On a point of history, the question is who to believe, British tabloid reporter Khaleda Rahman, or multiple award winning historian Dr. David Silkenat in a scholarly and peer reviewed article published in a history journal.I believe Frederick Douglas [sic] who was a slave, escaped and became an abolitionist, the slaves who escaped, and the confederacy's own declarations of secession.
I believe you did not link, cite or quote Frederick Douglass, and once again failed to do your due diligence.
Your #339 linked to and served up an uncredited/anonymous article:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/scars-of-gordon-whipped-louisiana-slave-1863/
My #382 provided a scholarly paper, by an award winning historian, on the story there provided, casting grave doubt on its credibility.
Your #392 linked to a tabloid UK Daily Mail article by Khaleda Rahman, showing the same image and just dug a deeper hole. You seem to be desperate to escape from doing that.
The story of #392 was largely a retread of the prior story and makes such inane claims as "The 13th amendment remains to this day the only ratified amendment to the US Constitution to have been signed into law by a sitting President." The author's lack of research and knowledge led to that boneheaded claim, and you served that up for me to waste my time reading.
Amendments are a sovereign act of the people, not an act of the Government. They become law when ratified by the people of three-fourths of the states. As Secretary of State, William Seward proclaimed the 13th Amendment as having been ratified. Earlier Lincoln had signed the congressional resolution to submit the proposed amendment to the States. When it was ratified, Lincoln was dead. Presidents do not sign Amendments into law.
My #420 demonstrated that Khaleda Rahman writes without knowing what she is talking about.
And now, with your #425 you want to make believe you are writing about Frederick Douglass.
I guess you at least deserve a quote from the esteemed Frederick Douglass, a man to told it like it was. Douglass gave an Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, April 14, 1876 at the Unveiling of the Freedman's Monument, in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.
Of Lincoln, Frederick Douglass said:
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration.
[TwelveOfTwenty #425] I believe Frederick Douglass....
So do I.
Here you are.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 14th paragraph
"I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. 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."
One of your confederacy defender friends referred to this as a "nauseating hagiography" here.
Combine that with the slaves who escaped and joined the Union forces, what what the slave holding states said about themselves in their declarations of secession, and that tells me all I need to know.
And before you go off on a rant about "See, not everyone in the North were good guys", I never denied that. In fact I admitted the abolitionists had to deal with that.