Posted on 03/10/2019 7:34:32 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The pre-Civil War Black Codes did indeed restrict the rights of African Americans in some Northern states. They were not always strictly enforced. Most of those laws were repealed in the mid-19th century, before or after the Civil War. The fifteenth amendment ended voting restrictions in the North and what remained was laws against interracial marriage. That's not to say that discrimination ended, just that the situation you described didn't exactly apply after the Civil War.
In the South after the Civil War restrictive Black Codes were being introduced to replace the old Slave Codes that had controlled African-Americans and restricted their rights. It's hard to see what Lincoln may have had to do with Southern states imposing segregation and Black Codes. I'd say that the very fact that Black leaders were free to come to the White House and discuss the plan with Lincoln suggests that conditions in the North weren't as oppressive as you claimed and that Lincoln wasn't committed to forcible relocation either.
Politics usually involves one group's political will being imposed on another. But why "by force"? It's up to you. If your representatives vote to keep the statues, you'll keep them. If they don't, you won't. And you can always relocate them to private property.
William Rufus King.
Rufus King was different old-time politician.
Given the salacious rumors about William Rufus King and James Buchanan, slaveowner WRK might be making a comeback among the politically correct.
My mistake - thanks.
“No, because Lee didn’t really have a problem with slavery.”
Wasn’t it Lee that wrote: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters . . .”
Or, am I thinking about someone else?
Try this link, no cost:
Here’s a book of evidence:
Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery
by Richard Striner (Author)
Yes, I’m well aware the Black Codes were something else. What I was getting at was “voluntary” might be what somebody says. It might be what is in the legal code. That does not mean that was the reality. As the Black Codes in the North demonstrate or as official laws on the books saying Blacks could vote in Pennsylvania for example demonstrate is, that was not the reality. Make it impossible for Blacks to earn a living and they will leave “voluntarily”. Have any Black person aware that terrible things will happen to them if they do try to vote and they won’t try it as was the case in Pennsylvania. You can’t come along 150+ years later without knowing the reality on the ground, read the word “voluntary” in somebody’s statement and grasp what the reality was without knowing the context.
Lincoln wasn’t committed to forcible relocation. Of course if local laws and conditions made things difficult if not impossible for Blacks and this spurred many to “voluntarily” leave, he’d have been just fine with that - and yes Martha, the Black Codes were very strictly enforced in the Northern states which wanted to keep Blacks out.
Leftists have always been incredibly shortsighted - not to mention hypocritical.
Probably someone else. Lee wrote "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." And that was in January 1865.
But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principlesright and wrongthroughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, You work and toil and earn bread, and Ill eat it. No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. Page 431
https://www.bartleby.com/251/pages/page431.html
Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.
--October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria
The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves. --August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson -
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/robert.htm
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.
--August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed - -
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm
The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes. --August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed =
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm
Clean out your cookies and get the Post articles for free, they are tracking you, or better, use a VPN.
Perhaps you were thinking of the eminent Virginian statesman Thomas J. Randolph, who advocated for emancipation in 1832:
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3883
The Virginia emancipation debate of the 1830s rarely consisted of extreme abolitionist views. However, some Virginians did have opinions about whether or not the institution of slavery was politically and economically necessary. Randolph suggested that the gradual emancipation plan would not hurt the state economically, as it “levies no money tax upon the people - each slave pays his own removal by his hire.”
In time, the commies will destroy every monument and book to erase our collective memory of what America once was.
Neo-Conquistadors?
demojeff has an agenda that isn’t square with history, reason, or reality. His stock in trade is the loaded “gotcha” that begs a misinterpretation.
You’ll get no honest answers from him.
Presumably that would apply to virtually all Whites, none of whom wanted to make things easier for African-Americans.
You would have a hard time making Lincoln into any kind of prime offender here since he was even willing to give the vote to some African-Americans at the end of the war.
the Black Codes were very strictly enforced in the Northern states which wanted to keep Blacks out.
In the 1860 census there were over 7,000 Blacks in Illinois and over 6,000 in Michigan. Whoever was enforcing the laws wasn't trying very hard.
So they could re-brand Washington State as being in honor of Booker T. Washington...except that his views are scorned nowadays as not radical enough.
Using this quote, and the others you cite, a case can be made that Lincoln had in his heart the desire to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution.
As an educated man, he must have known he could not get the votes to over-throw the pro-slavery U.S. Constitution peacefully.
What Lincoln would need was a pretext.
That's just one of the things I admire about you: your ability to keep straight faces.
When you act oblivious to history, it comes across as totally believable.
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.