempt to explain away Jefferson Davis’ own words said during the war. He’ll take Stephens’ word as gospel but clearly Davis must be lying when he expresses the opposite sentiments. Must be! Because if not, that would call the whole PC Revisionist premise into question and clearly we can’t have that.

[FLT-bird]

Davis as a politician had his limitations. Nobody will argue otherwise. Still, he was a principled and honest man. He was extremely loyal to those who were loyal to him. He was also an inherently decent Christian man who took a very enlightened view toward Blacks whom he treated with respect. He was well regarded by most Blacks in return.

"I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)

During a trip through the western part of the Confederacy, Davis got off his train at Griswoldville, Georgia, in order to meet with a group of slaves who had gathered in the hope of seeing him. These men worked at a local pistol factory and had come to the train station because they wanted to meet Davis. Informed of the gathering, Davis got off the train and circulated among the group, shaking each hand and speaking to each man individually (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, p. 494). When Davis returned to Richmond, Virginia, after the war, he was not only cheered by whites but also by blacks. One observer noted that Davis was "greatly touched" by the sympathy shown to him by the blacks in the crowd. In fact, some blacks climbed up on his carriage, shook and kissed his hand, and called out "God bless Mars Davis" (Allen, Jefferson Davis: Unconquerable Heart, pp. 486-487). His funeral train was greeted by crowds of mourners both White and Black on its 1200 mile journey from New Orleans to Richmond.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Article IV, section 2 specifically *REQUIRES* slaves to be returned to their masters.
Your argument is with constitutional law.
I am merely reminding you of what it actually says on the matter."

But once freed -- according to whichever law -- they were **NOT** SLAVES and so could under no circumstances be "returned" to any alleged "master".

You should well know that and should be deeply ashamed of yourself for arguing otherwise, FRiend.

[wardaddy]

Detractors especially the woke crazies here dismiss his war record and govt service as a whole prior to the conflict

Inconvenient

I think it’s reasonable to say prior to the war between the states Davis gave far more of himself than the average freeper slinging self righteousness at no personal cost here

[BroJoeK]

FB: "This is typical of the PC Revisionists here.
They claim to be conservatives.....yet they happily get in bed with open and avowed Leftists like Levin to make their arguments. "

I see that wardaddy, woodpusher & FLT-bird are all obsessing over somebody named Kevin M. Levin, who I never heard of, had never before seen quoted here.
I thought wardaddy's reference to "Levin" meant Fox & talk-show host Mark Levin, which would be nonsense.

So if you guys want to flog somebody named Kevin Levin, he's just a straw man here, flog away -- if that makes you feel good.

Bottom line: nobody here is arguing Leftist politics, we're only asking you guys to stop lying about the Civil War.
How hard could that be?

[DiogenesLamp]

But once freed -- according to whichever law -- they were **NOT** SLAVES and so could under no circumstances be "returned" to any alleged "master".

Lincoln cannot legally declare them "freed" either.

[wardaddy]

Hold on now....lord attributor ....and a professor I hear you are from your mini me who I’m sure is watching waiting to get a pat on the head

I have no idea who you’re talking about.

When I first saw Levin...i thought you meant Mark Levin...I’m not a big fan of his either...his treatment of Trump starting out didn’t sit well with me and he’s no friend of my region

Woodpusher has accused you before of attributing things to people they didn’t say here.

“Well there you go again”

I am not a scholar on the run up to the civil war .

I am a scholar on being southern..

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I think it’s reasonable to say prior to the war between the states Davis gave far more of himself than the average freeper slinging self righteousness at no personal cost here

Hitler "earned" his country's highest honor as a WW1 Vet too. Does that excuse him?

And no one here is playing self righteous. We all have our failings to apologize for, and slavery is NOT one of modern Southerners' failings. In fact as Republicans, their legacy is in abolishing slavery. Why they don't embrace it over a democrat hissy fit that split the nation is beyond me.