Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk
Many breathed a sigh of relief when President Biden was elected, not for policy but for a reunification of the country after four years of tumult and fiery division under President Trump. But eight months into the new presidency, America's deep disunity might not be letting up.
A new poll has revealed that political divisions run so deep in the US that over half of Trump voters want red states to secede from the union, and 41% of Biden voters want blue states to split off.
According to the analysis from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree with the statement: 'The situation is such that I would favor [Blue/Red] states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.' Twenty-five percent of Trump voters strongly agree.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Do you have a direct answer for that, or are you going to continue to flood FR with text from book after book?
I would first note that you failed to provide a source, a date, or identify who said it.
Notice I didn't enter his name, only part of the quote.
Now let's look at the snippets you posted from the Lincoln Douglas debates.
CW 3:14-15: First Lincoln-Douglas Debate
I don't see where you're going with that. Lincoln acknowledged that if "we" (the North) had slaves we might want to defend it, and if the South didn't have slavery than they would oppose it. It was a fair appraisal, and one that should make us all think about if we would have been any better.
CW 3:145-46; Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
CW 3:179; Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate
The 4th debate was held in Illinois, which was a Northern state that outlawed slavery in name only. It was one of the worst offenders when it came to "black codes". He was talking out of both sides of his mouth. If you read how the audience responded you can see why.
As it turned out, the South didn't buy it. For example, from the Georgia declaration of secession, "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races". It was one of the dynamics he and abolitionists had to deal with. Frederick Douglas later acknowledged this, so I'll post his quote again.
"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."
When he and the Republicans got the power they needed to abolish slavery in 1865, they did it.
Various quotes from the 1850's.
See my reply above. I don't deny he said some repulsive things, but he had to deal with people that held those views to get things done.
Yet even the original 7 seceding states turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. The later 5 seceding states only left once Lincoln chose to start a war. Neither side freed its slaves until after the war.
Lincoln had nothing to offer because with few exceptions the Northern states wouldn't ratify it even knowing the alternative. It was Lucy with the football. Unlike you, the South didn't keep kicking away at nothing.
Au Contraire. It was a very legitimate offer. It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary supermajority. In all likelihood the Northern states would have ratified what their elected representatives and senators in Congress voted for.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to then it was a result of the fire fight. I'll let you fill in the details first.
The first person John Brown and his band of terrorists murdered was a Free Black man.
I won't argue about whether it was the right way to go about this, but taking slaves was the real act of war.
The ones who took slaves were the Yankee Slave Traders.
You have expressed your disgust with the South's stance on slavery in words that left me with no doubt about your sincerity on the issue. If you had lived in the Confederacy and expressed those views, you would have been seen as an abolitionist, and you would have been assaulted or lynched.
There were well known abolitionists in the South. Lee was one of them. Dickens who was a well known abolitionists spoke publicly and quite freely on the issue while touring the South.
So let's see, they didn't elect abolitionists even though they elected representatives who would abolish the original constitution preventing abolition. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
No, the original constitution prevented Black people from living in that state. Not slaves, Black people. Yes, including free ones.
There was nothing above but what you were repeating.
Abolitionists could not win elections in the North pre war.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
As already discussed, this "source" is a joke. I've already provided enough quotes to show some of its key claims were false.
Define plenty.
According to the quotes and sources I've posted, thousands.
and I should add repeat, the only reason the Northern states did not ratify the Corwin Amendment was because the original 7 seceding states had already rejected it. It was by the time they could have ratified it, a moot point. Fixed.
What did you change?
I was replying to the comments made by Jefferson Davis about his concern for blacks in the South in 1865 when defeat was certain, and compared them to Hitler's claim in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. In both cases they were on the brink of total defeat, and were clearly trying to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.Do you have a direct answer for that, or are you going to continue to flood FR with text from book after book?
[woodpusher] I would first note that you failed to provide a source, a date, or identify who said it.Notice I didn't enter his name, only part of the quote.
Your incompetent self still did not give a date for your quote. I first notice that you were too incompetent to read the quote you searched for and verify when it was made.
Below is your search term.
My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws
You claim a quote from 1865 at a time when "defeat was certain, and compared Hitler's claim in 1945."
This quote that you searched on is from before the civil war.
Try again.
You claim a quote from 1865 at a time when "defeat was certain, and compared Hitler's claim in 1945." This quote that you searched on is from before the civil war.
I'm glad I gave you enough information to validate the quote.
Yes, I know the quote I posted was from 1861. That was my point. He was singing a different song four years later in defeat.
Here they are again.
JD shortly after being elected "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."
JD in 1865 "I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)
Now compare this to Hitler. We all know what he was up to in 1939 onward (and before), but when facing total defeat in 1945 he tried to distance himself from his actions by saying it was untrue that he and Germany wanted war in 1939.
This is the only comparison I made between Hitler and Jefferson Davis. I did not intend to pull out the leftist Nazi card as you seemed to think, and I agree with your disgust at how often the left uses that card on anyone they disagree with. Both sides are guilty of that, but that wasn't my point.
Try again.
If you don't see my point by now, then we'll just agree to disagree on this.
The 13th Amendment was passed in Congress before the war ended by the will of the voters, but it wasn't ratified until after the war.
It passed the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary supermajority. In all likelihood the Northern states would have ratified what their elected representatives and senators in Congress voted for.
There you go with the "would have" again. They didn't, and that's all that counts.
The first person John Brown and his band of terrorists murdered was a Free Black man.
Name? I suspect he was killed in the cross fire.
The ones who took slaves were the Yankee Slave Traders.
I don't excuse human traffickers in any form or from any area, but it's the buyers who create the market. Without the buyers there would be no human trafficking, and I apply that to today's buyers as well.
There were well known abolitionists in the South. Lee was one of them.
Lee opposed slavery but didn't think the time was right to end it.
Dickens who was a well known abolitionists spoke publicly and quite freely on the issue while touring the South.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more.
Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War
No, the original constitution prevented Black people from living in that state.
That was the constitution the voters in Kansas voted to replace in 1858.
Abolitionists could not win elections in the North pre war.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
As already discussed, this "source" is a joke. I've already provided enough quotes to show some of its key claims were false.
You've provided anecdotal accounts. I accept those eyewitness accounts as valid, but it wasn't on the scale that escaped and served in the North.
According to the quotes and sources I've posted, thousands.
More than the over 100,000 that escaped to the North and enlisted in the Union Army and Navy?
What did you change?
I'll give you a hint. "Strike One!"
For states unwilling or unable to clean up their elections - the ONLY response is to “ask” them to leave the Union. There is no other way to uphold the civil rights of the voter. Those states actively disenfranchise the vote of all the rest of us.
Yes and the latter 5 seceding states did not secede until Lincoln chose to start a war.....ie they obviously were not seceding over slavery. In what way was what you wrote an answer to what I wrote?
There you go with the "would have" again. They didn't, and that's all that counts.
Why didn't they? Because the original 7 seceding states rejected it. Slavery forever rejected by the Southern states. That's all that counts.
Name? I suspect he was killed in the cross fire.
Nope. Murdered in cold blood. https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_killed_in_the_raid_at_Harper's_ferry
I don't excuse human traffickers in any form or from any area, but it's the buyers who create the market. Without the buyers there would be no human trafficking, and I apply that to today's buyers as well.
This is a silly tangent. Acts of war are only committed against countries or the citizens of countries, not individuals. Next, the slaves that were sold were enslaved by other Africans. Next, it was Yankee slave traders who sailed there and bought those slaves.
Lee opposed slavery but didn't think the time was right to end it.
A position not unlike Lincoln's.
He toured the US twice, in 1842 and after the CW. In 1842 he made some stops in the South and was so sickened by slavery that he cancelled his tour in the South. Here's more. Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War
Dickens inveighed against slavery consistently including while in the Southern states. So much for the claim that nobody could speak out against slavery in the South.
That was the constitution the voters in Kansas voted to replace in 1858.
And yet that was the original constitution of the state. BTW, other Northern states were adopting more and greater restrictions against Blacks at the same time that Kansas dropped its formal ban on Blacks ever settling there.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Correct. Republicans were not abolitionists pre-war. Explicitly not abolitionists.
You've provided anecdotal accounts. I accept those eyewitness accounts as valid, but it wasn't on the scale that escaped and served in the North.
I accept that more eventually did serve in the Union armies....though I will note that plenty were forced to join as the Union army conquered various areas and came across slaves whom they pressed into service. The point is that many thousands of Blacks both slave and free served and indeed fought in the Confederate Army by numerous eyewitness accounts from the Union side. Any claims that only a few served or that there were only 7 eyewitness accounts of such like that book claims are simply false.
I'll give you a hint. "Strike One!"
spell it out. Be specific.
Biden’s tax ideas are so idiotic—he simply does not understand economic dynamics or the dynamic mecanics of economic growth—that much is now possible in once inconceivable directions. His attack on capital gains is beyond merely idiotic!
Retained—not taxed away—capital gains, are how a people get from subsistance farming to incredible wealth.
[TwelveOfTwenty #621 to #619] I was replying to the comments made by Jefferson Davis about his concern for blacks in the South in 1865 when defeat was certain, and compared them to Hitler's claim in 1945 that he didn't want war in 1939. In both cases they were on the brink of total defeat, and were clearly trying to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Neither woodpusher #619 nor TwelveOfTwenty #612 contain any reference to or statement by Jefferson Davis in 1865. Had you bothered to research the statement, you would know that.
[TwelveOfTwenty #624] JD in 1865 "I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)
Only in your imagination is that quote from 1865. Excellent example of your meticulous research.
Jefferson Davis was captured on May 10, 1865 and incarcerated at Fort Monroe on May 22, 1865. For your Hitler remark to make any sense, your response would need at least some statement from 1865. You do not have one.
[woodpusher #623 to #621] Your incompetent self still did not give a date for your quote.
You have still not identified the supposed date or the supposed site of the 1861 Davis speech, or the addressee if a letter, or the name of the anonymous visitor, if a visitor. You avoid this like the plague because there is no date to cite.
In short, there remains ZERO provenance for the "quote," and leaving only evidence of an unsourced fictional quote echoed endlessly about the internet and in the cottage industry of Lincoln books.
You claim a quote from 1865 at a time when "defeat was certain, and compared Hitler's claim in 1945." This quote that you searched on is from before the civil war.I'm glad I gave you enough information to validate the quote.
I did not validate your citation of the most famous FICTIONAL quote of Jefferson Davis. Neither did you; nor could you or anybody else.
Yes, I know the quote I posted was from 1861. That was my point. He was singing a different song four years later in defeat.
Now, of course, you "know" it was from 1861, but the quote it is not real. It is not from any time at all.
No, you have not provided a date for it. If it was a letter, you have not provided an addressee of the letter. If it was a speech, you have not provided a date or place said speech was given. If it were a spoken comment, to whom was it made?
You are simply caught relying on your usual bullshit sources again. It is just fun to watch you attempt to spin your way out of the messes you create for yourself with your sources and failure of due diligence.
As your link was just the return on a search term, let's look at the first five results.
[1] https://www.inspiringquotes.us/quotes/dFS9_xFSoOqPw
[2] https://kaplancollection.com/the-cased-collection/jefferson-davis/
[3] https://seattlemedium.com/an-answer-for-confederate-apologists/
[4] https://jeffersonforbesdavis.weebly.com/quotes.html
[5] https://jacksonvillefreepress.com/an-answer-for-confederate-apologists/
Each of the five is a bald attribution to Jefferson Davis with no date or source, whether it be oral or written.
That was the top five results at the link you provided. Now let us examine one where an attempt is made to make believe there is a semi-citable source, although not to Jefferson Davis.
If you drill down far enough, you come to a result sourced to Kenneth Davis "quoting" Jefferson Davis.
https://etb-political.blogspot.com/2012/04/civil-war-slavery-and-john-ashcroft.html
Or, as Davis reiterated after being elected President of the Confederacy, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."[Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About the Civil War: Everything You Need to Know About America's Greatest Conflict But Never Learned (New York: Avon Books, 1996), p. 156.]
Kenneth Davis repeatedly recycled this "quote" in his various books. But what is the Kenneth Davis source for the supposed Jefferson Davis "quote"? I have Kenneth Davis in his more voluminous blathering, Look Away! History of the Confederate States of America. Here at pg. 137, Kenneth Davis gives the recycled "quote" and endnote 4 contains an attribution. At page 430 we find endnote 4 attributes the "quote" to New York Citizen, April 13, 1867.
The owner/editor of the New York Citizen was none other than the famous Charles G. Halpine, notorious purveyor of fiction posing as history or reporting.
A volume called IRISH, Charles G. Halpine in Civil War America was written by William Hanchett, with foreward by Allan Nevins. From the inside sleeve of the cover:
Firmly established as a personality in New York Democratic politics, Halpine became involved in the Reconstruction controversy through his authorship of the popular—and largely fictional—book, The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis.
Noted in the Preface, "As a Democrat party propagandist and office holder, he was active in New York politics and in the Reconstruction program of President Andrew Johnson."
Halpine was also known by pen name Miles O'Reilly, (Private Miles O'Reilly) and dozens of other pseudonyms.
In May 1865, the Citizen was transferred to Halpine. In June, "the Times reprinted a Citizen article which asserted that Secretary Stanton was opposed to a military trial for the conspirators in Lincoln's assassination." Of course, Stanton was a major proponent of using military trials.
Largely fictional, The Prison Life of Jefferson Davis was ghost written by Halpine, but published as the work of Dr. John J. Craven. It is the subject of a later book, Fiction Distorting Fact by Edward K. Eckert. On the inside sleeve of the latter work, "At best, Halpine's Prison Life of Jefferson Davis is a colorful, although unrealistic, rendering of a highly emotional experience. At its worst, it is a self-serving, fictionalized tale written for the personal profit of the author and to aid his political agenda. His account, hastily composed, is fraught with errors and distortions of fact."
Notably, neither Kenneth Davis, nor anyone else, attempts to identify any letter or speech of Jefferson Davis. The notorious fabulist Charles Halpine is hardly a credible source.
Let us proceed to a few I dug up.
https://www.nellaware.com/blog/tag/alexander-stevens
Jefferson Davis Resigns From The United States SenatePosted by: Jonathan R. Allen
His Home State of Mississippi Seceded On January 9, 1861
“My own convictions, as to negro slavery are strong, It has its evils and abuses.... We recognize the negro as God and God’s Book and God’s Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him-our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude.... You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be.”
...Jefferson Davis
Those are the ugly words of Jefferson Davis to a northern friend after Davis became president of the Confederacy. They are especially ugly for us to read today.
We have to consider that Davis was a man living in his times and not ours, but that is not meant to justify or excuse him. What other words should we expect to come from the president of the Confederate States of America, the president of a collection of states which seceded from the Union and went to war to preserve slavery? Mississippi’s secession, which Davis supported, led to his resignation from the United States Senate. Jefferson Davis believed that all men are not equal, that slaves were not equal to whites, and his Farewell Address to the United States Senate emphasized his beliefs.
In January, 1861, Jefferson Davis was fifty-three-years-old and his health was poor. He had served the United States as a Congressman, led Mississippi volunteers in the Mexican War and was wounded at the Battle of Buena Vista, was a Senator, and was Secretary of War under Franklin Pearce. Davis was a Democrat and a strong supporter of States’ Rights, and in favor of Mississippi’s secession from the Union. Earlier in life, he had been a slave owner at the Davis family’s Mississippi plantation. Compared to other slave owners, the Davises were known to treat their slaves well, but they thought the slaves to be their private property, that they were inferior to whites, and as a race only suited for servitude.
On January 21, 1861, Jefferson Davis was standing at a podium in the Senate Chamber at the United States Capitol. Now it was time for Davis to resign as a United States senator and return home to Mississippi, now part of the Confederate States of America. He was there to say farewell, or “adieu” as he would say in his emotional speech.
Jefferson Davis’ six-year term as president of the Confederate States of America was cut short. The Union won the Civil War after four years of bloody war and hell on earth. The Union was preserved, the Confederacy failed, and the United States bid “adieu” to the peculiar institution of slavery.
Jefferson Davis Farewell Speech to the United States Senate
Senate Chamber, United States Capital, January 21, 1861
[...]
There follows the text of the Davis farewell speech to the United States Senate. Davis was inaugurated President of the Confederacy on February 18, 1861.
It may be possible to mistakenly consider that the quote at the top of the article is a pull quote from the Farewell speech quoted beneath it, but that would be a mistake. While it seems to infer a date in 1861 after the inauguration, it only gives the date certain of something else. What is still missing is the date certain of the alleged Davis statement and the name of the unidentified "friend."
How about this one.
In The Civil War in 50 Objects by Harold Holzer and Eric Foner (2013), there is the assertion, "My own convictions, as to negro slavery, are strong," he proudly told a visitor during the secession crisis. And the quote is resumed and continued. Here Jefferson Davis imparted these words to some anonymous visitor on some unidentified date during the secession crisis.
In short, you provided a quote as imaginary as that of Rick Blaine in Casablanca: "Play it again Sam." Everybody has heard it, but Rick never said it.
Good to see you back.
This quote is consistant with other quotes made at the time, but I understand your skeptism. We'll drop it.
Here is one of his speeches in 1858.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Now compare his defense of slavery, and paragraph 7 in particular, to the quote you posted from 1865.
"I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)
Let's see if you understand now.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
In what way was what you wrote an answer to what I wrote?
They couldn't abolish slavery in the South before 1865, and they were hesitant about abolishing it in the border states for fear of driving them to the Confederacy. In 1865 they finally had the power and the mandate to abolish slavery, and they did it.
Nope. Murdered in cold blood. https://www.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_killed_in_the_raid_at_Harper's_ferry
Well it took you long enough, but there's no excusing that. It was bad, but so was the slavery they were trying to fight.
Repeat, there's no excusing that.
This is a silly tangent. Acts of war are only committed against countries or the citizens of countries, not individuals.
And how many slaves were taken? What number is needed to become an act of war against a country?
Next, the slaves that were sold were enslaved by other Africans.
And whites shoved other whites into the ovens.
Next, it was Yankee slave traders who sailed there and bought those slaves.
I never excused them, but they were breaking the law and were stopped before the CW. They were no different from modern human traffickers.
And no matter who trafficked them, it was the buyers who created the market for the slave trade, legal or illegal, and made it profitable. If you've read my posts on human trafficking, you'll see I'm consistant on this. Just as modern johns are making abusive pimps and human traffickers rich for the purpose of having a warm wet spot to stick it into, the slave holders made the human traffickers of their day rich.
A position not unlike Lincoln's.
Wrong. Lincoln opposed slavery but understood he didn't have the power to abolish it and had to deal with a population that wasn't all in for abolition. When he got the power he acted on it.
Dickens inveighed against slavery consistently including while in the Southern states.
He left the South as soon as he saw how bad it was.
So much for the claim that nobody could speak out against slavery in the South.
Ask Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. OK, both of them rebelled against their masters, but a whole lot of people were executed as a result.
And ask the Underground Railroad who had to operate in secrecy. Oh, wait, they were "stealing property", so that's different.
And yet that was the original constitution of the state.
The constitution the voters elected representatives to abolish in 1858.
BTW, other Northern states were adopting more and greater restrictions against Blacks at the same time that Kansas dropped its formal ban on Blacks ever settling there.
I didn't realize blacks had faced discrimination in the North after the CW. Did anyone else know that? I wonder if the Democrats running the South imposed any discriminatory policies against the blacks living there after the CW. I'll need to look into that.
Correct. Republicans were not abolitionists pre-war. Explicitly not abolitionists.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
OBTW, Cassius Clay was an abolitionist who co-founded the party for that reason. When they finally got the power in 1865, they did it.
I accept that more eventually did serve in the Union armies....though I will note that plenty were forced to join as the Union army conquered various areas and came across slaves whom they pressed into service.
I'll refute that with your own comment on blacks serving in the Confederate military, "Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to". Now you're saying the North did exactly that even though they had no pressing need to do so.
The point is that many thousands of Blacks both slave and free served and indeed fought in the Confederate Army by numerous eyewitness accounts from the Union side. Any claims that only a few served or that there were only 7 eyewitness accounts of such like that book claims are simply false.
We can go back and forth over whose sources we chose to believe. If you want to make the point that blacks willingly defended a nation that enslaved them, then preach your claims in front of a black church and see how many agree with you.
spell it out. Be specific.
No, this is more fun. I'll add "strike 2". I hope I don't have to repeat.
Here is one of his speeches in 1858.Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
You did not provide a speech, or even a quote from said speech. I am not taking homework assignments today. As you found nothing in the speech worth citing or quoting, I find nothing in it worth reading.
In short, you provided a quote as imaginary as that of Rick Blaine in Casablanca: "Play it again Sam." Everybody has heard it, but Rick never said it.This quote is consistant with other quotes made at the time, but I understand your skeptism. We'll drop it.
You mean you provided a quote from 1861 that is fictional so let's drop it. When challenged to provide any evidence that the words were actually stated by Jefferson Davis, you only provided a search link to part of the text. The closest the search returns come to providing provenance is sourcing to Chargles G. Halpine, a notorious alcoholic and fabulist.
Your bogus "quote" is not consistent with real quotes which can be sourced to Jefferson Davis. Neither does your quote referencing “negroes’ fidelity” appear in the letter of October 11 in the Papers of Jefferson Davis (13 vols).
Now compare his defense of slavery, and paragraph 7 in particular, to the quote you posted from 1865."I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly rewarded and regret that we are not in a position to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe [Joseph Davis], many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility. (Jefferson Davis: Private Letters 1823-1889, selected and edited by Hudson Strode, New York: De Capo Press, 1995, reprint, p. 188)
Let's see if you understand now.
The quote by Hudson Strode is obviously taken from the Memoir by Varina Davis, Volume 2. All but the first four of the Varina Davis “excerpts” are not from the letter of October 11th as claimed. Varina Davis made an erroneous attribution and Hudson Strode copied it and repeated it. The excerpt about the release of John Mitchel is time-wise impossible as he was not released until October 29th. Everything after Excerpt 4 is from some other source. What Varina Davis attributed to a letter of October 11 is not in that letter.
Varina Howell Davis, Memoir Vol. 2, 1890, 1990 ed., pp. 720-28. The Varina Davis Memoir, published in 1890, is in the public domain.
Papers of Jefferson Davis (PJD) , volume 12, June 1865 - December 1870, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2008, pp. 32-36. I am unaware of publication of the Papers of Jefferson Davis version of the letter until 2008.
From Varina Howell Davis Memoir. She presents excerpts only. The parts cast in blue font appear within the version printed in the authoritative Papers of Jefferson Davis — the rest is not part of that letter. Mrs. Davis’ Memoir, published 25 years after the fact, apparently attributed material to the letter in error.
I have added paragraph numbers to the first four Varina Davis excerpts to indicate what paragraphs they are from in the letter as it appears in the Papers of Jefferson Davis, the actual complete letter of October 11-12.
Blue font indicates the Varina Davis excerpts which do appear in the Jefferson Davis letter as it appears in the Papers of Jefferson Davis.
Red font indicates the Varina Davis excerpt erroneously attibuted to the Jefferson Davis letter of October 11-12. It does not appear in the Jefferson Davis letter as it appears in the Papers of Jefferson Davis. Of the original 15 paragraphs, Varina Davis presented only excerpts from paragraphs 3, 6, 7, and 8.
The elisions [. . .] stand for a great deal of text that was omitted.
The excerpt from paragraph 3 is missing the first two and the last 11 lines.
The excerpt from paragraph 6 is missing the first 10 lines, and includes only the last word of the eleventh line. It omits the last 2½ lines.
The excerpt from paragraph 7 is missing the first 16 lines, and the last 7 lines.
The excerpt from paragraph 8 is missing the first 9 lines, omitting the indication that it was written on another date. Jefferson Davis explained that he could not find an envelope the previous day.
Excerpt 7 is not from paragraph 7 of the letter, nor from any other paragraph.
CHAPTER LXXI.
LETTERS FROM PRISON.From Mr. Davis to Mrs. Davis “Fortress Monroe, Va., October 11, 1865.
[3] “. . . On the second of this month Iwas removed to a room on the second floor of a house built for officers’ quarters. The dry air, good water, and a fire when requisite, have already improved my physical condition, and with increasing health all the disturbances due to a low vitality, it is to be expected, will disappear as rapidly as has been usual with me, after becoming convalescent. I am deeply indebted to my attending physician, who has been to me much more than that term usually conveys. In all my times of trouble, new evidences have been given me of God’s merciful love.
[6] ". . . The Herald claims to give me regular information concerning my family, but if it did contain such news, as I only get occasionally a copy, the promise would be unfulfilled.
[7] ... I have lately read the ‘Suffering Saviour’ by the Reverend Dr. Krumacher, and was deeply impressed with the dignity, the sublime patience of the model of Christianity, as contrasted with the brutal vindictiveness of unregenerate man; and with the similitude of the portrait given of the Jews to the fierce prosecutions which pursued the Revolutionists after the restoration of the Stuarts. One is led to ask, Did Sir Henry Vane and the Duke of Argyle imitate the more than human virtue of our Saviour, or was their conduct the inspiration of a conscience void of offence in that whereof they were accused?
[8 - Oct. 12th.] “Misfortune should not depress us, as it is only crime which can degrade. Beyond this world there is a sure retreat for the oppressed; and posterity justifies the memory of those who fall unjustly. To our own purblind view there is much which is wrong, but to deny what is right is to question the wisdom of Providence or the existence of the mediatorial government.
[Paragraphs 9-15 of Jefferson Davis letter do not appear in Varina Howell Davis excerpts]
[Everything below, from Varina Davis Memoir excerpts, does not appear in the Jefferson Davis letter as it appears in the Papers of Jefferson Davis.]
“Every intelligent man knows that my office did not make me the custodian of public money, but such slanders impose on and serve to inflame the ignorant—the very ignorant—who don’t know how public money was kept, and how drawn out of the hands of those who were responsible for it. My children, as they grow up and prove the pressure of poverty, must be taught the cause of it; and I trust they will feel as I have, when remembering the fact that my father was impoverished by his losses in the war of the Revolution.“Our injuries cease to be grievous in proportion as Christian charity enables us to forgive those who trespass against us, and to pray for our enemies. I rejoice in the sweet sensitive nature of our little Maggie, but I would she could have been spared the knowledge which inspired her ‘ grace,’ and the tears which followed its utterance. As none could share my suffering, and as those who loved me were powerless to diminish it, I greatly preferred that they should not know of it.
Separated from my friends of this world, my Heavenly Father has drawn nearer to me. His goodness and my unworthiness are more sensibly felt, but this does not press me back, for the atoning Mediator is the way, and His hand upholds me.
“I hope the negroes’ fidelity will be duly rewarded, and regret that we are not in a situation to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe, many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should then be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility; out of my opinion on that point, arose my difficulty with Mr. C, and any doubt which might have existed in my mind was removed at that time. The change of relation diminishing protection, must increase the necessity. Truth only is consistent, and they must be acute and well trained, who can so combine as to make falsehood appear like truth when closely examined.
“For, say, three months after I was imprisoned here, two hours consecutive sleep were never allowed me; more recently it has not been so bad, but it is still only broken sleep which I get at night, and by day my attention is distracted by the passing of the sentinels who are kept around me as well by day as by night. I have not sunk under my trials, am better than a fortnight ago, and trust I shall be sustained under any affliction which it may be required me to bear. My sight is affected, but less than I would have supposed if it had been foretold that a light was to be kept where I was to sleep, and that I was at short intervals to be aroused, and the expanded pupil thus frequently subjected to the glare of a lamp. . . . There is soon to be a change of the garrison here. I will be sorry to part from many of the officers, but as they are to go home I should rejoice for such as are entitled to my gratitude. Au reste, as I cannot control, so I may hope for the best.
“I have not seen Jordan’s critique, and am at a loss to know where that game was played and was lost by my interference. If the records are preserved they dispose summarily of his romances past, passing, and to come. The events were of a public character, and it is not possible for men to shift their responsibility to another. Everyone who has acted must have made mistakes, and the best defence he can make to the public, and the only one beneficial to his conscience, if he has changed his theory, is to confess it; let him whose opinions are unchanged conform his action to changed circumstances, and both classes may preserve their integrity and live and work in harmony. Our life is spent in choosing between evils, and he would be most unwise who would refuse the comparative good thus to be obtained. History is ever repeating itself, but the influence of Christianity and letters has softened its harsher features. The wail of destitute women and children who were left on the shore of Cork after the treaty of Limerick, still rings in the ears of all who love right and hate oppression ; but bad as was the treatment of the Irish then, those scenes of which you were reading not long before you left Richmond, enacted by Philip of Spain in the Low Countries, were worse. The unfortunate have always been deserted and betrayed; but did ever man have less to complain of when he had lost power to serve ? The critics are noisy—perhaps they hope to enhance their wares by loud crying. The multitudes are silent, why should they speak to save him who hears best the words most secretly uttered ? My own heart tells me the sympathy exists, that the prayers from the family hearth have not been hushed. . . .
. . . John Mitchel has been released. He was permitted to take leave of me through the grates, and he offered to write to you. I have not seen our friend Clay for some time, not having been out to walk lately on account of a series of boils, or a carbuncle with a succession of points, which rose in my right armpit, and has prevented me from putting on my coat since the day I last wrote to you. I believe the disease is now at an end, and but for the rain I would have gone out to-day. I will comply with your repeated request for a description of my room, and hope the reality may be better than you have imagined the case to be. The room is about 18x20 feet; is situated at the corner in the second story of a long two-story house which stands under cover of the main parapet, and was built for officers’ quarters. In the centre of the end wall, is a fireplace ; in the centre of each of the other walls is a door. The one opposite to the fireplace opens into the room occupied by the officer of the guard for the day, the one on the south side looks out on a gallery which runs along the building, and, beyond, is a limited view of the interior of the fort; the one on the north side connects with a passage dividing the building. The doorway into the officer’s room is closed by an iron grating, with locks on his side of it, and, turning on hinge, affords the means of exit. The gallery door is closed by a fixed iron grating with glazed sash shutters outside. The passage doorway is closed by iron grating, and a panel shutter into which are inserted two panes of glass. Sentinels are no longer kept in the room I occupy. One sentinel only now walks back and forth along the gallery, one along the passage, and one in the officer’s room, so as to give each of the three a view through his door of the interior of the room. They cause the broken sleep concerning which you ask. I have endeavored to overcome the distraction and annoyance this constant passing causes in the day, and to resist its disturbing effect at night; the success has not, however, been commensurate with the effort. Formerly the circumstances were much worse ; and, before changes were made, a morbid condition had been produced so that wakefulness is continued by less than would have produced it. My bed stands in the corner of the walls of the gallery and officer’s room; on the opposite corner is the water-bucket, basin and pitcher, and a folding screen which enables me to wash unobserved. On the gallery side of the chimney is a recess with a shelf for books, and pegs to hang up clothes. On the opposite side of the chimney, a closet. The bed is the common form of iron frame, two mattresses, sheets, blankets, and a cover with pillows and mosquito bar. Breakfast is sent to me about nine; dinner about four; and tea would be sent if I desired it. The food is suited to my condition, and I have had no occasion to ask for change or addition. The chair, though coarse, is so much better than the one I had before it, as to be comparatively satisfactory; a stand, such as is commonly used in hospital wards, serves me as a table, and for the present there is a stool which answers for a washstand. My clothes are not with me, except those in immediate use. My valise was taken charge of by General Miles. I have not seen it since. I much regret that you did not keep the things which had a value from association, instead of leaving them in the valise.
https://www.nytimes.com/1865/10/24/archives/john-mitchell-not-released.html
Note that as of October 23, 1865, it was reported that John Mitchel had not yet been released.
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=16343
In memory of John Mitchel
Nov. 30, 1815 – Mar. 20, 1875Fearless and courageous southern journalist
Staunch supporter of the Confederacy
Editor-in-Chief, Richmond (VA) Enquirer Associate Editor, Richmond (VA) Examiner
1862 – 1865
who was confined in this casemate no.6 from June 17, 1865 to Oct. 29, 1865, a defiant and unrelenting opponent of oppression, an indefatigable and uncompromising proponent of the southern cause, a martyr to the effectiveness and influence of the printed word.**********
Dedicated by the
Virginia Press Association
• 1951 •
As John Mitchel was not released until October 29, 1865, it was somewhat difficult for Jefferson Davis to have written about his release in a letter of October 11th-12th. Jefferson Davis wrote of the Mitchel release in a letter of November 3-4, where he also wrote about boils and a carbuncle, as quoted but misattributed by Varina Davis.
In the Papers of Jefferson Davis, Vol 12, page 56, footnote 11, there is the assertion that John Mitchel was released from Fort Monroe on October 30, 1865.
As for the alleged Davis quote referencing negro fidelity, attributed to a letter of October 11, 1865, that does not appear in the letter of October 11-12, or in the letter of November 3-4.
If you should desire the obtain a copy of an authoritative source for quotes of Jefferson Davis, the Papers of Jefferson Davis are available at LSU Press.
These leftist bigots are not interested in a fair appraisal of anyone or anything
You know....a room temp IQ southern obsessed neo con scribe wannabe Zinn can simply utter “slavery bad” and claim victory and leave moms basement to go take their ABILIFY and get their Marie Callendars chicken pot pie mommy has in the oven for them .
Translation: "I'm not going to read any speeches from Jefferson Davis that prove secession was about slavery."
As you found nothing in the speech worth citing or quoting, I find nothing in it worth reading.
Now that's funny. You reposted my comment where I pointed out which passage in particular to review. Didn't you bother to read what you reposted and replied to?
You mean you provided a quote from 1861 that is fictional so let's drop it.
Do you insult everyone who accepts your point of view?
Neither does your quote referencing “negroes’ fidelity” appear in the letter of October 11 in the Papers of Jefferson Davis (13 vols).
That was from one of your posts here.
"I hope the negroes' fidelity will be duly [723] rewarded, and regret that we are not in a situation to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court. From brother Joe, many years ago, I derived the opinion that they should then be made competent witnesses, the jury judging of their credibility; out of my opinion on that point, arose my difficulty with Mr. C—*, and any doubt which might have existed in my mind was removed at that time
As for the rest of your post, I saw personal attacks, diversions, and plenty of text from other people's work. The only thing I didn't see was a rebuttal to my point that Jefferson Davis was walking back his former comments supporting slavery.
Judging from some of the other comments, he could also have been repenting. If you would agree with that, then what would you say he was repenting for?
Can you post a direct response without flooding FR with everyone else's writing?
You did not provide a speech, or even a quote from said speech. I am not taking homework assignments today.Translation: "I'm not going to read any speeches from Jefferson Davis that prove secession was about slavery."
We were not discussing the causes of the Civil War, but your violoation of Godwin's Law and your bogus quotes and citations. I see no reason to read a long speech in order to guess what point you may desire to make. As you found nothing worth spending your time to cite or quote, I saw no reason to waste my time reading it, and tryuing to divine your purpose.
As you found nothing in the speech worth citing or quoting, I find nothing in it worth reading.Now that's funny. You reposted my comment where I pointed out which passage in particular to review. Didn't you bother to read what you reposted and replied to?
Your non-substantive homework was:
Here is one of his speeches in 1858.Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Now compare his defense of slavery, and paragraph 7 in particular, to the quote you posted from 1865.
In reply, I neither cited, quoted, or commented upon anything that may be at your cited speech from 1858.
Paragraph 7 of what??? I made allusion to paragraph 7 of the Davis letter of October 11-12 only to point out that the Varina Davis excerpt from paragraph 7 of that letter was:
... I have lately read the ‘Suffering Saviour’ by the Reverend Dr. Krumacher, and was deeply impressed with the dignity, the sublime patience of the model of Christianity, as contrasted with the brutal vindictiveness of unregenerate man; and with the similitude of the portrait given of the Jews to the fierce prosecutions which pursued the Revolutionists after the restoration of the Stuarts. One is led to ask, Did Sir Henry Vane and the Duke of Argyle imitate the more than human virtue of our Saviour, or was their conduct the inspiration of a conscience void of offence in that whereof they were accused?
If you find something about paragraph 7 to be enthralling, tell me about it.
[woodpusher #634] Neither does your quote referencing “negroes’ fidelity” appear in the letter of October 11 in the Papers of Jefferson Davis (13 vols).[TwelveOfTwenty #636] That was from one of your posts here.
Your embedded link:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3999949/posts?page=494#494
Your embedded link goes to the first posting of the quote. It is a post from FLT-bird to wardaddy, and I am not in the address line. I did not post it, and it was not sent to me.
My #590 responded to FLT-bird (and wardaddy) and called the provenance into question.
In addition to the Memoirs of Varina Davis, I have The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Vol. 11, June 1865 - December 1870, Lynda Lasswell Crist, Editor, LSU Press, 2008. In this volume, the Letters appear in chronological order. There is one, and only one, letter of Jefferson Davis to Varina Davis on October 11, 1865 from Fortress Monroe included therein, but it has an entirely different text from what is provided by Varina Davis. Varina only provided excerpts from the text she quoted from, with the excerpts spanning pp. 720-28 of Volume 2 of her Memoir. The Papers of Jefferson Davis provides a different text for that same date in its entirety, spanning pp. 32-36 in a small type font. I have no explanation for this anomaly, but I believe the lengthier excerpt I have provided, with date, provides some useful information.
That is the reason I included FLT-bird and wardaddy in the address line of my #634 to which you here respond.
Upon further investigation, I found:
Four of the Varina Davis excerpts do appear in the text of the October 11-12 letter. The "negroes' fidelity" quote (among others) does not.
Two of the misattributed Varina Davis excerpts that do not appear, I have identified in a November 3-4 letter.
I have not yet identified the misattributed "negroes' fidelity" excerpt within any writing of Jefferson Davis. Neither have you.
I have absolutely proven that some of the Varina Davis excerpts are misattributed to the October 11-12 letter.
Your claim that it is from an 1865 letter has no basis unless you can connect it with an 1865 letter. It is NOT from the Jefferson Davis letter of October 11, 1865. That is a misattribution.
TwelveOfTwenty #592
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939." Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m. Adolf HitlerSee how that works?
At my #594 I invoked Godwin's Law:
Godwin’s law:Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
At your #597, in response to my #596, you quoted from my #594 without attribution and responded to #594.
Usenet "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches oneI understand your point. My only point was that when all was lost, Hitler's response was something to the effect of "I didn't want this". I saw the same in the comments you posted from Jefferson Davis in 1865, when he tried to distance himself from slavery.
The quote you rely on is misattributed to a letter of October 11-12, 1865. It's actual date and provenance are not traced to Jefferson Davis or any particular date. In any case,
As you linked to #494, you should notice that I did not post it.
Davis was incarcerated on May 22, 1865. Five or six months, or more, after Davis was incarcerated and indicted, how does this parallel Hitler?
As for the rest of your post, I saw personal attacks, diversions, and plenty of text from other people's work. The only thing I didn't see was a rebuttal to my point that Jefferson Davis was walking back his former comments supporting slavery.
You only see whatever ridiclous, specious crap you want to see. Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery. That is merely your vivid imagination at work. Davis and others expressed caring affections for slaves, before and after the war. The "quote" of an unknown letter on an unknown date said, "I hope the negroes fidelity will be duly rewarded, and regret that we are not in a situation to aid and protect them. There is, I observe, a controversy which I regret as to allowing negroes to testify in court."
As documented in my #613:
Grant, Lincoln, and the Freedmen, Reminiscences if the Civil War, with Special Reference to The Work for the Contrabands and Freedmen of the Mississippi Valley, by John Eaton, Ph.D., LL.D., Brigadier-General; General Superintendant of Freedmen, Department of the Tennessee; Assistant Commissioner of Freedmen, Freedmen's Bureau; Commissioner of Education of the United States; U.S. Superintendent of schools, Porto Rico; in collaboration with Ethel Osgood Mason, Longmans, Green, and Co., 91 and 93 Fifth Avenue, New York, London, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1907, p. 165-66:
Available at Googlebooks.
Late in the season—in November and December, 1864, — the Freedmen’s Department was restored to full control over the camps and plantations on President’s Island and Palmyra or Davis Bend. Both these points had been originally occupied at the suggestion of General Grant, and were among the most successful of our enterprises for the Negroes. With the expansion of the lessee system, private interests were allowed to displace the interests of the Negroes whom we had established there under the protection of the Government, but orders issued by General N. J. T. Dana, upon whose sympathetic and intelligent co-operation my officers could always rely, restored to us the full control of these lands. The efforts of the freedmen on Davis Bend were particularly encouraging, and this property, under Colonel Thomas’s able direction, became in reality the “Negro Paradise” that General Grant had urged us to make of it. Early in 1865 a system was adopted for their government in which the freedmen took a considerable part. The Bend was divided into districts, each having a sheriff and judge appointed from among the more reliable and intelligent colored men. A general oversight of the proceedings was maintained by our officer in charge, who confirmed or modified the findings of the court. The shrewdness of the colored judges was very remarkable, though it was sometimes necessary to decrease the severity of the punishments they proposed. Fines and penal service on the Home Farm were the usual sentences imposed. Petty theft, and idleness, were the most frequent causes of trouble, but my officers were able to report that exposed property was as safe on Davis Bend as it would be anywhere. The community distinctly demonstrated the capacity of the Negro to take care of himself and exercise under honest and competent direction the functions of self-government.
And,
Jefferson Davis, the Negroes and the Negro Problem
Walter L. Fleming
The Sewanee Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1908), pp. 407-427
Longmans, Green & Co., 91-93 Fifth Avenue, New York; London and Bombay; Printed at The University Press of Sewanee Tennessee
Volume 16 available at Googlebooks. Search "the sewanee review 1908"
Fleming at page 411:
After the death of Pemberton in 1852 Davis employed white overseers, some of whom did not approve of his system of managing negroes. They were not allowed to inflict punishment—only to report offenses. One of them left because of his objection to the negro court. The Davis system which was practiced until 1862 had vitality enough to survive for a while after the Federals had occupied the plantations, and a year later a Northern officer who saw what remained of the self-governing community and knowing nothing of its origin took it for a new development, and an evidence of how one year of freedom would elevate the blacks.
This was all while the war was still ongoing. It was not invented by Jefferson Davis after the war.
In your twisted mind, you observe that one southerner [substitute any group] beats his dog, and you conclude that all southerners [or whoever] beat their dog.
Lincoln espoused a reversal of history to have the Union create the States. In that regard you can compare Lincoln to a certain European leader.
President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.
What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?[...]
The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
- - - - - - - - - -
European politician.
What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges.
Two peas in a pod, hard to tell apart.
- - - - - - - - - -
A ready comparison of Lincoln and a European politician can be made. For a view of the Constitution and the Union shared by Jefferson and an American politician, try the following — Ronald Reagan.
President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Reagan had it right. The States created the Federal government. A small State still has sovereignty. A county of any size does not. The Union was not a sovereign and could not create a sovereign anything. A small State can ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. A county gets to obey whatever the States ratify.
Neither Davis nor Reagan would ever subscribe to the horse pucky stated by Lincoln. DAvis and Reagan both knew that the States created the Union. It seems the notions of Lincoln had support in Europe though.
637
In total
I didn’t know this except from the recent book I knew Davis was by most accounts a reasonable master
See Woodpusher's answer above
They couldn't abolish slavery in the South before 1865, and they were hesitant about abolishing it in the border states for fear of driving them to the Confederacy. In 1865 they finally had the power and the mandate to abolish slavery, and they did it.
They were not abolitionists as they themselves said over and over again. They only emancipated slaves in territories they did not control even as late as 1863.
Well it took you long enough, but there's no excusing that. It was bad, but so was the slavery they were trying to fight.
They were terrorists and murderers. Practically every other western country got rid of slavery via compensated emancipation - and without bloodshed. The people who supported them were criminals and terrorist sponsors. Those who sheltered them harbored terrorists. The US considers it an act of war to do what they did - ask the Taliban.
And how many slaves were taken? What number is needed to become an act of war against a country?
When those in power in that country willingly sell them? You do realize that's what happened in Africa right? Yankee slave traders bought slaves from African kings and warlords.
And whites shoved other whites into the ovens.
Yes but the point is, buying something the local rulers were willing to sell is not an act of war. Its morally repulsive given we are talking about human beings as the "product". But it is certainly not an act of war.
I never excused them, but they were breaking the law and were stopped before the CW. They were no different from modern human traffickers.
It was common in the Northeast long after 1810. The graft and corruption were rife. This was a major industry for the Northeast well into the mid 19th century.
And no matter who trafficked them, it was the buyers who created the market for the slave trade, legal or illegal, and made it profitable. If you've read my posts on human trafficking, you'll see I'm consistant on this. Just as modern johns are making abusive pimps and human traffickers rich for the purpose of having a warm wet spot to stick it into, the slave holders made the human traffickers of their day rich.
I don't deny that....though the vast majority of Yankee Slave Traders' customers were in Latin and South America - that is especially the case after 1810.
Wrong. Lincoln opposed slavery but understood he didn't have the power to abolish it and had to deal with a population that wasn't all in for abolition. When he got the power he acted on it.
Lincoln didn't like slavery but was not an abolitionist and was even willing to protect it forever via express constitutional amendment and by strengthened fugitive slave laws. Lee also didn't like it for moral reasons but was not a politician. He emancipated the few slaves he inherited and successfully lobbied the Confederate Congress to agree to emancipation for slaves and their families in exchange for military service.
He left the South as soon as he saw how bad it was.
Yes, but he openly spoke out against it while in the South as a known abolitionist - something you said people could not do. That was the whole point.
Ask Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey. OK, both of them rebelled against their masters, but a whole lot of people were executed as a result.
Dickens openly spoke against it while in the South. No harm came to him. He was not blacklisted or "cancelled" as the woke mob does now toward anybody they don't like. Nat Turner was a murderous lunatic. He even cold bloodedly murdered infants - not a good example to cite.
The constitution the voters elected representatives to abolish in 1858.
The constitution originally adopted by the voters nontheless.
I didn't realize blacks had faced discrimination in the North after the CW. Did anyone else know that? I wonder if the Democrats running the South imposed any discriminatory policies against the blacks living there after the CW. I'll need to look into that.
Yes. Why do you think Blacks almost all stayed in the economically devastated South until very late in the 19th century? They were not allowed to move North.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
See Woodpusher's answer above.
OBTW, Cassius Clay was an abolitionist who co-founded the party for that reason. When they finally got the power in 1865, they did it.
Oh by the way, the Republicans including Lincoln were not abolitionists and said so many many times. That includes every prominent Republican. Those who were abolitionists could not gain power or influence. Read Republican party controlled newspapers and what they said about slavery...or just read their statements or read the Corwin Amendment. Republicans were not abolitionists until very late in the war. and no matter how many times you say "but 1865" that does not make them abolitionists earlier.
I'll refute that with your own comment on blacks serving in the Confederate military, "Its tough to "force" anybody that you have to give guns to". Now you're saying the North did exactly that even though they had no pressing need to do so.
They didn't force many of the unwilling to fight - merely to serve the Union Army. As for why the Union Army wanted Blacks to fight? I'll let the Governor of Maine answer.
"Numerous [Union] army officials who advocated the use of black troops viewed Negroes as little more than cannon fodder. 'For my part,' announced an officer stationed in South Carolina, 'I make bold to say that I am not so fastidious as to object to a negro being food for powder and I would arm every man of them.' Governor Israel Washburn of Maine agreed. 'Why have our rulers so little regard for the true and brave white men of the north?' asked Washburn. 'Will they continue to sacrifice them? Why will they refuse to save them by employing black men? . . . Why are our leaders unwilling that Sambo should save white boys?'" (Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 93)
They needed cannon fodder.
We can go back and forth over whose sources we chose to believe. If you want to make the point that blacks willingly defended a nation that enslaved them, then preach your claims in front of a black church and see how many agree with you.
Both sides enslaved Blacks. I have already cited numerous Union Army sources indicated thousands of Blacks fought in the Confederate Army.
No, this is more fun. I'll add "strike 2". I hope I don't have to repeat.
I'll just ignore you on this since you have nothing to say and are obviously not interested in an honest conversation on the point.
I wouldn't call it enthralling and it certainly isn't everything he said about preserving slavery in that speech, but how about "You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting form a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race."
That wasn't from Mein Kampf. That was from Jefferson Davis.
Since you don't seem to dispute the authenticity of that speech, or if you did then I couldn't see it among all of that other stuff you flooded your post with, we'll go with the understanding that JD actually said this.
Your embedded link goes to the first posting of the quote. It is a post from FLT-bird to wardaddy, and I am not in the address line. I did not post it, and it was not sent to me. My #590 responded to FLT-bird (and wardaddy) and called the provenance into question.
I'm not sure how I got the link to the wrong post, but you are correct. Since I acknowledge my mistake, I'm sure you're going to insult me again.
You only see whatever ridiclous, specious crap you want to see. Jefferson Davis said nothing walking back his support of slavery.
You could have given that answer without burying it in other people's work for post after post, and I would have accepted it.
Neither Davis nor Reagan would ever subscribe to the horse pucky stated by Lincoln.
Neither had to deal with the Democrats splitting the nation in an admitted attempt to preserve slavery.
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.