Happy 150th Emancipation Proclamation

[Guest032516]

Not a good day for Confederate sympathizers.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...-turns-150.cnn

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Not a good day for Confederate sympathizers.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...-turns-150.cnn

Signed into law by one of those racist Republicans.

[Munchmasterman]

I think you've made a mistake.

Those repubs weren't racists.......

[UB9IB6]

Thanks linc. Good job. The droopy pants industry thanks you .

[CuteOldGuy]

Brilliant political move by old Abe. He freed the slaves in a country with which he was at war, and had no authority. He DID NOT free the slaves in those slave states that were supporting the Union.

Quote:

In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa.

Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Cite: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

Yes, Lincoln was a racist Republican. Quote:

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Cite: http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/...history-month/

Like most politicians, Lincoln was about POWER, not freedom.

[Yssup Rider]

GodDAMN, does no good deed go unshatupon?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Brilliant political move by old Abe. He freed the slaves in a country with which he was at war, and had no authority. He DID NOT free the slaves in those slave states that were supporting the Union.

Quote:

In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa.

Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.

At one point, Bennett quotes William Henry Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, who referred to the proclamation as a hollow, meaningless document showing no more than, "our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Cite: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

Yes, Lincoln was a racist Republican. Quote:

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

Cite: http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/...history-month/

Like most politicians, Lincoln was about POWER, not freedom.

Needless to say, I disagree with most of what you quoted.

I strongly suggest you see the movie "Lincoln". The history isn't perfect, but it gets it mostly right.

Including the fact that Lincoln did and said a LOT of things to avoid aggravating opposition to emancipation. He appeared to be quite adept about pretending not to want to free the slaves while quietly working to do so.

Most of the movie centers around the passage of the 13th Amendment. Lincoln pulled every political favor he had. Particularly good was his interaction with Thaddeus Stevens, who is played by Tommy Lee Jones.

Thaddeus Stevens, a vehement abolitionist, fervently believed in the equality of blacks and whites. To avoid aggravating racist Democrats still in Congress, Lincoln persuaded Stevens to bite his tongue and to state only that he favored ending slavery and NOT promoting racial equality as well. It is a rather dramatic moment in the movie. If you haven't seen it, do so.

The political horse-trading and buying of favors in the middle of a civil war was amazing.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Not a good day for Confederate sympathizers.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...-turns-150.cnn

I guess the blacks in Texas will have to wait a 2 1/2 more years, Juneteeth?

for those not from Texas, the slaves did not hear about the emancipation act until Union troops arrived in 1865

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Like most politicians, Lincoln was about POWER, not freedom.

Why not power AND freedom? Why do you cast them as opposites? They don't have to be, though they frequently are.

How about amassing power to bring about freedom? Using power to stamp out inequality based on race, ethnicity, or gender promotes freedom is a good thing, is it not?

You can't always wait for the power of peaceful persuasion and reason to prevail. Why wait decades or generatoins while people suffer? Some folks will refuse to listen, no matter what.

Like Al Qaeda.

Or slave owners.

[CuteOldGuy]

ExNYer, what is incorrect about my post? Did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in the North, or did it only free the slaves in the South, where Lincoln, at that time, had no authority? Did Lincoln not say those words in his debate with Stephen Douglass, or not?

Haven't decided if I will see the movie or not. I expect quite a bit of is fiction, but I haven't seen it, so I will withhold my observations until after I see it, if at all.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I expect quite a bit of is fiction

Why should that be a concern? You seem to have great difficulty separating fact from fiction.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

ExNYer, what is incorrect about my post? Did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in the North, or did it only free the slaves in the South, where Lincoln, at that time, had no authority? Did Lincoln not say those words in his debate with Stephen Douglass, or not?

The Lincoln Douglas debate speeches are a perfect example of Lincoln soft-selling abolition in order to minimize opposition. What a lot of Confederate sympathizers and Lincoln bashers fail to appreciate is that while a LOT of whites favored ending slavery, a much smaller number believed in actual equality of the races. It was a lot easier to persuade whites that slavery was wrong if you could persuade them that they wouldn't lost their jobs to blacks. So Lincoln and others had to walk a fine line.

In other words, those debate speeches should be taken with a grain of salt. Lincoln said what he had to say in order to win. Kind of like when Democrats say they would like to lower taxes and cut spending, too, just not right now because of all the "emergencies" we are facing - and always will.

See the movie, it addresses the Emancipation Proclamation head on.

Lincoln did not free the slaves in the border states that were still in the Union in order to avoid any further secession. He had no choice in that one. Contra the author you quoted, the Emancipation DID free LOTS slaves immediately - the slaves in the parts of the Confederacy controlled by Union troops, which was quite a lot.

Lincoln used the argument that the slaves were war booty that the Confederacy was using to keep its army supplied. By ending slavery, the Confederacy would lose its logistical base and the war would end sooner. That was a winning argument even in the slave-holding border states that were still in the Union.

Of course, that left Lincoln with a problem if the war ended and the southern states rejoined the Union with slavery still intact in those states. With the war over, the rationale behind the Proclamation would be ended and it was feared that southerners would demand their slaves back.

Hence, the urgency for ratifying the 13th Amendment.

And it had to be done by securing the votes of a lot of lame duck Democrats. Republicans had a majority, but not the 2/3rds necessary to send the amendment to the states to be ratified.

So Lincoln sent some undercover agents to meet with lame-duck Democrats to promise them jobs in his administration when they left office in early 1865.

See the movie to learn about all the backroom deals and compromises that had to be made.

See the movie to hear the hilarious off-color joke Lincoln tells about Ethan Allen.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

See the movie, it addresses the Emancipation Proclamation head on.

Lincoln did not free the slave in the border states that were still in the Union in order to avoid any further mutiny. He had no choice in that one. Of course he had a choice. He took the politician's way out, instead of the statesman's way out. If it was about slavery, he would have freed them all.

Contra the author, the Emancipation DID free slaves immediately - the slave in the parts of the Confederacy controlled by the Union, which was quite a lot. The war wasn't over. And he didn't free all the slaves controlled by the Union. The slave states supporting the Union got to keep theirs.

Lincoln used the argument that the slaves were war booty that the Confederacy was using to keep its army supplied. By ending slavery, the Confederacy would lose its logistical base and the war would end sooner. That was a winning argument even in the slave-holding border states that were still in the Union. So slaves supporting the Union were inferior to slaves supporting the Confederacy?

Of course, that left Lincoln with a problem if the war ended and the southern states rejoined the Union with slavery still intact in those states. With the war over, the rationale behind the Proclamation would be ended and it was feared that southerners would demand their slaves back.

Hence, the urgency for ratifying the 13th Amendment.

And it had to be done by securing the votes of a lot of lame duck Democrats. Republicans had a majority, but not the 2/3rds necessary to send the amendment to the states to be ratified.

So Lincoln sent some undercover agents to meet with lame-duck Democrats to promise them jobs in his administration when they left office in early 1865. How is that different from what any other politician does?

See the movie. I might. But I think Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter will probably be more historically accurate.

I don't want this to degenerate into a name calling match, ExNYer. I respect you and your opinion. I simply have a pretty low opinion of Lincoln. Slavery was a dying institution, being driven out by technology and the enlightenment of the citizens. It was a good excuse for war, and for centralizing power in the federal government, however.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't want this to degenerate into a name calling match, ExNYer. I respect you and your opinion. I simply have a pretty low opinion of Lincoln. Slavery was a dying institution, being driven out by technology and the enlightenment of the citizens. It was a good excuse for war, and for centralizing power in the federal government, however.

The central point is that the EP did free slaves in the areas of the Confederacy controlled by the Union. The fact that the 4 border states (DE, KY, MO, MD) got to keep theirs a little bit longer changes nothing.

Regarding statesmanship, Lincoln did the statesman-like thing when he took the ONLY path available. Freeing ALL slaves - including in the border states - might have led to 4 more secessions and lost the war.

Your argument is an excellent example of making the PERFECT the enemy of the GOOD.

You are famous on this board for speaking rather reverently about the Founding Fathers and what statesmen they were. And yet, they also made a deal with the devil when they adopted the Constitution - the 3/5ths Compromise that gave the slave states a super majority-like power. Slavery would have ended much sooner if the FF hadn't done that.

With respect to slavery being a dying institution, I think you are looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. It was as much about culture as it was about economics. Blind hatred for the "other" sustained it, more so than economics.

Why would technology have ended it? Slave owners would be perfectly content having slaves operate machinery in some other industry, too.. Arguably technology (the cotton gin) kept slavery alive longer than it otherwise would have survived.

If the Civil War hadn't occurred, I think slavery would have endured into the 1900s and we would have had far worse segregation after that.

[CuteOldGuy]

You may be right on some counts, ExNYer, the Founders did do what they had to do to get the Constitution ratified, and that included the 3/5 compromise. We would not have had the Constitution without it. So, I will ponder your points. However, inventions such as the cotton gin greatly reduced the need for slaves, and I think it would have died out much sooner than you do, and I think the divisions we currently face would have been much less. But those are opinions.

But I will ponder your points. They are certainly valid. And I do especially understand about doing what you have to do to get what you eventually want. The Founders did that, and I can see where Lincoln may have had that in mind as well.

Well played, ExNYer. We can discuss controversial matters without falling into personal attacks. I appreciate that.