After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[rockrr]

Orange juice

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The numbers suffice as rebuttal: 41 of 56."

They don't, because they are limited & out of context.
For an accurate picture, we need the following:

1. A listing of all 149 Founders who signed the four major Founding documents -- 1774 Continental Congress, 1776 Declaration, 1777 Articles of Confederation and 1787 Constitution.

2. A listing of slaveholding Declaration signers.

3. A listing of slaveholding Constitution signers.

The results show that:

1. 1776 Declaration of Independence:
   92% of Southern delegates owned slaves.
   50% of Northern delegates owned slaves.
   71% of overall delegates owned slaves in 1776.

2. 1787 Constitution Convention:
   77% of Southern delegates owned slaves.
   17% of Northern delegates owned slaves.
   50% of overall delegates owned slaves in 1787.

Bottom line: in the years between 1776 and 1787 slave ownership fell 2/3 among Northern delegates and 16% among Southern delegates, about 30% overall.

So, you simply cannot dispute the fact that our Founders opposed slavery in theory in 1776 and by 1787 had begun putting their anti-slavery theory into practice, even in the South.

That is a far cry from Fire Eater attitudes in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Corwin Amendment."

DiogenesLamp likes to wave around the "Corwin Amendment" as if it was a cross to protect him against Dracula.
It's not, it's just another Democrat false flag operation -- conceived & proposed by Democrats like Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis, pushed through Congress by Democrat President Buchanan and signed by him against the majority of Republicans in opposition.

Now, typical of Democrats, they wish to blame it on Lincoln to buttress their claims that Confederates were actually good conservative Republicans and Lincoln really a radical Democrat.

Typical.

[jeffersondem]

“Bottom line: in the years between 1776 and 1787 slave ownership fell 2/3 among Northern delegates and 16% among Southern delegates, about 30% overall. So, you simply cannot dispute the fact that our Founders opposed slavery in theory in 1776 and by 1787 had begun putting their anti-slavery theory into practice, even in the South. That is a far cry from Fire Eater attitudes in 1860.”

So much for the vaunted 1832 demarcation.

Regardless, there does seem to be in Puritan minds two epochs: the golden era of slavery when northern and southern gentlemen talked the pious precept, and manageable narrative, of universal equality for slaves and the merciless Indian savages while engaged in the noble use of labor bound to service to grow food and fiber - and later the bad epoch when southerners used labor bound to service to grow food and fiber.

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!, the man said.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, the Corwin Amendment was about protecting slavery. Lincoln supported it.

Lincoln's support makes all the rest of what we have been told a lie.

[DiogenesLamp]

Corwin Amendment is a Rubicon fact. Once you grasp the significance of a President urging that this amendment be passed, it puts the lie to all the other crap we've been taught about the Civil War being about slavery.

If it were about slavery, the President wouldn't be supporting an amendment to protect slavery.

All of your subsequent arguments are rendered moot by pointing out the contradiction implicit from his support for the Corwin Amendment.

[rockrr]

He didn’t urge it’s passage. Stop lying.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

10th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

11th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

12th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

13th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

What laws allowed Tennessee to enlist black soldiers into their militias. You did not answer the question, If Davis was so willing to give up slavery, why did he wait until Nov 1864 to make the offer to emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy in exchange for European diplomatic recognition.

As I told you last time, this is not an interrogation and you're out of questions. If you want the answers to those questions, I suggest you read....and not just from PC Revisionist sources. Clearly there is a lot of information you're missing.

[FLT-bird]

DoodleDawg:

Complete nonsense.

Nope. Unvarnished truth.

Do we now? It's easy to look back over 150 years and say it was dying. But in 1861 you would be hard pressed to find many in the South who would agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that the actions you say that they were pursuing were completely forbidden by the constitution. Yes we do. It was dying at the time. It had steadily been dying throughout the West in the 19th century. There were those in the Southern States who did see it in 1861. The rates of slave ownership were already declining in the Upper South and the percentage of the Black population who were freedmen was increasing. Look it up - do not attempt to demand a link you've used up all your alloted questions. There is no legal authority which ever ruled that they could not abolish slavery via the treaty making power so this is a false claim on your part.

Again, complete nonsense.

Again unvarnished truth.

What clause of the constitution requires any of those cabinet posts? Oh wait, I forget. Constitutional requirements were of no interest to Davis and his people

Where did I say a clause of the constitution did?

The Founding Fathers were not operating under a document that required a judiciary. The Confederates were.

The Confederates were operating under a national emergency that did not permit them time to appoint and confirm judges yet. Had Lincoln not started the war they doubtless would have gotten around to appointing the judiciary.

Lincoln faced "exigencies of war" just like Davis did. Would you cut him the same slack?

Total nonsense. Lincoln inherited an established government, an established judiciary which he ignored whenever it suited him, an established treasury, an established navy etc etc Despite that he trampled on constitutional rights of citizens to a vastly greater extent than Davis did in the Confederacy.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yes we do. It was dying at the time. It had steadily been dying throughout the West in the 19th century. There were those in the Southern States who did see it in 1861. The rates of slave ownership were already declining in the Upper South and the percentage of the Black population who were freedmen was increasing.

I challenge you to find one southern leader who said before the war that slavery was dying. The fact is that both the number of slaves and the price of slaves was increasing. Hardly signs of a dying institution.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "So much for the vaunted 1832 demarcation."

Noooo… 1787 "demarcates" the time when most Northerners began opposing slavery in practice as well as theory.
1832 "demarcates" the time when most Southerners abandoned their pretenses of opposing slavery, even in theory.

jeffersondem: "Regardless, there does seem to be in Puritan minds two epochs: the golden era of slavery when northern and southern gentlemen talked the pious precept..."

The "pius precept" as expressed by Thomas Jefferson that, "all men are created equal."

jeffersondem: "...and later the bad epoch when southerners used labor bound to service to grow food and fiber.
TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!, the man said."

Before 1832 Southern leaders like Thomas Jefferson not only preached equality but practiced it politically, in the form of restrictions on the slave trade and abolition in Northwest Territories.
In 1832 the Richmond Enquirer called slavery,

"the greatest evil, which can scourge our land"

After 1832 Southerners dropped their pretenses of opposing slavery and by 1856 that same Richmond Enquirer was singing:

"Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery"

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!, the man said.

[FLT-bird]

Bubba Ho-Tep

"There is evidence that suggests slavery was beginning to die out on its own. For example, the percentage of Southern whites who belonged to slaveholding families dropped by 5 percent from 1850-1860" (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1999, p. 389). Nevins noted that "slavery was dying all around the edges of its domain" (The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, p. 469).

[jeffersondem]

“Noooo… 1787 “demarcates” the time when most Northerners began opposing slavery in practice as well as theory.”

That is an interesting comment.

Every northern state, including the Keystone state, voted to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States.

But the northern states did not enshrine slavery into the Constitution gratuitously: they had good reason. It was thought to be in their economic and political best self interest.

[Bull Snipe]

. If you want the answers to those questions, I suggest you read....and not just from PC Revisionist sources. Clearly there is a lot of information you’re missing.

Essentially you have no answer. You know that the reason Davis offered to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition was as I have stated. One pathetic last desperate move to try and save the Confederacy. Must be hard for you lost causers to accept.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

Essentially you have no answer. You know that the reason Davis offered to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition was as I have stated. One pathetic last desperate move to try and save the Confederacy. Must be hard for you lost causers to accept. Oh I've provided you with answers. Lots of them. Its obvious your tactic is an intellectually dishonest one of trying to ask endless questions we both know the answers to even though I have provided those answers numerous times in these threads. Then finding some excuse to claim the answer somehow doesn't count and that you therefore require more answers. Sorry. That game is over. You are welcome to read for yourself if you're so curious. If you read widely....I suggest going back through this and several other threads on this topic and look at the reams of quotes and sources I've provided, you will obtain the answers you seek. Of course you PC Revisionists aren't interested in facts - just your dogma.

[Bull Snipe]

Fact, Davis only offered to free slaves in exchange for diplomatic recognition after Nov 1864. At that time the Confederacy had less than 6 months to live.
“Of course you lost cause revisionists aren’t interested in facts - just your dogma.”