PDA

View Full Version : Lincoln "Unfreed " Slaves In Kentucky?



Neo
07-04-2017, 10:22 PM
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES Union states that still permitted slavery the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-05-2017, 06:36 AM
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES Union states that still permitted slavery the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]

Careful now my friend , or else you will shot a lot of holes in the dem/lib, misguided history that has been taught rigorously in the public education system hard and heavily since the 1960's..
Giving any ammunition to the people that claim the Civil War was about far more states right rather than slavery is tantamount to heresy, even here -methinks.-Tyr

Gunny
07-05-2017, 05:11 PM
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES Union states that still permitted slavery the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]The US Civil War was about power/control and money. Slavery was a handy excuse. Lincoln freed slaves only in states in rebelliion to avoid the very thing you pointed out ... alienating the border states.

Neo
07-05-2017, 07:31 PM
The US Civil War was about power/control and money. Slavery was a handy excuse. Lincoln freed slaves only in states in rebelliion to avoid the very thing you pointed out ... alienating the border states.

The issue of slavery only came to a head in 1863, when the war was not going well for the North, due to the ego & ineptness of McClennon's command. Lincolns top priority was to keep the Union whole.

Question: Was it a war of Northern or Southern aggression? My view? Southern aggression.

Gunny
07-05-2017, 10:12 PM
The issue of slavery only came to a head in 1863, when the war was not going well for the North, due to the ego & ineptness of McClennon's command. Lincolns top priority was to keep the Union whole.

Question: Was it a war of Northern or Southern aggression? My view? Southern aggression.Depends on how you want to look at it. Legally, Southern states had every right to leave a union they voluntarily joined. There was no legal ruling nor law that precluded secession until 1868, 3 years after the war was over and in typical fashion, it was to get the Union out of paying a debt. In Texas v White, WHite sued the State of Texas for back wages during the war. It went to the Supremem Court and they ruled states never had a Right to secede so the debt was invalid. It is of course a BS ruling.

As far as to who was the aggressor? Plenty of blame to go around. The North, who would be today's left, controlled the media and all its reasons for engaging in a war were just propaganda.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move out of desperation. He hoped it would cause an uprising of slaves in the South that would draw Southern troops out of the main battle lines to go protect their homes. It was a tactical failure. It was a propagandist's wet dream. Abolitionists were a small minority in the North and were only "right" because the Union won the war. You left out the NYC riots because Irishmen didn't want to go fight a war to free blacks when they were treated no better than by Northern industrialists. What's the REAL difference between living in squalor in a tenement and working under slave-like conditions and owing the company store upon threat of incarceration or being a slave in a shack working in the fields?

The Union -- specifically Lincoln and his idealism -- was the aggressor. The South fought against being told what to do by a bunch of idiot yankees in DC.

Neo
07-05-2017, 11:35 PM
Depends on how you want to look at it. Legally, Southern states had every right to leave a union they voluntarily joined. There was no legal ruling nor law that precluded secession until 1868, 3 years after the war was over and in typical fashion, it was to get the Union out of paying a debt. In Texas v White, WHite sued the State of Texas for back wages during the war. It went to the Supremem Court and they ruled states never had a Right to secede so the debt was invalid. It is of course a BS ruling.

As far as to who was the aggressor? Plenty of blame to go around. The North, who would be today's left, controlled the media and all its reasons for engaging in a war were just propaganda.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a tactical move out of desperation. He hoped it would cause an uprising of slaves in the South that would draw Southern troops out of the main battle lines to go protect their homes. It was a tactical failure. It was a propagandist's wet dream. Abolitionists were a small minority in the North and were only "right" because the Union won the war. You left out the NYC riots because Irishmen didn't want to go fight a war to free blacks when they were treated no better than by Northern industrialists. What's the REAL difference between living in squalor in a tenement and working under slave-like conditions and owing the company store upon threat of incarceration or being a slave in a shack working in the fields?

The Union -- specifically Lincoln and his idealism -- was the aggressor. The South fought against being told what to do by a bunch of idiot yankees in DC.

Fascinating analysis.

With all due respect.......Just exactly what "idealism" did Mr. Lincoln suffer from?


Can you point out to me where it says succession by a member of the Union is allowable, and thus legal in our founding documents?

If memory serves, we announced our independence as "the 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", it wasn't temporary, a commitment had been made.

What the South fought for was their ill perceived belief in their "right" to profit off of the sweat of another mans brow, as well as the other ill perceived belief that they could "own" another human being and treat them like chattel.

As for the proclamation, he sat on it for months, awaiting a decisive Union victory, which he got at Antietam. Up til then, the war wasn't going well, which is why he sat on it. Too bad McClellan didn't go after Lee, he blew it, letting him escape.

You call it desperation, I call it smart. Timing is everything ya know...:laugh:

Gunny
07-07-2017, 09:24 PM
Fascinating analysis.

With all due respect.......Just exactly what "idealism" did Mr. Lincoln suffer from?


Can you point out to me where it says succession by a member of the Union is allowable, and thus legal in our founding documents?

If memory serves, we announced our independence as "the 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", it wasn't temporary, a commitment had been made.

What the South fought for was their ill perceived belief in their "right" to profit off of the sweat of another mans brow, as well as the other ill perceived belief that they could "own" another human being and treat them like chattel.

As for the proclamation, he sat on it for months, awaiting a decisive Union victory, which he got at Antietam. Up til then, the war wasn't going well, which is why he sat on it. Too bad McClellan didn't go after Lee, he blew it, letting him escape.

You call it desperation, I call it smart. Timing is everything ya know...:laugh:Lincoln believed that destroying a Nation was justified so long as it held together on paper. The VERY SAME geographical divides exist today as did then. Changing the names doesn't change the facts.

It is regrettable that a REALLY small minority of Southerners got to speak for the South. The rich ones. The ones that could afford slaves. The rest of the South was fighting to keep DC and yankees from dictating how we live down here from up there.

The North wanted to force the South to sell their goods to the North at lower than market prices. The South wanted to sell in Europe where they made money. Slavery was just an excuse, as there always is one for one side of a disputer to force its will on the other.

If I join a gym freely, am I required to stay for life simply because its the owners' beliefs I should but no legal documentation supports it? It would be laughed out of court. There also is some wording about mutual benefit? When that no longer exists, neither do the original parameters of the deal.

When Jackson appeared McClellan would have had his ass kicked had he pursued Lee. He didn't actually win anything. He just managed to not lose. Lincoln was definitely desperate to claim victory and free slaves he had no power to free at the time. Then he fired McClellan. Again.:laugh:

Again I will point out, calling something by a label is wonderful. When you practice slavery yet come up with a different label it is no less what it is ... slavery. Telling me I have "Rights" that exist on paper but not in practice unless I can afford them means to me we have evolved little during our existence as a Nation. Remember, the Nation was founded by rich people for rich people because they didn't want to pay their taxes.

Black Diamond
07-07-2017, 10:53 PM
Lincoln believed that destroying a Nation was justified so long as it held together on paper. The VERY SAME geographical divides exist today as did then. Changing the names doesn't change the facts.

It is regrettable that a REALLY small minority of Southerners got to speak for the South. The rich ones. The ones that could afford slaves. The rest of the South was fighting to keep DC and yankees from dictating how we live down here from up there.

The North wanted to force the South to sell their goods to the North at lower than market prices. The South wanted to sell in Europe where they made money. Slavery was just an excuse, as there always is one for one side of a disputer to force its will on the other.

If I join a gym freely, am I required to stay for life simply because its the owners' beliefs I should but no legal documentation supports it? It would be laughed out of court. There also is some wording about mutual benefit? When that no longer exists, neither do the original parameters of the deal.

When Jackson appeared McClellan would have had his ass kicked had he pursued Lee. He didn't actually win anything. He just managed to not lose. Lincoln was definitely desperate to claim victory and free slaves he had no power to free at the time. Then he fired McClellan. Again.:laugh:

Again I will point out, calling something by a label is wonderful. When you practice slavery yet come up with a different label it is no less what it is ... slavery. Telling me I have "Rights" that exist on paper but not in practice unless I can afford them means to me we have evolved little during our existence as a Nation. Remember, the Nation was founded by rich people for rich people because they didn't want to pay their taxes.
Except it's amazing to me that Virginia is blue.

revelarts
07-08-2017, 11:27 AM
you guys problem here is that you're creating a STRAWMAN. by only looking a PART of the situation and framing the narative to fit your ... whatever picture that makes you fell better or something.


it takes 2 to tangle. all your comments talk about "the north, the north, Lincoln, the north..."

The History I learned ALSO mentioned the SOUTH and It's Motives for LEAVING the Union. which was SLAVERY.
they didn't leave the union because of TARIFFS, they left BECAUSE they FEARED the north would change/END Slavery. It'd been an issue for 100 years. most of the session docs explicitly state slavery as the reason. the Confederate president stated it as the reason. Southern Senators leaving the Congress stated it as the reason. southern newspapers stated it as the reason. southern soldiers in letters state it as the reason. the slavery clauses are the ONLY major difference in the Confederate constitution from the U.S. Constitution.
Lincoln's Republican party was formed by ABOLITIONIST. So the the south decided to LEAVE. Lincoln wanted to appease the South by any means, but the south would not have it or believe it. Lincoln's main goal was to "Save the Union" the south's main goal was to "Save Slavery". the goals were at cross purposes. The Northern abolitionist used it as a political wedge as Lincoln did eventually.


if you look at a history of say... a concrete company with 2 owners. Mr Red wants to continue to use Sand from China and Mr Green sorta doesn't. But BECAUSE Mr Red in fears that the Sand from China will be stopped he decides to split the biz. But Mr. Blue doesn't want to. He Goes go to court to keep the biz one unit and wins. And by winning also all the Sand from China portion of the biz is ended.
WHAT Caused the Court battle?

you just don't look at ONE side and say well the Br Blue never really had that much a problem with Sand from China ANYway so Sand from China was NOT the real reason for the court case.
that's dishonest.

the sand from China was what caused the rift. no rift, no court.

Anyone that says Lincoln was Saint is a Lair.
Anyone that says the Slavery was just a Side Show or a 2ndry component is a Liar.

there are no angels in Northern or Southern politics here, Except maybe some of the abolitionist that from the beginning want to end slavery in the U.S..

Slavery was/is a horrific thing and people of good conscious should have ended it and not tried to keep it for ANY reason. It wasn't benign in any form in the U.S.. And the Civil War IS what finally ended it.

If you want to say that Lincoln was a scumbag of a politician and that some in the north had slaves and many whites in the North didn't care AT ALL about slavery. YES, you're EXACTLY right. But don't leave out that the politicians and slave owners in the South were WORSE on the issue.
ONLY the abolitionist of the north and south have clean hands on the issue.
The war brought it to head and Northern politicians were free to move in the right direction without trying to compromise with southern politicians wishes. But only compromise with the minority of the north that still embraced the practice. But by the end of the War ALL were freed... by northern soldiers and northern politicians.

Black Diamond
07-08-2017, 01:41 PM
Southern cotton 1860 = Saudi oil 2000.

Black Diamond
07-08-2017, 01:56 PM
North south rivalry runs deeper than slavery.

Neo
07-08-2017, 06:04 PM
Lincoln believed that destroying a Nation was justified so long as it held together on paper. The VERY SAME geographical divides exist today as did then. Changing the names doesn't change the facts.

It is regrettable that a REALLY small minority of Southerners got to speak for the South. The rich ones. The ones that could afford slaves. The rest of the South was fighting to keep DC and yankees from dictating how we live down here from up there.

The North wanted to force the South to sell their goods to the North at lower than market prices. The South wanted to sell in Europe where they made money. Slavery was just an excuse, as there always is one for one side of a disputer to force its will on the other.

If I join a gym freely, am I required to stay for life simply because its the owners' beliefs I should but no legal documentation supports it? It would be laughed out of court. There also is some wording about mutual benefit? When that no longer exists, neither do the original parameters of the deal.

When Jackson appeared McClellan would have had his ass kicked had he pursued Lee. He didn't actually win anything. He just managed to not lose. Lincoln was definitely desperate to claim victory and free slaves he had no power to free at the time. Then he fired McClellan. Again.:laugh:

Again I will point out, calling something by a label is wonderful. When you practice slavery yet come up with a different label it is no less what it is ... slavery. Telling me I have "Rights" that exist on paper but not in practice unless I can afford them means to me we have evolved little during our existence as a Nation. Remember, the Nation was founded by rich people for rich people because they didn't want to pay their taxes.

Again, with all due respect, Lincoln did not think it was ok to destroy a nation, that's bunk. In his speech's and actions, he preached preservation of the Union. The Army consisted of approximately 14,000 enlisted & Officers, hardly an invasion force. He didn't demand the South give up her slaves, just that she not attempt to spread that vile institution west.

Free market forces establish market prices on goods, basic Eco 101. The tariffs Rev mentions do not make products less expensive, just the opposite as it's the consumer who pays it, not the vendor/manufacturer. As such, just how exactly could the North compel the South to sell their products cheaper to the North?

Your example about a gym membership is apples & oranges as the Constitution isn't a membership to a private enterprise & I've yet to see one in my lifetime sans clauses that terminate the deal for both sides. Don't pay your dues, see ya. Don't maintain the gym properly, see ya.

The Founders may have been wealthy, but that is no sin. I've never gotten a job from a poor person, and I highly doubt poor men, uneducated men, could have pulled it off. They (Founders & businessmen) had no problems paying taxes, their issues were regarding taxation without representation.

As for McClellan, he was a horrible Field Officer, in my view a coward of the 1st order. Jackson would have beat him like an old rug, no doubt.

Finally, I'm not sure exactly what you mean in your last paragraph. If you mean the right to succeed, it didn't exist on paper then or now. The Feds never violated Article 4, never invaded, never took an aggressive action prior to April 12, 1861.

Neo
07-08-2017, 06:19 PM
you guys problem here is that you're creating a STRAWMAN. by only looking a PART of the situation and framing the narative to fit your ... whatever picture that makes you fell better or something.


it takes 2 to tangle. all your comments talk about "the north, the north, Lincoln, the north..."

The History I learned ALSO mentioned the SOUTH and It's Motives for LEAVING the Union. which was SLAVERY.
they didn't leave the union because of TARIFFS, they left BECAUSE they FEARED the north would change/END Slavery. It'd been an issue for 100 years. most of the session docs explicitly state slavery as the reason. the Confederate president stated it as the reason. Southern Senators leaving the Congress stated it as the reason. southern newspapers stated it as the reason. southern soldiers in letters state it as the reason. the slavery clauses are the ONLY major difference in the Confederate constitution from the U.S. Constitution.
Lincoln's Republican party was formed by ABOLITIONIST. So the the south decided to LEAVE. Lincoln wanted to appease the South by any means, but the south would not have it or believe it. Lincoln's main goal was to "Save the Union" the south's main goal was to "Save Slavery". the goals were at cross purposes. The Northern abolitionist used it as a political wedge as Lincoln did eventually.


if you look at a history of say... a concrete company with 2 owners. Mr Red wants to continue to use Sand from China and Mr Green sorta doesn't. But BECAUSE Mr Red in fears that the Sand from China will be stopped he decides to split the biz. But Mr. Blue doesn't want to. He Goes go to court to keep the biz one unit and wins. And by winning also all the Sand from China portion of the biz is ended.
WHAT Caused the Court battle?

you just don't look at ONE side and say well the Br Blue never really had that much a problem with Sand from China ANYway so Sand from China was NOT the real reason for the court case.
that's dishonest.

the sand from China was what caused the rift. no rift, no court.

Anyone that says Lincoln was Saint is a Lair.
Anyone that says the Slavery was just a Side Show or a 2ndry component is a Liar.

there are no angels in Northern or Southern politics here, Except maybe some of the abolitionist that from the beginning want to end slavery in the U.S..

Slavery was/is a horrific thing and people of good conscious should have ended it and not tried to keep it for ANY reason. It wasn't benign in any form in the U.S.. And the Civil War IS what finally ended it.

If you want to say that Lincoln was a scumbag of a politician and that some in the north had slaves and many whites in the North didn't care AT ALL about slavery. YES, you're EXACTLY right. But don't leave out that the politicians and slave owners in the South were WORSE on the issue.
ONLY the abolitionist of the north and south have clean hands on the issue.
The war brought it to head and Northern politicians were free to move in the right direction without trying to compromise with southern politicians wishes. But only compromise with the minority of the north that still embraced the practice. But by the end of the War ALL were freed... by northern soldiers and northern politicians.

Rev, the bolded sentence is the only thing I can find fault with, I believe that's slanderous.

While I think Lincoln erred in suspending habeas corpus and not going far enough in the Emancipation Proclamation, he certainly wasn't a scumbag. If you read his 2nd Inaugural, it illustrates his compassion, fairness, love of America, & her citizens. His act of forgiveness was a noble & very Christian thing to do.

revelarts
07-08-2017, 06:58 PM
Rev, the bolded sentence is the only thing I can find fault with, I believe that's slanderous.

While I think Lincoln erred in suspending habeas corpus and not going far enough in the Emancipation Proclamation, he certainly wasn't a scumbag. If you read his 2nd Inaugural, it illustrates his compassion, fairness, love of America, & her citizens. His act of forgiveness was a noble & very Christian thing to do.

Slanderous, Possibly, Frankly I agree I wouldn't put him the scumbag category myself for his ..lack of courage of his convictions concerning the slavery issue and putting the preservation of the union above the freedom of millions.

But i'd say he was a what we call today a "PRAGMATIC" politician.
when i use that term it's not a compliment.

Today politicians that are "personally" opposed to legal abortion but think it's "pragmatic" not to push the issue politically. Or think it "Pragmatic" to torture, "Pragmatic" to spy of u.s. citizens without warrents.

but who profess love of America, love of human life, love of the constitution and cry at the raising of the flag.
Are "Good people"

They put on a good show and are appear sincere in their concern for America but are hypocritically Pragmatic to the best of our ideals and are willing to subvert the constitution to assumed larger ends.

Scumbag as an overall description is not nuanced enough.
A Politician with noble intent who helped achieve some good ends but who was hypocritically pragmatic in the pursuit of mixed goals.

Like Jefferson and many founders, Many of America's heroes have very real flaws. All men do.
I've no wish to diminish Lincoln's good qualities but history is not served if we diminish his less than noble acts as well.

It's odd that some here have little love at all for Lincoln, and point out loudly how few in the north cared about slavery.
But don't like it when people quote Fredrick Douglass assessment of Lincoln and the U.S.. when he said basically the SAME thing.

Frederick Douglass Memorial to Lincoln is probably one of the most honest and reverent.

Gunny
07-08-2017, 07:10 PM
you guys problem here is that you're creating a STRAWMAN. by only looking a PART of the situation and framing the narative to fit your ... whatever picture that makes you fell better or something.


it takes 2 to tangle. all your comments talk about "the north, the north, Lincoln, the north..."

The History I learned ALSO mentioned the SOUTH and It's Motives for LEAVING the Union. which was SLAVERY.
they didn't leave the union because of TARIFFS, they left BECAUSE they FEARED the north would change/END Slavery. It'd been an issue for 100 years. most of the session docs explicitly state slavery as the reason. the Confederate president stated it as the reason. Southern Senators leaving the Congress stated it as the reason. southern newspapers stated it as the reason. southern soldiers in letters state it as the reason. the slavery clauses are the ONLY major difference in the Confederate constitution from the U.S. Constitution.
Lincoln's Republican party was formed by ABOLITIONIST. So the the south decided to LEAVE. Lincoln wanted to appease the South by any means, but the south would not have it or believe it. Lincoln's main goal was to "Save the Union" the south's main goal was to "Save Slavery". the goals were at cross purposes. The Northern abolitionist used it as a political wedge as Lincoln did eventually.


if you look at a history of say... a concrete company with 2 owners. Mr Red wants to continue to use Sand from China and Mr Green sorta doesn't. But BECAUSE Mr Red in fears that the Sand from China will be stopped he decides to split the biz. But Mr. Blue doesn't want to. He Goes go to court to keep the biz one unit and wins. And by winning also all the Sand from China portion of the biz is ended.
WHAT Caused the Court battle?

you just don't look at ONE side and say well the Br Blue never really had that much a problem with Sand from China ANYway so Sand from China was NOT the real reason for the court case.
that's dishonest.

the sand from China was what caused the rift. no rift, no court.

Anyone that says Lincoln was Saint is a Lair.
Anyone that says the Slavery was just a Side Show or a 2ndry component is a Liar.

there are no angels in Northern or Southern politics here, Except maybe some of the abolitionist that from the beginning want to end slavery in the U.S..

Slavery was/is a horrific thing and people of good conscious should have ended it and not tried to keep it for ANY reason. It wasn't benign in any form in the U.S.. And the Civil War IS what finally ended it.

If you want to say that Lincoln was a scumbag of a politician and that some in the north had slaves and many whites in the North didn't care AT ALL about slavery. YES, you're EXACTLY right. But don't leave out that the politicians and slave owners in the South were WORSE on the issue.
ONLY the abolitionist of the north and south have clean hands on the issue.
The war brought it to head and Northern politicians were free to move in the right direction without trying to compromise with southern politicians wishes. But only compromise with the minority of the north that still embraced the practice. But by the end of the War ALL were freed... by northern soldiers and northern politicians.Wrong. As usual. Slavery itself is the strawman used by the Union/the North/Lincoln to vilify the South. Few people really cared; which, is the topic. Not your moral outlook on it.

You're also typical of those who judge the actions of people from a different time and set of beliefs by today's. By today's beliefs, ESPECIALLY YOURS, the US wouldn't exist to begin with. You have talked yourself into getting your ass kicked off the continent and having to swim back to Europe.

revelarts
07-08-2017, 09:17 PM
....
.....

Frederick Douglass Memorial to Lincoln is probably one of the most honest and reverent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3j7iYTmq6Q

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/

Gunny
07-08-2017, 09:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3j7iYTmq6Q

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/Nice. To the man who state he would have allowed slavery to exist where it was to circumvent then stop the war.

You need to get with yourself on this, rev. You consider the man that violated the Constitution more than anyone up to his time, and many since to be some moral beacon; yet, call yourself a Constitutionalist. Shit or get off the pot.

revelarts
07-08-2017, 10:14 PM
Nice. To the man who state he would have allowed slavery to exist where it was to circumvent then stop the war.

You need to get with yourself on this, rev. You consider the man that violated the Constitution more than anyone up to his time, and many since to be some moral beacon; yet, call yourself a Constitutionalist. Shit or get off the pot.

Did you even listen to or read the speech?
Did you even read what I said?

Gunny
07-08-2017, 10:45 PM
Did you even listen to or read the speech?
Did you even read what I said?

Do I ever read your novellas? You're off topic. No one was discussing the right or wrong of slavery. It's a separate issue and hardly a topic exclusive to the US, Lincoln, Douglas nor anyone else. Slavery exists and always has regardless what you and Frederick Douglas think.

The issue is the reaction by poor whites, specifically in border states. The sentiment you hold was not a popular one. It an excuse to take by force of arms what the US couldn't get by bullying.

You apparently haven't read what I posted. Poor whites in tenements working in slave shops were no less slaves because someone labelled them otherwise. Try to stay on the topic for once.

revelarts
07-09-2017, 10:44 AM
Do I ever read your novellas? You're off topic. No one was discussing the right or wrong of slavery. It's a separate issue and hardly a topic exclusive to the US, Lincoln, Douglas nor anyone else. Slavery exists and always has regardless what you and Frederick Douglas think.

The issue is the reaction by poor whites, specifically in border states. The sentiment you hold was not a popular one. It an excuse to take by force of arms what the US couldn't get by bullying.

You apparently haven't read what I posted. Poor whites in tenements working in slave shops were no less slaves because someone labelled them otherwise. Try to stay on the topic for once.

SO you didn't read my post and it looks like you didn't even read the 1st post of the thread which is about Lincoln, Kentucky, Slavery, Mentions the reasons for the Civil War, AND has NOTHING to do with "the reaction of POOR WHITES".

Maybe that's where YOU wanted to take it but don't pretend that's what the Thread's 'ABOUT" and claim others are off topic.

find your reading glasses G.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png Lincoln "Unfreed " Slaves In Kentucky?


I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....
Thoughts?
Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp
Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation....

revelarts
07-09-2017, 10:54 AM
Concerning a poor white being JUST as Bad as being a slave.
well that's BS.
1st of all let's establish what i'm not saying. Being a poor white was NOT a PICNIC. it was CRAP.
But being a slave was Crap on fire with gasoline.

1st of all. slaves had ZERO rights to their own bodies Gunny. ZERO.
the masters could and DID sell, beat, starve, rape, arrange rape, torture, maim, and kill a slave at ANY time with ZERO consequence.

Poor whites had all the rights of being a FREE WHITE man, It may not have worked out as well in practice as for middle-class or wealthy whites but it was A H3LL of a lot better than being a slave.

It's weird to me that some people want to minimize the CRAP storm that American slavery was.

But if everytime someone mentions U.S. Slavery you want to mention Poor whites during the same era.
How about mentioning poor free/escaped Blacks too Gunny. Were they as bad off as poor whites?
AT LEAST.

being a POOR FREE black man in America pre-1865 had to be CRAP.
but even as bad as it was to be a poor free black man do you know what those FREE poor black men DIDN'T want. They didn't want to be SLAVES.

At least let that sink in before you start saying that being a poor white was JUST as bad.

Neo
07-09-2017, 08:23 PM
SO you didn't read my post and it looks like you didn't even read the 1st post of the thread which is about Lincoln, Kentucky, Slavery, Mentions the reasons for the Civil War, AND has NOTHING to do with "the reaction of POOR WHITES".

Maybe that's where YOU wanted to take it but don't pretend that's what the Thread's 'ABOUT" and claim others are off topic.

find your reading glasses G.

"Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation...."

Gunny, this indicates that many people did oppose slavery, but they did view the Negro as a 2nd class citizen by opposing emancipation. A distinction with just a tad bit of difference.

As for using slavery as an excuse, that's false. Time and time again, Lincoln attempted to tell the South that he would not seek to end it there, only to halt its spread westward. That is hardly bullying and I fail to see where bullying tactics were ever employed. If anything, slavery was the banner that the rebels carried and the bullying, via threats and action, was on them.

Btw....poor whites in urban cities or farms being in the same boat as the the slaves is a reach as an argument IMHO.

Lets just compare a few things:

Right to own property? Poor White Man (PWM) = Yes - Slave = No

Right to bear arms? PWM = Yes - Slave = No

Right of free movement ? PWM = Yes - Slave = No

Right to lawfully marry? PWM = Yes - Slave = No

In fact, one could go down the Bill of Rights and while they applied to ALL whites, none applied to a slave.

Nothing personal here, but Rev does have a point there, the two situations are not close to being the same.