Posted on 06/15/2002 10:01:26 AM PDT by Ligeia
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The term "Johnny Reb" evokes an image of a white soldier, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant and from an agrarian background. Many Southern soldiers, however, did not fit this mold. A number of ethnic backgrounds were represented during the conflict.
For example, thousands of black Americans fought as Johnny Rebs. Dr. Lewis Steiner of the U.S. Sanitary Commission observed that while the Confederate army marched through Maryland during the 1862 Sharpsburg (Antietam) campaign, "over 3,000 negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. And were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I wouldn't call less than 200,000 people out of a population of 20 million growing
Well, if there were previously 199,999 people and that number swelled to 200,000, then, yes opposition was growing against slavery. And this is a good thing, yes?
You applaud it right? I mean, if every other country in the world was abolishing slavery and the USA was dawdling, well that is bad, right?
Those 200,000 are among the true heroes of the era, right?
But the point remains that there was a certain segment of the society that was determined to maintain slavery even at the point of revolution.
They knew that the Congress controlled the territories and that galled them into treason and war to support slavery.
Four of the first seven states to pass secession documents made it plain that their cause was bound up with African slavery, the most important type of property in the world.
Walt
Well in all actuality, slavery had been done away with in the previous 20 years in all the major empires except within the US. And in every case it was done peacefully by paying the slaveowners. So abe was there to drag us 'kicking and screaming' as they say into the new world order because the South wasn't moving as fast as he wanted? That's your premise? Sure doesn't explain his reference and backing to the original 13th Amendment then does it
He did? (but not equal enough to share the continent with blacks):
"I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects." [italics in original]
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois", 26 Jun 1857, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. II, p. 405."A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together." [italics in original]
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois", 26 Jun 1857, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. II, p. 408.
"My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but can not be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects."
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois", 17 Jul 1858, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. II, p. 520."What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? "
Abraham Lincoln, "First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois", 21 Aug 1858, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. III, p. 15."Douglas tries to make capital by charges of negro equality against me. My speeches have been printed and before the country for some time on this question, and Douglas knows the utter falsity of such a charge."
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Carlinville, Illinois", 31 Aug 1858, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. III, p. 79."Negroes have natural rights however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here, and even Taney once said that ``the Declaration of Independence was broad enough for all men.'' But though it does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position, yet no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind."
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech at Carlinville, Illinois", 31 Aug 1858, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. III, p. 79."This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said, that in their right to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals."
Abraham Lincoln, "Fifth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, at Galesburg, Illinois", 7 Oct 1858, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, ed.), Vol. III, pp. 221-222.
Dredd Scott dismayed Lincoln and the republicans.
The decision was hardly a radical shift in attitude, the first naturalization act enacted by the founders limited citizenship to whites only.
"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."
8/24/54
"If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.? --
You say A. is a white, and B. is black. It is --color--, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be the slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly? -- You mean the whites are --intellectually-- the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of --interest--; and, if you can make it your --interest--, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
1854
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.]
I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
August, 1858
"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--But I do expect it will cease to be divided.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is the course of ultimate extinctioon; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South.
Have we no tendency towards the latter condition?"
1858
"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
3/1/59
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not.
Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/23/63
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel....
I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."
4/4/64
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
April 11, 1865
Also consider:
"After the interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely," Douglass said later, "who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."
--"With Malice Towards None, p. 357 by Stephen Oates.
"Lincoln had Douglass shown in at once. "Here is my friend Douglass," the President announced when Douglass entered the room. "I am glad to see you," Lincoln told him. "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address." He added, "there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it."
Douglass said he was impressed: he thought it "a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it." Lincoln said, and he watched as Douglass passed down the [receiving] line. It was the first inaugural reception in the history of the Republic in which an American President had greeted a free black man and solicited his opinion."
Ibid., p. 412
Other sources: "Abraham Lincoln, Mystic Chords of Memory" published by the Book of the Month Club, 1984
and:
"Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas, Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed. 1989
Abraham Lincoln was a great and good man with a big heart. He was far ahead of his time in the way he thought about relations between the races.
Walt
I suppose you will substantiate that allegation? Or would that be asking too much of you? I suspect the latter is the case, considering how frequently you throw out baseless accusations against fellow posters without ever bothering to substantiate them.
Yes, Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment to protect the domestic institutions of the states -- read slavery. Your note indicates how hard he worked to avoid war.
Not really. More than anything, it simply shows that he worked hard to keep the union intact. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to suggest that, at the time of the amendment, Lincoln had no idea the size of the war that was about to come. Many at the time including those close to Lincoln believed that, if it came at all, the war would be short and over in a few months, possibly even weeks.
What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed.
In what way did I "ignore" that assertion, Walt? In fact, as you have no doubt been presented with (though I cannot accurately say you have seen it in light of your tendency to willfully blind yourself to that which you do not wish to see), I have long noted Lincoln's expansion stance to have been the defining line of his political position on slavery during that time (though there is some evidence he bent it a little with discussions over New Mexico on the eve of the secession crisis). But other than that line, Lincoln wavered all over the place, often targetted to his audiences, with his policy issues on slavery. The amendment was a classic example of that.
That alone was enough to cause the war
But was it? I do not think it is a far cry to suggest that the war would have never happened had Lincoln not sent a fleet of warships to increase Sumter's garrison in April 1861, or had he never sent an invasion army to conquer Richmond in July 1861.
Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards.
No I don't, nor have I ever, Walt. To the contrary, I have long recognized Lincoln as a political creature of his times. I take no issue with the fact that he held less than modern positions on slavery, but rather only with the fact that this picture of Lincoln is rarely portrayed accurately. Further, those who glorify Lincoln, yourself included, seem to take great issue with it, even despite protests otherwise, when it is presented accurately. Rather than accept that fact, you blast all who dare make note of it with accusations not unlike the one you just made against me, often along side farcical red herrings such as your claim that I am somehow judging Lincoln by modern standards.
For his time, his stance was very advanced.
Not really. It was moderate at best in its approach compared to several of his contemporaries and heavily politicized as opposed to the moral and philosophical positions also held by many of his contemporaries. But that is another issue entirely.
He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery;
Not by permanently barring congress from amending the constitution to prevent any future interference with the institution whatsoever, which is precisely what his amendment did.
Oh, and by the way. I noticed you didn't bother to substantiate your "half truth" allegation anywhere in that post. You are sadly predictable.
But by preventing any interference in any state where it existed, it rendered emancipation possible ONLY by individual state legislatures. It would have been possible by constitutional amendment before that amendment had it been ratified, but not after it. With that amendment, Lincoln sought to make emancipation a more difficult process and attempted to remove as an option the very process by which it was later achieved, constitutional amendment.
Lincoln sought nothing, since the amendment was passed before he was inagurated. He signed on to it in a vain attempt at ending the rebellion.
You mentioned in an earlier post that in your opinion it was fortunate that it was never passed. Yet this very same restriction was an integral part of the confederate constitution from the very beginning, article 1, section 9, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." What do you think of that?
I suppose you will substantiate that allegation?
Is part of your campaign of willful misrepresentation a strategy that people won't remember what was in the thread yesterday?
From yesterday:
I wrote:
What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed. That alone was enough to cause the war, because the slave owners knew that their "futures" in slaves and slave breeding would be compromised unless slavery were allowed to expand.
Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards. For his time, his stance was very advanced. He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery; to paraphase Churchill, he saw the end of the beginning plainly in sight. And that is what just drove the slave power nuts.
That is why they had to have war.
I did substantiate my "allegation". You seek to dissemble and obfuscate.
Walt
Nope. Numerous countries had ended slaverly peacefully and the former slaves became part of society. Ending slavery would have increased federal representation of the South, and left blacks free to emmigrate west, hardly positions that Lincoln supported. Lincoln espoused an amendment that would have continued their servitude and removed the possiblity of federal emancipation for decades. I cannot comprehend considering a white separtist to be a man far ahead of his times.
In light of your embarrassing past of both falsifying the previous history of threads (i.e. your intentional misrepresentation of your previous posts and my replies regarding Sherman's execution of confederate POW's), and in light of the fact that you yourself are engaging at this very moment in the act you accuse of me regarding yesterday's posts, I think it is safe to say, Walt, that you have about as much room to lecture me on this issue as your candidate of choice Bill Clinton has to lecture others about abstaining from sexual relationships with office interns.
From yesterday: I wrote: What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed. That alone was enough to cause the war, because the slave owners knew that their "futures" in slaves and slave breeding would be compromised unless slavery were allowed to expand.
Yes you did, and in response to that erronious assertion, I posted yesterday the following (which I also see you have not bothered to respond to, nor have you likely even bothered to read it to begin with):
In what way did I "ignore" that assertion, Walt? In fact, as you have no doubt been presented with (though I cannot accurately say you have seen it in light of your tendency to willfully blind yourself to that which you do not wish to see), I have long noted Lincoln's expansion stance to have been the defining line of his political position on slavery during that time (though there is some evidence he bent it a little with discussions over New Mexico on the eve of the secession crisis). But other than that line, Lincoln wavered all over the place, often targetted to his audiences, with his policy issues on slavery. The amendment was a classic example of that.
You continued your assertion from yesterday with the erronious statement:
Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards.
To that I responded in yet another unaddressed statement:
No I don't, nor have I ever, Walt. To the contrary, I have long recognized Lincoln as a political creature of his times. I take no issue with the fact that he held less than modern positions on slavery, but rather only with the fact that this picture of Lincoln is rarely portrayed accurately. Further, those who glorify Lincoln, yourself included, seem to take great issue with it, even despite protests otherwise, when it is presented accurately. Rather than accept that fact, you blast all who dare make note of it with accusations not unlike the one you just made against me, often along side farcical red herrings such as your claim that I am somehow judging Lincoln by modern standards.
You continued:
For his time, his stance was very advanced. He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery;
And I responded in yet another case you have failed to address:
Not really. It was moderate at best in its approach compared to several of his contemporaries and heavily politicized as opposed to the moral and philosophical positions also held by many of his contemporaries. But that is another issue entirely.
I did substantiate my "allegation".
Where then? What you purport to have substantiated that allegation simply does not even attempt to do so, Walt. And even if what you say substantiated your allegation did actually do so, you refuse to defend it from my earlier rebuttal. Therefore it does not stand.
Your density is baffling. Have you not bothered to read the posts in which I documented, upon your request, how Lincoln participated in the drafting of that amendment in December 1860 and how he openly advocated its passage before it came to a vote?
Had you bothered to do so, you would know that the evidence is indisputable that Lincoln himself was the driving force of its passage BEFORE his inauguration. Letters admitted it. Newspapers documented it. Eyewitnesses wrote of it. No less a source that Henry Adams, himself an eyewitness and the son of the congressman who introduced the amendment to the House in committee, credited its passage directly first and foremost to Abraham Lincoln. You seem to be returning to McPherson again for your information on this. You do so in error as McPherson is wrong.
You mentioned in an earlier post that in your opinion it was fortunate that it was never passed. Yet this very same restriction was an integral part of the confederate constitution from the very beginning, article 1, section 9, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." What do you think of that?
I think that the confederate situation, considering that the entire confederacy was composed of states where slavery was legal, posed a significantly different situation than a divided nation. Congressional actions to end slavery on the national level in the confederacy were never a viable option in a nation where slavery existed in all the states. The only viable course would have been individual state actions. On the other hand, it was indisputably becoming an option in the united states as a whole with the economic decline of slavery itself.
And I responded in yet another case you have failed to address:
Not really.
Should we take your word, or someone alive at the time:
"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."
--Frederick Douglass
Your repeated, "not really" is just part of your disinformation campaign.
When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good.
Walt
Whole record? No Walt. You posted a single one line quote from Frederick Douglas and declared it to have been the whole record. Lincoln had his praises among contemporaries but also his criticisms.
On the slavery issue in particular, William Lloyd Garrison and Lysander Spooner both had significantly less than flattering things to say about Mr. Lincoln. And if you want to get into another match of appealing to authority as you so often do, two still beats one. So I win.
I must admit I am surprised at one thing though. At least you didn't quote McPherson!
I did not -declare- that to be the whole record. It is just cracked to suggest that I did, or that this one excerpt from a speech Douglass made in 1876 is the "whole record." It is not even rational to say that.
The record amply shows that Mr. Lincoln's ideas were head and shoulders above most people of the day.
Walt
Yes you did, Walt. You quoted Douglas and right after it asserted "When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good." Don't lie about it now that you've been caught.
It is just cracked to suggest that I did
But you did, Walt. You quoted Douglas and right after it asserted "When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good." Don't lie about it now that you've been caught.
or that this one excerpt from a speech Douglass made in 1876 is the "whole record." It is not even rational to say that.
Then why did you say it, Walt? You quoted Douglas and right after it asserted "When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good." Don't lie about it now that you've been caught.
The record amply shows that Mr. Lincoln's ideas were head and shoulders above most people of the day.
Two indisputable authorities on the abolition of slavery, Lysander Spooner and William Lloyd Garrison, apparently didn't think so.
I find it hard to believe that you are serious. I haven't seen the whole record; no one has. More books have been written about Lincln than any other American.
But the record as a whole will not sustain what you say.
Lincoln had many of the prejudices of the day. But what he also had was a sense of fair play and right. It was right to give the vote to black soldiers. And he advocated that. It was right to refuse to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation just to gain advantage in the 1864 election, so he refused to do that. It was right to invite Frederick Douglass to the inaugural ball in 1865, and to shake his hand and to acknowledge his opinion as the most valuable in the country, and he did that. The record, when it is fully considered, will not support your position.
Your weird attempt to smear me personally helps illumine the fact that the record just doesn't support what you say.
Walt
"The record, when it is fully considered, will not support your position."
And I guess you have "fully considered" it, LOL.
"Your weird attempt to smear me personally helps illumine(sic) the fact that the record just doesn't support what you say.
Blather on about the record,Walt, the fact remains:
"Texts such as speeches of leading men and constitutional documents, are important but they don’t constitute all of history. History consists of all human actions, to which texts are only one guide."
Why should you, Walt, considering those were your own words? You quoted Douglas and right after it asserted "When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good." Don't lie about it now that you've been caught.
I haven't seen the whole record; no one has.
Then why did you say what you did? You quoted Douglas and right after it asserted "When the whole record is considered, Mr. Lincoln looks pretty good." Don't lie about it now that you've been caught.
But the record as a whole will not sustain what you say.
I thought you just said you don't know the whole record? How then can you know what that record sustains? Just curious.
Lincoln had many of the prejudices of the day. But what he also had was a sense of fair play and right.
Then why did he send his war fleet to fight its way into Sumter on openly false pretenses that he had delivered directly to the south carolina government a few days earlier? That sure doesn't sound like fair play to me.
It was right to give the vote to black soldiers. And he advocated that.
Only when it suited him politically at the end of his career after he and other republicans discovered that voting blacks would give them a solid and loyal block of votes for decades to come. Prior to that, he was an open opponent of giving blacks the right to vote along with several other civil rights.
It was right to refuse to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation just to gain advantage in the 1864 election, so he refused to do that.
The emancipation proglamation also politically advanced Lincoln's efforts by disrupting the south. Sure, it made several yankees mad but its benefits to him in his waging of the war outweighed that. Why should he have rescinded it?
The record, when it is fully considered, will not support your position.
On what authority do you make that statement when you just said "I haven't seen the whole record; no one has"
Your weird attempt to smear me personally
In no way, Walt, have I smeared you personally beyond pointing out your self inflicted wound. You contradicted yourself and lied about it. You got caught. I pointed it out. If you don't like that, tough.
helps illumine the fact that the record just doesn't support what you say.
If that is so, please demonstrate it to be. And please explain your earlier contradiction of this as well. Otherwise, I may reject it all in a word and I gladly choose to do so. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Have a nice day!
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.