Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
i'm LOL at you.
also GRANT's own "officer's personal property record" at the US Archives lists his TWO (2) slaves by name. do you believe that i went to the Archives in 1865 to "plant southron propaganda" in his OFFICIAL service records???? (despite what my 12YO neice thinks, i'm NOT that old!).
free dixie,sw
BTW, according to 1st-person recollections in the "WPA Slave Commentaries" of the 1930s, Grant was not only employed as a slave oversser, but he was a "good hand with the whip & slave bat".
sorry, but that too is FACT!
free dixie,sw
have you forgotten that????? or is it just "inconvienient" for you to remember, as it was when you asserted that the Black Confederate Soldiers Memorial Assn did NOT exist, when in fact you had posted comments on the thread that discussed the organization at length????
every time you do something of that sort you look FOOLISH and/or a LIAR of the 1st rank. which are you????
free dixie,sw
weren't you the one who said, a couple of years ago, that the US Archives were NOT a good historical source, as the rebels had "contaminated the records"???
that day i LOL at you!
free dixie,sw
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.
Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.
Referring to the Conscription Bill, he said:
The three-hundred-dollar provision is a most unjust discrimination against the poor. I propose that the City Council of Dayton appropriate money enough, and vote a tax for it, to release the city from the draft, and thus spare the lives and limbs of those citizens who are too poor to pay. I would recommend the same measure to Cincinnati, Chicago, and other cities of the North. The tax will equalize the burden, and make the rich pay some part of that "last dollar." Three hundred dollars, too, is just the price fixed, by an Abolition congress, for the emancipated negroes of the District of Columbia. It is not the price of blood. The Administration says to every man between twenty and forty-five, THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR YOUR LIFE. A tax by every city, township and country is just the way to meet and equalize the demand.
[italics in original]
By March 1859, when Dent gifted Jones to Grant, Grant freed Jones.What contention are you talking about? The fact that Grant owned a slave from sometime in 1858 until March 29, 1859 is supported by letters found in "The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Vol. 1 through 4". In a letter that Grant wrote to his father dated March 21, 1858 he said, "I have now three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's."What is your source for the assertion that Jones was given to Grant in March 1859 rather than sometime in 1858? (I have seen nothing to prove either contention.)
My post (to Capitan Refugio) referred to the following contention of Capitan Refugio at #1825:
It has sometimes been suggested that US Grant himself owned slaves. This is a misrepresentation. For a brief period in 1858-1859, Grant employed three African men. In a letter, Grant wrote, "I now have three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's." The Dent slave was a 35-year old mulatto named William Jones. By March 1859, when Dent gifted Jones to Grant, Grant freed Jones.
This is what Butler alleges in 1892 that President Lincoln said in 1865. No one else was present. Now Butler had considerable power before and during the ACW. After the war he lost power and spend the rest of his life trying to regain it. I don't know why he attributed such statements to President Lincoln, but I know that the interview he supposedly had where this statement above was uttered is supported in no contemporary record -- by anyone--- even Butler, and I know it doesn't square with what we KNOW President Lincoln said:
Compare:
"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept." With:
"Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . ."
With:
It simply beggars credibility to suggest that Lincoln made the one statement in 1863 and then made the other in 1865. They are totally inconsistent, and what Butler alleges cannot be corroborated.
The letter I quote was written to Erastus Corning and other Democrats, I believe from New York. The letter is dated 8/24/63. It appears in any number of contemporary sources and was widely published at the time. The statement Butler alleges was --not-- published at the time. It sure would have made a big splash. Only thing is, it's a fabrication.
Walt
A speech that was not transcribed in any paper but magically appeared at UT on an unknown date upon delivery by a person we know nothing about who simply professed to have a transcript? You'll have to do better than that, Walt.
But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.
Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.
My bad, I meant to say peckerwood. You're not smart enough to be the head of anything.
Sure it is. Butler is known to have been in Washington to meet with Lincoln at the time of that conversation.
and I know it doesn't square with what we KNOW President Lincoln said
Sure it does. Lincoln never repudiated colonization and as far as we know was still pushing it only a few months prior. The latest documented official correspondence in which Lincoln furthered colonization is a letter from AG Edward Bates to Lincoln on Nov. 30, 1864 responding to a request by Lincoln to retain Mitchell, his colonization commissioner, on the job for further colonization policies. So unless Lincoln had an unknown, unspoken, unwritten, and undocumented change of beliefs between November 30th 1864 and early 1865 when he met with Butler, absolutely no basis exists to doubt the contents of that conversation.
Sure it is. Butler is known to have been in Washington to meet with Lincoln at the time of that conversation.
No it's not and you know perfectly well what my meaning is. Butler didn't say in 1865 that the gist of any conversation he with President Lincoln at that time included forced deportation of blacks, and certainly not of black soldiers. It would have caused quite a stir.
I can't for the life of me understand the motivation of anyone who would push such a ridiculous idea, given that no objective reading of these events could possibly support it.
Walt
free dixie,sw
Sez who? I've shown on several different levels, how opposition to the Clinton impeachment is based on a more restrictive interpretation than your own. Your only response has been to retreat to Blackstone's Commentaries and act as if it has precedence over the US Constitution.
Do I have to remind you who introduced Blackstone into this conversation? [Hint: it wasn't you].
You posted a second hand excerpt of a law article that invoked Blackstone's name along side claims of defense for Clinton.
No, I posted a link to the Brigham Young University Federalist Society , which did a comprehensive treatment of the Consititutional issues surrounding the Clinton Impeachment. Read on, you might learn something.
[exerpt]
"In an attempt to facilitate a further airing of the public d ebate of the issues presented by the Clinton impeachment proceedings and Senate trial, the Brigham Young University Chapter of the Federalist Society sponsored a discussion by a panel of four of the prominent players in the proceedings.
The panel, convened at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School on April 2, 1999, consisted of four individuals who performed frontline roles in the Clinton trial:
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, who sat in judgment of the President during the Senate trial; Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah, who prosecuted the President as one of the House Managers in the Senate trial; Attorney Gregory Craig, who was retained as Special White House Impeachment Counsel shortly before the House impeached the President and who headed up the President’s defense team during the Senate trial; and Senate Legal Counsel Thomas Griffith, who helped moderate and establish the trial procedures used by the Senate in the trial."
Is it possible these people might know something about Clinton Impeachment that you don't? [Hint: You bet your ass they do]
As I have both noted and demonstrated, to invoke Blackstone while claiming that perjury is not impeachable is to willfully defraud a reader.
Once again, Blackstone was invoked only to demonstrate that the word 'high' as a restrictive qualifier on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors" has a foundation in English Common law. Everything else you claim was said regarding Blackstone is made of straw.
He went far beyond that. He supported voting rights for blacks.
Walt
Then you LOL'd at the wrong person. I never said it.
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.