New book sheds light on Lincoln's racial views

[RightCoast]

AP article on Yahoo:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization

[TexasCop]

Lincoln has been turned into a great President by the African American community.  In truth, Abraham Lincoln didn't like black people.  He made several quotes to this effect....

“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.” - Abraham Lincoln during the Douglas debates

He invaded the South to preserve the Union and to preserve his tax income.  He did not invade the South to free the slaves.  He issued the Emancipation Proclamation with hopes of inciting a slave uprising in the South.  If you'll read the document very closely, it was not intended to free slaves in border states fighting for the Union....

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found or being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.

[dandi]

Wonder how long it will take this one to migrate to the Fight Club?

[Thor]

[vesta111]

Wonder how long it will take this one to migrate to the Fight Club?

Let go as a Yankee I say take it to the fight club.  Should be interesting and an education for most of us.

[TexasCop]

Is this another hot button topic?  Would it help if I said the Israelis killed Lincoln?

[RightCoast]

Is this another hot button topic?  Would it help if I said the Israelis killed Lincoln?

Didn't they?

[formerlurker]

 

[CG6468]

Any answer would be merely an opinion. It's almost impossible to separate today's values, politics and morals from those of 150 years ago.

[TexasCop]

Exactly.  Everyone viewed them as chattel in those days.  It's just how it was.

[thundley4]

Exactly.  Everyone viewed them as chattel in those days.  It's just how it was.

Now it's the DemonRat politicians and the left that view them that way. That's why they hate the ones that dare think for themselves and speak out.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Lincoln was a man of the mid-19th Century, his formative years were in the early part of it.  Only a complete fool would expect a man of that time to mirror post-Modern PC social thought on sex, race relations, or a myriad of other topics.  Unfortunately the community of American iconoclasts is chock full of fools, Left and Right.

A couple of years ago, my sister gave me the book "Imperial Cruise," from an otherwise-well-thought-of historian (Who, however, proved to be a moonbat judging from interviews on Imus where he was flogging his shitty books).  It proved to be an equally stupid projection of the writer's late-20th Century hyper-PC views on colonialism and international political relations onto Teddy Roosevelt, which was an equally misconceived pile of accusatory crap.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

...  It proved to be an equally stupid projection of the writer's late-20th Century hyper-PC views on colonialism and international political relations onto Teddy Roosevelt, which was an equally misconceived pile of accusatory crap.

It's the modern academic fad. Everyone gets "teh treatment" even Washington and Jefferson.

Lincoln has been turned into a great President by the African American community.  In truth, Abraham Lincoln didn't like black people.  He made several quotes to this effect....

Even with this revelation I'm sure blacks still like Lincoln more than they like Davis.

He invaded the South to preserve the Union and to preserve his tax income.  He did not invade the South to free the slaves.  He issued the Emancipation Proclamation with hopes of inciting a slave uprising in the South.  If you'll read the document very closely, it was not intended to free slaves in border states fighting for the Union....

The Civil War was indeed about preserving The Union which probably explains why the North referred to itself as "The Union." And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation only held sway in those areas under Union military occupation but that is because all other areas retained their constitutional guarantees. It's akin to how someone screaming "**** the pigs!" while shooting out their apartment window will find the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and several other rights inapplicable to their defense.

I find the taxation issue to be of dubious value. As the south's economy was built slave labor and this fact was known to all in those days, the Union could hardly have been motivated by money when it passed the 13th Amendment mere months after the war ended.

[TexasCop]

Yes, they do like Lincoln more than Davis, but that's because of ignorance.
 
There was no constitutional guaantee to slavery.
 
The South's economy was based on cheap labor (slaves weren't free of charge and had to be maintained).  They traded almost exclusively with England and France because the prices of goods in the North were horribly inflated.  The Federal Government attempted to force the South to trade with the North by enacting oppressive export tarriffs.  It blew up in their faces.

[JohnnyReb]

70% to 80% of federal revenue of that time was derived from taxes that affected the south mostly.

...and the day or even the day after the Emancipation Proclamation was passed into law it did not free a single slave.

[TexasCop]

70% to 80% of federal revenue of that time was derived from taxes that affected the south mostly.

...and the day or even the day after the Emancipation Proclamation was passed into law it did not free a single slave.

General U.S. Grant did not release his own personal slaves until November 1865, 7 months after the end of hostilities.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Yes, they do like Lincoln more than Davis, but that's because of ignorance.
 
There was no constitutional guaantee to slavery.

Would that the same could have been for the confederacy.
 

The South's economy was based on cheap labor (slaves weren't free of charge and had to be maintained).  They traded almost exclusively with England and France because the prices of goods in the North were horribly inflated.  The Federal Government attempted to force the South to trade with the North by enacting oppressive export tarriffs.

 

And still the point remains that the 13th Amendment was passed in December of '65, effectively gutting the South's economy mere months after the rebels were brought to heel. To claim the North was motivated by money would be akin to demanding someone work for free then throwing-away the tools of their craft.

If money were the true motivator then abolition worked against the North as much as the South. One would think if Obama seeks more money for his idiotic schemes he would be eager to allow more domestic oil production. Yet, there is some ideological cause to which he is beholden that appears to mean more to him than money. Far be it for me to compare abolition to the idiocy of environmentalism but taxes and regulations as a means of pushing social policy is not a new invention. Power to tax = power to destroy yadda-yadda-yadda was well understood in those days.

General U.S. Grant did not release his own personal slaves until November 1865, 7 months after the end of hostilities.

And yet a month before the 13th became law in December.

Now, I'm not sure what the other half of this data to exonerate Grant as a slave holder but historical context is better served when more data points are fed into the examination.

It blew up in their faces.

Odd. It seems to carry tones of satisfaction. One could just as easily say such thing about the Fire-Eaters.

[TexasCop]

The South's economy was gutted when Lee surrendered in Appomattox.  The 13th amendment was merely a punitive measure to ensure the South was too broke to rearm itself.  We suffer from punitive "reconstruction" efforts to this day.

[JohnnyReb]

The South's economy was gutted when Lee surrendered in Appomattox.  The 13th amendment was merely a punitive measure to ensure the South was too broke to rearm itself.  We suffer from punitive "reconstruction" efforts to this day.

 "reconstruction"... ...the Union Army was in S.C. to insure more destruction.

And yes, a lot of problems today can be traced to reconstruction.

[Rebel]

When did the slaves in the Northern slave-holding states see their freedom?

[Thor]

When did the slaves in the Northern slave-holding states see their freedom?

[horshack] Oooh, oooh, pick me, pick me!![/horshack]

[TexasCop]

Would that the same could have been for the confederacy.
  

For many parts of it, yes....
 
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee
 
Did you know Lee freed his slaves in 1862, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

When did the slaves in the Northern slave-holding states see their freedom?

With the enactment of the 13th Amendment; which was the proper legislative remedy to the debate as enshrined by the constitution. If one faction of a debate wants a policy they are obligated to politically seek legislative remedy (read: peaceably).

If someone has contraband on their premises the police can ask permission to inspect. If that person declines the police are obligated to seek a warrant after establishing probable cause because these are the rights afforded even to lawbreakers. However, if the suspect starts blasting guns out the window the suspect waives those rights. Once the shooting starts the original offense is no longer the issue; the breach of the peace is the only point that matters until the violence is suppressed.

For many parts of it, yes....

Except for the parts that explicitly said no law could be passed forbidding the ownership of slaves, i.e. Art. 1, Sec. 9 (4) of the CotCSA.
 

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee
 
Did you know Lee freed his slaves in 1862, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?

OK, so R E Lee freed his slaves.

And the abolitionists that Texas found so intolerable have--well--every one of themselves.

I know that we all grew up hearing the Union fought for the noble cause of ending slavery. That is not the truth and I have stated as much several times in this thread alone. I get it; the old propaganda is a selective portrayal of history designed to make one side look more noble than it really was when the reality is they were fighting over politics and law, not morality. I don't endorse the old propaganda and I do not peddle it. There is no need try to counter the old propaganda by offering nouveau propaganda in its place.

[TexasCop]

Factual information that you disagree with is not propaganda.

[TexasCop]

If you see this book in your local bookstore (http://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-Walter-Kennedy/dp/1565540247), I highly suggest you take a look at it.  It has a lot of eye-opening facts about the war and the events leading up to it and immediately following.