Posted on 01/06/2003 7:55:23 PM PST by stainlessbanner
Really, then what a duplicitous man he was, because years later he made it painfully clear that he personally believed in the inferiority of the black man, was completely opposed to the idea of inter-racial marriages, and even went so far to embrace the idea that blacks should be removed from the presence of whites and shipped off to Africa. I know it shatters your carefully crafted imaginary world, but the man was guilty of race prejudice just like most Americans back then. Remember the words of Frederick Douglass?
Really, then what a duplicitous man he was, because years later he made it painfully clear that he personally believed in the inferiority of the black man, was completely opposed to the idea of inter-racial marriages, and even went so far to embrace the idea that blacks should be removed from the presence of whites and shipped off to Africa.
I really see that you don't bother to quote Lincoln.
But I will.
"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."
8/24/54
"If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?
-- You say A. is a white, and B. is black. It is --color--, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be the slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly? -- You mean the whites are --intellectually-- the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of --interest--; and, if you can make it your --interest--, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
1854
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
August, 1858
"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--But I do expect it will cease to be divided. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is the course of ultimate extinctioon; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South. Have we no tendency towards the latter condition?"
1858
"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
3/1/59
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/23/63
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel...
In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."
4/4/64
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
sources: "Abraham Lincoln, Mystic Chords of Memory" published by the Book of the Month Club, 1984 and:
"Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas, Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed. 1989
Consider these letters:
Private
General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________
Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon Soc of War
Executive Mansion
Washington
July 21, 1863
My Dear Sir:
I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.
Yours truly
--------------------------------------
Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constitution include voting rights for blacks. A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.
"
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Walt
Preserve the union, Walt. Peace was another matter and one of little importance compared to preserving the union.
That is why he supported voting rights for blacks later on. Blacks were going to be in this country no matter what. The way had to be prepared.
That transcends misleading and goes straight into being untrue. In 1865 he did support the idea of voting rights for some blacks, the ones that he considered to be "very intelligent", and also those who served as soldiers, as a reward. As for their being here no matter what, he wanted to ship the bulk of them back to Africa. The only way he intended to prepare was a clear one to the docks. The radical republicans, the group who really ended slavery at the end of the war, hated Lincoln for his commonly held race views and also for his intentions.
That is why Booth shot him.
There were a lot of reasons why Booth shot Lincoln. True, he didn't like what Lincoln said 3 days beforehand, when he advocated very limited voting rights based on guidelines restricted by his race prejudice, but the decision to shoot Lincoln had already been made prior to that. It involved many people, and was not just the result of Booth getting mad and shooting him 3 days later over a speech.
Yes, it did. As was known by those union slave states fighting on the side of the North in the "war to free the slaves". If it was a "war to free the slaves", then it was really a "war against the constitution", wasn't it. Who's a traitor? (relax, it wasn't a "war to free the slaves", it was a "war to preserve the union".) If it was a "war to free the slaves", the US wouldn't have been adding ANOTHER slave state (WV) in the middle of it.
Quote the Spectator all you like.
Glad you agree with their correct and rather blunt assessment of the EP.
Wow, two actions by small groups of abolitionists really offsets the many actions of the masses. NOT. There were also the numerous lynchings in NYC during the 1863 draft riots. And the Detroit riots. And...(so on, and so forth).
What it came down to was that northerners would accept blacks if it helped preserve the Union, most southerners would fight to keep them from having equal rights.
ROFLOL - That's garbage, and a complete denial of history. Oh, I forgot, you don't know anything about history, you only know revisionist fabrications and Lincoln cult fantasies. They were willing to accept them if they stayed down South or were sent back to Africa. And don't use that labor competition excuse either. They made it clear they thought blacks were inferior and didn't want them around. Put down your revisionist and apologetic books and read through the northern newspapers during the war years and those just after. I did that a while back and what I found was shocking compared to the image portrayed by many modern historians (revisionist apologists). Sure, you'll find an article here and there that say what you'll want them to, but they are not the norm, and very far from the majority. History is not just the parts we want, Walt, it's all of it. Revisionists and apologists can write all the books they want, it won't change the truth.
Obviously you've never served in the armed forces. It is quite okay to honor an opponent's valor, yet despise the ideals they fight for. This is something a military man would understand ... you would not. It is amazing that a piece of cloth disturbs you so much. What is it about that flag threatens you so much? You obviously don't believe in the right of self-expression, nor do you believe that Southerners were capable of fighting for something much bigger than slavery. Do you believe in the right of self determination? Do you know enough about what the Founding Fathers' intent was when they drafted the Constitution? Do you believe that once the states ratified the Constitution they signed away all right of self-determination to the Federal Government? Do you know what "Limited Government" means? And I have a Confederate Flag on my vehicle ... so does that make me a racist?
As far as your hypothetical man goes, I would suppose that he would have the attributes you would give to him. Do I think he could admire the fighting prowess of the Wermacht and not be bigoted towards Jews ... YES. But IF he is admirable of the Warrior spirit, yet capable of compassion. What I believe is that you need to dig deeper into the ideals of the Founders and discover what they intended for government. I'll give you a little hint ... self-determination was to be paramount as well as individual liberty. It was to be a country where man-over-government was the ideal. Anything else is not in their vision. Lastly ... no ... I am not a racist, and I think slavery was wrong, but I DO feel the Southern States had the right to determine their own course and domestic institutions ... FREE FROM OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE!
Oh ... and psssssssssssssst ... I spent 20 years in the US military.
(sigh) Yes, Lincoln was against slavery, but he also was against the blacks it brought with it. He wanted them gone, and not amongst whites. Most of the quotes you provided prove my point. I won't deny he thought slavery wrong because it oppressed others, but I also won't deny he thought those others inferior and wanted them to excercise their rights far away from any white people. BTW, he also thought Hispanics were "mongrels", but that is another issue. I'll start by providing the quotes you wanted me to provide to verify the points I made (that Lincoln: 1-thought blacks are inferior, 2-was against intermarriage, 3-wanted to ship them off to Africa) Once again, I'm not unfairly judging him by modern standards, I'm refuting your revisionist claptrap which attempts to make him into something he wasn't. Here's those quotes:
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." Abraham Lincoln, from a speech in Springfield, IL; 17 July 1858
"Such separation ... must be effected by colonization ... to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." - Abraham Lincoln, from a speech delivered in Springfield, IL; 26 June, 1857
"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization...in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race." Abraham Lincoln, Annual message to Congress; 1 Dec 1862
"I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." Abraham Lincoln, 1865
Lincoln clearly was preparing the way for black suffrage.
LOL - Preparing the way for more soldiers is more like it.
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
(sigh) If you really think that's all there is to the Lincoln assassination, then you're just silly.
"Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
YES! Finally you get it, he saw the use of blacks, especially Southern blacks, as manpower to fight the war and "preserve the union" while at the same time undermining the manpower of the South. He says it plainly in the quote you gave. It's about time you realised the obvious. He was preparing the way for more soldiers and subverting the strength of the enemy at the same time. His objectives are clear.
This is spurious quote created by Benjamin Butler, a known and notorious liar.
Racial equality and integration of White and Black as equals weren't considered real options in 19th century America. For at least about 35 years, Americans have accepted the equality of Black and White as a matter of course. That wasn't the case for 19th century Americans. It was something that had to be proven to them, and even then few would accept it. For Lincoln, the participation of Blacks in fighting units was this sort of eye-opening experience. How far he would have gone in the direction of equality is a matter of contention, but most Americans either didn't have such an eye-opener, or rejected equality nevertheless.
David Donald, Lincoln's biographer notes that Lincoln was never in favor of forced colonization. It was, rather, something that he thought African-Americans would embrace if it were properly explained to them. When they didn't, and chose instead to stay and fight for their freedom, Lincoln had to reassess his convictions and assumptions. Donald also notes that for all practical purposes, government support of colonization schemes withered after 1863. Montgomery Blair, the Postmaster General, was an ardent proponent of colonization, but no real resources or effort were devoted to the plan after the Emancipation Proclamation.
I didn't know that, I'll take your word for it and won't use it anymore. Why would General Butler make that up? The other colonization quotes are correct, though, and there are many more I did not include.
Racial equality and integration of White and Black as equals weren't considered real options in 19th century America. For at least about 35 years, Americans have accepted the equality of Black and White as a matter of course. That wasn't the case for 19th century Americans. It was something that had to be proven to them, and even then few would accept it.
Agreed. 100 percent.
For Lincoln, the participation of Blacks in fighting units was this sort of eye-opening experience. How far he would have gone in the direction of equality is a matter of contention, but most Americans either didn't have such an eye-opener, or rejected equality nevertheless.
Here we differ. I know there are a number of historians that claim that's what Lincoln was doing, and provide quotes where they say that's what he "meant", but I just don't see that in his words. What I see is a man desperate to win a war, both by subverting the enemies' labor resources and by strengthening his own troops. Even as a draft of the EP sat on his desk he wrote to Horace Greeley:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Lincoln's use of black troops and the EP were just tools in winning the war, as far as I can tell. If you know of quotes that clearly state otherwise, please post them. I have seen quotes dealing with their acceptance as soldiers by others, but there was nothing in those quotes that escaped those boundaries. There is the reference that blacks should have rights and the freedom to excercise them, but he said the exact same thing when he would advocate colonization and that the two races were not equal and should be seperated. He stated that separation was the only way that blacks could achieve true liberty and excercise those rights. Otherwise, he believed, they would be dominated by 'superior' whites. His belief they should be able to excercise those rights in that manner was a basis of his opposition to slavery. It had always gone hand in hand with colonization. Harsh by today's standards, but not by the standards of the day. Historical context is everything.
David Donald, Lincoln's biographer notes that Lincoln was never in favor of forced colonization. It was, rather, something that he thought African-Americans would embrace if it were properly explained to them. When they didn't, and chose instead to stay and fight for their freedom, Lincoln had to reassess his convictions and assumptions.
He did support voluntary colonization, but it certainly seemed to be his intention to talk as many as possible into it. As to the second point, I know many historians assert that, but I haven't seen any real proof, but I will admit I am not a Lincoln biographer or expert. I don't doubt that he was willing to accept some as full citizens in the end, the ones for whom he advocated the possibility of voting rights a few days before his assassination. But for the masses of ex-slaves, I've never seen where he had let go of his earlier thoughts. If he was going to make distinctions in which ones were granted such rights, what was his intent for the rest? It was the radical republicans that pushed through the citizenship and voting rights for all blacks. Although certainly at least a moderate by the days standards, Lincoln was seen as an "arch-conservative" and a hindrance to black advancement by the radicals, who eventually took over the party and pushed through their program regarding black rights and citizenship. Don't misunderstand me, I've stated many times on other threads I don't consider Lincoln evil for his race views, they actually were quite decent by the standards of the day. My beef is with those historians who attempt to grant Lincoln the race views and ambitions of the radicals (or more), which he just did not have.
Donald also notes that for all practical purposes, government support of colonization schemes withered after 1863. Montgomery Blair, the Postmaster General, was an ardent proponent of colonization, but no real resources or effort were devoted to the plan after the Emancipation Proclamation.
During 1864, the radicals had solidified their influence, and opposed colonization efforts, the primary reason congressional fund allocations stopped ($600,000 had been set aside for 1863 IIRC). There were still many republicans and democrats who preferred it, but not enough to get resolutions past the radical's voting blocks. Lincoln had repeatedly stated during the first years of the war that colonization was his goal, and he even advocated a constitutional amendment for that purpose before congress in December 1862, right before finalizing the EP. Most people don't know it, but the EP itself was tied to colonization. We all read the "final" draft of 1-1-63, but what is lost on most people is the first sentence: "Whereas, on the twentysecond day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:" - He then goes on to repeat the war measure to be inflicted on the Southern states that had not surrendered by the deadline stated in the first release, that deadline being the date of the "final" proclamation when he actually puts it into effect. The two documents are really connected more than historians wish to admit. One of the "other things" included in the september proclamation were statements of purpose, one of which was this: "...and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there elsewhere, will be continued." I have seen at least one quote where Lincoln later references this part of his proclamation, but unfortunately I couldn't find it tonight.
If you know of quotes given later that clearly show his abandonment of his support for colonization, I would appreciate seeing them. I'm no expert on Lincoln and will be the first to admit it, so don't think I'm saying they don't exist. The other poster has provided many quotes, but he often ascribes to their words meanings which are either contradicted within the same quote, or are stretched beyond plausability. History is a recreation with me, and I am always willing to learn.
Tell that to the black kids in my classes, or the skinheads who live up the street.
It is quite obvious, maro, that you are rather ill informed in regards to the traditions of the American armed forces.
Throughout American military history, brave and honorable men who “took up arms against the United States” have been honored by the American military. It is a fact of History that America is made up of the descendents of ancestors that may have fought against each other during the course of American History. Hate-mongering Bloody Shirt wavers may call some of these men “enemies”. The American military considers them American warriors and it honors them.
Take the case, for example of Chief Tecumseh. Chief Tecumseh dedicated his life to fighting the United States. Yet, he was and still is recognized by the American military as a noble foe fighting to defend his homeland. As a result, he was and still is admired and honored.
The honor shown Chief Tecumseh was such that children such as the future Union General William Tecumseh Sherman were named after him.
The honor shown Chief Tecumseh was such that a Union warship was named after him during the Civil War. USS Tecumseh
The honor shown Chief Tecumseh was such that a U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines was named after him. USS Tecumseh (SSBN628)
Another brave and honorable men who “took up arms against the United States” that was so honored was Chief Osceola who led his Seminole Tribe in the Seminole Wars against the United States. USS Osceola
If you are indeed “surprised” that the American military would honor Stonewall Jackson, let me surprise you some more, maro:
Fort Lee, named after General Robert E. Lee, CSA.
Fort Benning, named after General Henry Lewis Benning, CSA.
Fort Bragg, named after General Braxton Bragg, CSA.
Fort A.P. Hill, named after General Ambrose Powel Hill, CSA.
Fort Hood, named after General John Bell Hood, CSA.
Has it ever occurred to you that indiscriminate use of the Confederate flag demeans the memory of the Confederate war dead?
Not any more than the indiscriminate use of the Stars and Stripes demeans the memory of World War Two vets. During the massive Ku Klux Klan rallies in Washington, D.C. during the 1930’s, the flag that were carried by the thousand was the Stars and Stripes. Should we design a new flag so that some people with thin skins won’t be offended?
Now tell me this: what would you think about someone obsessed with the Wehrmacht, and who wore clothing displaying the Wehrmacht emblem, which I believe is an eagle? No swastikas; just the eagle.
So now you again equate Southerners with Nazis. You don’t give up do you?
But, to answer your question: After World War Two, West Germany became a NATO ally. Many in the post-war German Army had fought and had been decorated in World War II. The World War Two Iron Crosses were recalled, the swastikas were taken off and the Iron Crosses were then given back to the veterans to wear on their German uniforms. To this very day, the symbol displayed on the aircraft and armor of our German NATO allies is…..the Iron Cross. The symbol of Germany and the Bundesluftwaffe is still …..the Eagle.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I specifically stated in Post 130 that:
“During the 1860's, my family was back in Cuba providing Generals and Founding Fathers to the Cuban Republic and the Cuban wars of independence from Spain. My great-great-grandfather was a signatory to the first Cuban Emancipation Declaration but that same ancestor had owned slaves.”
“Emancipation Declaration” means the document that freed the slaves. Yes, he owned slaves once upon a time. He freed his own slaves and then he tried to free every other slave in Cuba. Unfortunately, Spain won the 1868-1878 Ten Years War, my great-great-grandfather was killed in that war, the first Cuban Emancipation Declaration died with the loss of the war and slaves in Cuba stayed slaves under Spanish rule.
So, maro, don’t give me that patronizing garbage about “That's OK; I bet if you go back far enough, you will find some ancestors of mine who owned slaves too.”
How many Emancipation Declarations abolishing slavery in an entire country did any of your ancestors ever sign?
Slavery was quite common in ancient times. But can we all agree that, as modern men, we understand that slavery is and was evil, and that we have done well to get rid of it (except in places like the Sudan)? If you agree with that, then can you see why symbols that suggest latter-day sympathy for slavery are indecent?
And who decides what, exactly, is a “symbol of slavery”, maro.
Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Hillary Clinton? You? A majority vote of any and all people who claim they are offended?
You want a “symbol of slavery”, maro? Pull out you wallet and take out a One Dollar Bill. You see that man on the front with a funny wig on? That man was a slave owner and actually kept slaves when he served as President in Philadelphia.
Some people consider George Washington to be “a symbol of slavery”. Some have succeeded in stripping Washington’s name off of public schools.
Read over the link, maro. Those people are using the same arguments that you are….” can you see why symbols that suggest latter-day sympathy for slavery are indecent?”
Now, George Washington is indecent.
The same sanctimonious people who want to demonize American society prior to the 13th Amendment never acknowledge that their ancestors were captured by fellow Africans in African wars where the penalty for losing an African war was death or….enslavement by fellow blacks.
As I noted in a prior post: Nothing in the 19th Century was morally obvious. The freed black slaves that were sent from America to Liberia used their Western expertise to enslave the local blacks and slavery of native Liberians by Amero-Liberians existed until the League of Nations stepped in to abolish the practice in the 20th Century.
If you want to stamp out all symbols of slavery, maro, you need to go way beyond the fighting men who wore Confederate gray and extend your vendetta to everything from the text of the U.S. Constitution to the African culture that the ancestors of African Americans came from.
"That the general satisfaction with the surrender of Lee should beget a kind feeling for the rebel General is not unnatural. But it is a great folly to invest him with any romance. Robert E. Lee may be an honest man, as doubtless many of the rebels were, but beyond that he has no claim of any kind whatever upon the regard of the American people.
His story is very briefly told. Educated an army officer, he acknowledged the doctrine of State sovereignty, and, honestly holding it, he followed his State when she seceded. Now even if a man believed that his State had a right to secede at her pleasure, if he thought the occasion insufficient, as Lee confessed he did, he would silently acquiesce, and no more. But if the occasion were infamous, if the object of the exercise of State sovereignty at such enormous peril to the lives and happiness of his fellow-citizens were nothing but the perpetuity of human slavery, a noble and generous man would have protested with all his heart. Robert E. Lee offered his sword.
From that moment he has been an active soldier. His military skill has been much overrated. Stonewall Jackson, his Lieutenant, achieved his most famous successes, and Lee's two aggressive campaigns were ignominious failures. No man can be held guilty of a want of genius. But will those who are so eager in extolling General Lee inform us why this Christian hero had not a word to say in regard to the atrocious treatment of our prisoners in rebel hands, especially at Belle Isle, under his eyes? Will the flatterers of this Virginian gentleman explain why his reports of operations in the field were so unfair and deceptive? Will the friends of this simple-hearted soldier say why he tried a trick of words in his final correspondence with General Grant?
There is no act known to us during his long career as a rebel in arms which should favorably signalize Robert E. Lee among hundreds of his fellow-rebels. Why does not Johnston, or Ewell, or Longstreet, or Hill deserve the same praise? What excellence of character or excuse for conduct has he which they had not? Do those who speak so softly of his crimes feel as gently about Jefferson Davis? Yet Davis at least heartily believed in his cause, and it was Lee, at the head of the army, who made Davis's crime so prolonged and bloody.
We have no emotion of vengeance against General Lee. We would not hang him -- not because he has not deserved hanging, but from motives of state policy. Neither are we inaccessible to admiration for a foe. Major André we can pity, but General Arnold we despise. Robert E. Lee was an American citizen educated by his country, who, from a mistaken sense of duty, deserted his flag. Had his story ended there it would have been sorrowful. But he drew his sword against that flag not because of any oppression or outrage, but because by peaceful and lawful means it bade fair to become the symbol of justice and equal rights; and he drew it, thank God! in vain. There his story ends, and it is infamous."
--HARPER'S WEEKLY. A JOURNAL OF CIVILIZATION. / Volume IX, Issue 434
Lee was a bum.
Walt
Now, please be good enough to explain that highly oblique and gongoristic slam.
Look me in the eye and say what you have to say. Don't hide behind indirection and archness.
Then get ready to defend yourself.
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.