Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Britain abolished slavery when Dickens was 21, so he hadn’t been much of a crusader for abolition. He didn’t like American slavery, but that wasn’t unusual for someone coming from a country that had already abolished slavery. His opinions on the US were also affected by his disputes with American publishers over copyrights. Dickens was quite chauvinistic and bloodthirsty in supporting British repression of rebellions in Jamaica and India, so he’s probably not somebody I’d cite as an anti-racist or a reliable judge of what was going on in the world.
woodpusher: "I was just documenting that you have cognitive issues...Due to your Biden syndrome, in your confusion you imagined that DiogenesLamp had "quoted" woodpusher."
You're right, I checked your homework and it's a clear case of clerical mistaken identity -- I mistook your twin brother (or sister), FLT-bird, for you, sorry about that, young fellow.
That's ok young child, but how you mistoook a statement by FLT-bird for statement in a non-existent post of mine remains a mystery.
And maybe you can help out by explaining in what ways you actually differ from FLT-bird?
First, his handle is FLT-bird and mine is woodpusher. Second, he was on the thread and I was not.
Maybe you can help out by identifying who is living rent free in your head, woodpusher or FLT-bird?
Before you made your "quote," my handle did not even appear on the thread.
woodpusher: "Our conversation is on another thread where you established that Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Roy P. Basler were all Lost Causers. "And here you demonstrate your own "cognitive issues" and also validate my criticism of many Lost Causers -- you can dump-truck a full 14 yards of quotes on us, but have only specious arguments to cement all that aggregate together.
First, here, you duplicated your post to jmacusa, just changing the addressee.
Second, your duplicated posts #127 & 128
First, that conversation is on another thread where you cut and ran. If you choose to resume it, do so on the proper thread.
Second, due to your lack of due diligence, failure to properly read the posts, and your typically shoddy research, you failed to notice that my #127 and #128 on the other thread are NOT duplicates as you state. They are materially different, and constituted seperate replies, necessitated by the different content of #124 by jmacusa, and #125 by BroJoeK.
For example, my first substantive reply statement in my #127 to jmacusa was "So, you think ULYSSES S. GRANT was not right about anything as quoted in my #123."
The first substantive reply statement in my #128 to BroJoeK was, "Just so we're clear, nothing from your Wikipedia links is relevant to whether anything in my #123 was accurate or false. One may be sure that the Wikipedia first severe period of violence in 1868 did not cause Reconstruction to be instituted."
Had your "attention to detail" extended to reading what I posted, up to the first substantive statement following the indented blockquote of what was replied to, you would have realized the two posts are markedly and materially distinct and different.
Of course, nobody has cited Dickens as an “antiracist”. That particular grift did not come along until the last 10 years. To try to imply that he had some kind of anti-American bias is simply laughable. He came to America on speaking tours multiple times. He was clearly an abolitionist and an outspoken one at that. Yes, he expressed those views in the South (so much for claims that nobody dared express such thoughts or they’d be beaten to a pulp for doing so in the South) before the war. His antislavery views were well known. He just didn’t buy the false claims of Northerners made years after they started the war that they were doing so to end slavery. He could see their nakedly financial interests in wanting to keep control over the Southern states.
Then why didn't they free their slaves? If it wasn't about slavery, they could have taken that issue off the table and forced the Union's hand.
Because it was about slavery. They said so themselves.
Slavery was still legal in some of the states that remained in the US yes or no?
Yes, although I would say it wasn't illegal. I know, same thing from different angles.
What you seem to miss is that those states stayed with the Union. They didn't go seceding over claims of states rights to hold slaves. They didn't quit when the EP was announced. And at the end, slavery was abolished in all states.
Many blacks were treated horribly by by the federals. So much for any claims about it being "about slavery".
What does treatment by some feds on some slaves have to do with what the war was about? I've noted that everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, as did Frederick Douglas, yet you keep throwing that strawman out there.
Everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, everyone in the South wasn't with the bad guys, and slavery was abolished.
False. I've never argued there wasn't massive racism in the South.
I never said you did. What I said is that you excused it because they were products of their environment.
There were abolitionists, but they were very few in number North or South before the war or even during it.
That wasn't my question. I'll repeat. Why aren't you pointing to abolitionists as positive examples of the South?
Ah but they did start the war.
Ignoring the fact that it was the South who fired first on Federal property, don't you think taking slaves is an act of war against them?
AFTER. So much for the war being "all about slavery"
Meaningless. Of course the slaves couldn't have been freed by the federal government after the slave holding states (their words) had seceded, so yes, it would not have happened until after the war.
Because I do think that's what was motivating most on both sides.
So I have Frederick Douglas, a man who was a slave, escaped, and became an abolitionist who worked with President Lincoln on one side, and you on the other. Which to choose?
He wasn't all over the map. He was a noted abolitionist.
You might want to read up on what he said about India before using him to prove your point.
I believe Frederick Douglas who was a slave, escaped and became an abolitionist, the slaves who escaped, and the confederacy's own declarations of secession.
And yet you've brought it here.
woodpusher: "Had your "attention to detail" extended to reading what I posted, up to the first substantive statement following the indented blockquote of what was replied to, you would have realized the two posts are markedly and materially distinct and different."
And yet you used the same quotes to spring the same "trick" on both.
And you then claimed the same faux-victory over both.
But if you boil it down, the question you posed in #123 is whether US Grant was correct in December 1865 in saying that "the mass of" Southern "thinking men" accepted Union troops while "the ignorant" might not?
Indeed, did the mass violence against blacks perpetuated by the Klan & others years after Grant's 1865 report even mean Grant was wrong, or somehow (as woodpusher claims) a Lost Causer himself?!
In other words, when Grant said (Dec 1865, as quoted by woodpusher) --
Now jmacusa may have his own answer to this, but mine is: that's a question which should be put to Southern "thinking men", and should you ever meet one and ask it, the answer would be of interest to everyone here.
This is some of the best humor to be found on FR.
None of it intended by the Usual Suspects, and all of it at their expense.
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.
woodpusher: "First, that conversation is on another thread where you cut and ran."And yet you've brought it here.
No Joe, I was on the other thread minding my own business when you pinged me here to your "clerical error."
I had to wake you from your stupor to remind you that even if I was living in your head rent free, I was not on this thread and you were wandering around lost like Joe Biden.
woodpusher: "Had your "attention to detail" extended to reading what I posted, up to the first substantive statement following the indented blockquote of what was replied to, you would have realized the two posts are markedly and materially distinct and different."And yet you used the same quotes to spring the same "trick" on both.
No, you ridiculous dissembler. My #123 on the other thread was not addressed to you at all. You were not even pinged to it. I used words of U.S. Grant, unattributed, and ended with "Am I right, or am I a Lost Causer? You can say it. You know I'm right."
It was solely to jmacusa who replied at his #124 that "you're not right about anything concerning the CW." Perhaps everything Grant said was "wrong." You were not pinged to #124 either. Your #125 was your response to #123, on your own initiative, in your attempt to pile on the comment of jmacusa. It is not my fault if you, of your own volition, choose to reply to a post not addressed to you. It is not my fault if you make a public spectacle of yourself taking issue with the supposed "Lost Causer" words of Ulysses S. Grant. You did that all on your own.
Why would they have to immediately emancipate their slaves to somehow prove that their real concern was not over preserving the existence of slavery within the US? Your argument makes no sense.
Because it was about slavery. They said so themselves.
It was not about slavery. The actions of the North in passing the Corwin Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification and the actions of the original 7 seceding states in rejecting the Corwin Amendment prove it was not about the preservation of slavery within the US.
What you seem to miss is that those states stayed with the Union. They didn't go seceding over claims of states rights to hold slaves. They didn't quit when the EP was announced. And at the end, slavery was abolished in all states.
The facts that slavery remained legal in the US and that the US passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and got the signature of the president after the congressional delegations from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn shows that both the North was not interested in banning slavery and that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned that slavery would be banned in the US. ie it was not "about slavery".
What does treatment by some feds on some slaves have to do with what the war was about? I've noted that everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, as did Frederick Douglas, yet you keep throwing that strawman out there.
The North was hardly on some moral crusade to stamp out slavery due to their deep and abiding concern for the humanity of Black people. No. They were concerned about MONEY. They knew - like their Newspapers and Lincoln were saying - that if the Southern states left, those states would be much better off financially and they would be much worse off. ie the Southern states were being used as cash cows by the Northern states.
I never said you did. What I said is that you excused it because they were products of their environment.
I didn't "excuse" it. But I do not engage in what had until the PCers came along, been considered the cardinal sin for a historian, Presentism. judging people in the past who lived in societies with very different views and values by your own contemporary views and values. That doesn't mean I like or approve of what they thought and did in their time. But I'm not going to pretend I am somehow morally superior as an individual just because I happen to have been born at a later time. I'm going to exercise humility and try to avoid breaking my arm patting myself on the back for having been from a different era. If only more people had some perspective and some humility like that when looking at history.
That wasn't my question. I'll repeat. Why aren't you pointing to abolitionists as positive examples of the South?
There were some. Opinions ran the gamut from those who thought slavery a moral good which should continue forever to hardcore abolitionists who wanted it ended now with no compensation to the owners, to those who thought the owners were owed compensation for what was a "Taking" of their property under the constitution, to those who were considered moderates like Lee, Judah Benjamin, Jefferson Davis, Patrick Cleburne, Duncan Kenner, etc who all thought slavery would die out and who were prepared to take intermediate steps such as emancipating those who served in the Confederate Army and their families or by empowering the Confederate ambassador to the UK/France with plentipotentiary powers to agree to a treaty that would ban slavery in the CSA in exchange for recognition.
The Southern states were as democratic in 1860 and 1861-1865 as they had been in 1776 or 1791. People had and expressed varying opinions.
Ignoring the fact that it was the South who fired first on Federal property, don't you think taking slaves is an act of war against them?
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln sent armed warships to invade their territory first which is what prompted them to open fire. Acts of war are committed against sovereign entities - not individuals. If you think the taking of slaves an act of war, then it was Yankee slave traders who committed that act of war.
Meaningless. Of course the slaves couldn't have been freed by the federal government after the slave holding states (their words) had seceded, so yes, it would not have happened until after the war.
As Lincoln himself said several times and as a resolution passed by the US Congress said, the federal government did not go to war to put down slavery. Let's not confuse an outcome with a cause. Those are different things.
So I have Frederick Douglas, a man who was a slave, escaped, and became an abolitionist who worked with President Lincoln on one side, and you on the other. Which to choose?
Douglas was one man and he was entitled to his opinion. Lincoln's own words and deeds show he hated Black people, wanted to deport them all and was not an abolitionist. I have no reason not to take Lincoln at his word when he repeatedly expressed these thoughts and acted upon them.
You might want to read up on what he said about India before citing him to prove your point.
He was certainly a racist by our modern standards as was pretty much everybody else in the world in the mid 19th century. That said, he was an outspoken abolitionist. India was a colony of the British Empire. Indians were not however, slaves.
It would have been the right thing to do, if they believed having slaves was wrong and it wasn't about preserving slavery.
It was not about slavery. The actions of the North in passing the Corwin Amendment and sending it to the states for ratification and the actions of the original 7 seceding states in rejecting the Corwin Amendment prove it was not about the preservation of slavery within the US.
The only proof I need is that the North abolished slavery, and the slave holding states held on to their slaves until the North freed them.
The facts that slavery remained legal in the US and that the US passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority and got the signature of the president after the congressional delegations from the original 7 seceding states had withdrawn shows that both the North was not interested in banning slavery and that the original 7 seceding states were not concerned that slavery would be banned in the US. ie it was not "about slavery".
It was never ratified or even came close, and "the president" who signed it was James Buchannan, not Lincoln, for the purpose of preventing secession.
The North was hardly on some moral crusade to stamp out slavery due to their deep and abiding concern for the humanity of Black people.
No, they just did it, but they didn't mean to. It just accidentally happened.
I didn't "excuse" it. But I do not engage in what had until the PCers came along, been considered the cardinal sin for a historian, Presentism. judging people in the past who lived in societies with very different views and values by your own contemporary views and values.
Yet somehow the abolitionists managed to see through their times and see slavery was wrong. Let's see if you get around to praising them for it.
There were some (abolitionists). Opinions ran the gamut from blah blah blah.
I guess not.
The Southern states were as democratic in 1860 and 1861-1865
How democratic were they to the slaves who escaped, never mind the ones who didn't?
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln sent armed warships to invade their territory first which is what prompted them to open fire
Ignoring the fact that they were on federal property the whole time...
Acts of war are committed against sovereign entities - not individuals.
Thank you.
If you think the taking of slaves an act of war, then it was Yankee slave traders who committed that act of war.
Have you read anywhere where I excused anyone who participates in any kind of human trafficking, either selling or buying?
BTW, it wasn't just Yankees.
Douglas was one man and he was entitled to his opinion.
I'm sure the 100,000 plus escaped slaves who served in the Union had their opinions of the confederacy and abolition, too.
He was certainly a racist by our modern standards as was pretty much everybody else in the world in the mid 19th century. That said, he was an outspoken abolitionist. India was a colony of the British Empire. Indians were not however, slaves.
He said a lot worse than that. When I want to read about ghosts scaring cranky old millionaires into repenting, I'll go to Dickens. When I was to learn about slavery, I'll go to the people who lived through it.
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.
While our Lost Causers (or pro-Confederates, if you prefer) get belly-laughs from mockery, they don't realize some of the biggest guffaws are on them.
Where should we even begin?
"The rebel system of warfare..." -- to claim victory, no matter the actual results, the original Bagdad Bobs.
In that particular case, near New Orleans, Confederate reports were accurate, the Union naval squadron did panic & flee from Confederate fire-rafts.
Indeed, throughout 1861 Confederates won more than they lost, even in Union states, and so gross exaggerations were not so often needed.
But even these days, as we see on this thread, our pro-Confederates will do their football end-zone victory dances, as if they'd scored a touchdown when they are actually pushed back to their own end-zone.
Now that's funny!
Then, rolling on the floor laughing, woodpusher extends his "Grant the Lost Causer" names to include:
The most curious part is that woodpusher claims to be a Northerner, and that may explain why his joke was so oddly conceived and poorly executed.
Jeffersondem, I think, on these threads epitomizes subtle, understated Southern humor.
Woodpusher could take lessons.
Oh look! BroJoeK is proving once again what a pathetic lack of a life he has by trying to tag me in to another of his drivel filled posts again.
Nobody said they believed having slaves was wrong.
The only proof I need is that the North abolished slavery, and the slave holding states held on to their slaves until the North freed them.
The only proof YOU need.....that slavery was abolished AFTER the war. An open minded person looking at the causes of secession and the war however would notice that the North offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the original 7 seceding states turned that offer down.
It was never ratified or even came close, and "the president" who signed it was James Buchannan, not Lincoln, for the purpose of preventing secession.
It was never ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It doesn't matter that Buchannan signed it. If he had not, Lincoln would have signed it. He orchestrated it after all. "for the purpose of preventing secession". So what? They were fully prepared to support slavery effectively forever. These people were not interested in banning slavery.
No, they just did it, but they didn't mean to. It just accidentally happened.
They did it AFTER the fact when trying to put a fig leaf on the blood and carnage they caused by starting a war of aggression for money and empire.
Yet somehow the abolitionists managed to see through their times and see slavery was wrong. Let's see if you get around to praising them for it.
Great for them being ahead of their time. They were very few in number. Hey, great for those who believed in equality for women too. Great for those who believed in equality for people of all ethnic groups. They too were tiny in number at that time.
I guess not.
You guessed correctly then.
How democratic were they to the slaves who escaped, never mind the ones who didn't?
As democratic as they were at the time of the War of Independence from the British Empire and the ratification of the Constitution.
Ignoring the fact that they were on federal property the whole time...
Ignoring the fact that the federals were squatting on property that belonged to the sovereign state of South Carolina.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
BTW, it wasn't just Yankees.
The slave trade industry was overwhelmingly located in the North. Overwhelmingly. In fact, New England/NY was the hub of the slave trade for the entire western hemisphere in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Take a good look and see where the seed capital for the Ivy League and many large corporations that exist even today came from.
I'm sure the 100,000 plus escaped slaves who served in the Union had their opinions of the confederacy and abolition, too.
As did the tens of thousands of Blacks who served in the Confederate Army.
He said a lot worse than that. When I want to read about ghosts scaring cranky old millionaires into repenting, I'll go to Dickens. When I was to learn about slavery, I'll go to the people who lived through it.
Post what he said that you find so objectionable.
I miss Stainless Banner. Any idea what happened to him? I must’ve missed somethin’.
I don’t know
So many come and go
He and stonewall brigade
And on the woke side u don’t see ditto much anymore either or bull snipe
Or even rockrr much
Sorry, but there's nobody "woke" here, that's just your own fantasy.
And nobody here "hates the South", that's just more fantasy.
The truth is we'd all be one big happy family if y'all would just stop posting lies about the Civil War.
As for ditto, seems to be gone.
But rockrr & Bull Snipe are still around, doubtless plenty disgusted with the same endless nonsense from Lost Cause defenders -- and yes, y'all do always start it.
For example, on this thread there were two posts from enumerated (#27 & 36) plus four from FLT-bird (#40, 41, 42 & 46) before the first response from DoodleDawg (#48) and TwelveOfTwenty (#54), both to FLT-bird.
DoodleDawg's response was jumped on by FLT-bird (#48) & central_va (#192) with gross insulting words.
TwelveOfTwenty's post #54 was jumped on by both FLT-bird (#90) and DiogenesLamp (#133), both posting one of the Lost Causes Biggest Lies -- that Corwin!, Corwin!, Corwin! means Civil War was not about slavery, slavery slavery.
And yet it still was, no matter how much y'all lie about it.
You’re woke as F
Fighting phantoms simply to stroke your virtue signal glans
While we lose everything as a nation and civilization from the Continent to here to Perth
And you assist
The line from demonizing Dixie to dismantling western civilization at the behest of the woke over white race bad is direct and brief...
So where do you “teach” as your sycophant asserts...
Howard Zinns garage doesn’t count .
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.