Author Topic: States Rights vs. Slavery  (Read 3943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline doc_kreipke

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Gender: Male
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2007, 12:04:56 PM »
Quote
Now, what evidence do you have that Mrs. Lincoln owned a slave after the Emancipation Proclamation?

Ironfoot, as you probably suspect, the evidence is to the contrary. Frau Lincoln came from a family who owned slaves, but she herself did not. She either did the housework herself or had hired help.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/11/baker.html

In the White House as First Lady, she did have a close friend and confidant named Elizabeth Keckly, a dressmaker who was a freed slave. (Ironically, RE Lee & Jeff Davis' spouses were also former clients of Keckly's.) If Keckly had accompanied Mrs. Lincoln to Richmond, there may have been a misconception that she owned a slave.

Grant didn't have a slave either, for that matter. His father was a staunch abolitionist and had big issues with his son when he married Julia, who did own a slave. Grant freed said slave within a year, even before the Compromise of 1850:

Quote
"They were married at the family’s winter home in St. Louis, but without Ulysses’ parents in attendance. “Grant’s father, the abolitionist, really couldn’t forgive his connection to a slave-holding family. So it was a great source of tension,” says Max Byrd, author of Grant: A Novel. Within the year, Ulysses Grant freed the slave he had acquired through his marriage to Julia."


http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html
-K

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2007, 02:27:45 PM »
slavery has been debated to death !
no one seems to bring up taxes for the other wars the south was paying  or other states rights that had been challenged !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2007, 04:32:03 PM »
slavery has been debated to death !
no one seems to bring up taxes for the other wars the south was paying  or other states rights that had been challenged !

Yes, I agree that slavery has been debated to death.
But that was the main reason for the secession.
It was a Rebellion to Preserve/Expand Slavery.
Sure taxes and tariffs were concerns, but it was when Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform that the South seceded.
When people on this board want to talk about guns, and battle tactics, and generals (yes, the South had some magnificent generals, and other officers, and enlisted men) etc. and stop complaining about a War of Northern Aggression and claim that it wasn't about slavery, then I will stop harping about the fact that it was about slavery.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2007, 01:41:09 AM »
I see most of the backers of the war of northern aggression don't care to admit the cost of the war of 1812 and the war to run the kings army off our land was placed on the South
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline missouri dave

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2007, 02:09:06 AM »
My source is a book of civil war trivia. I've forgotten the title. I'll dig thru my library and find it.
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on; I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2007, 06:46:10 AM »
the bottom line was the South wanted to separate and the north invaded ! If we are free then we should have the right to leave , as a state or individual !
Lincoln chose to go to war and used the slave as an excuse !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline DickelDawg

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Male
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2007, 05:24:38 AM »
After you read as much as you can about "The War" , then sort out all the bias, misinformation, lies, etc., you will find that:

Slavery was an excuse for the war. States rights was the reason!

As in any topic humans undertake, there were MANY different views held by the people during the 1860's.
I believe that States Rights was THE motivating force behind them all!

I fervently wish I could witness what would have been if the South had endured as it was before the "Civil War".
"'Tis a far better place I go to than I've ever been."
"'Tis a far, far better rest I go to than I've ever known."

The older I get....the better I was.

Offline jamesrus

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 137
  • Gender: Male
  • You want my gun? Take it from me then..I'm waiting
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2007, 09:01:45 PM »
Hey Ironfoot, why dont you do a little more research and find out who the Largest Slave Owner in Prewar New Orleans was. It might surprise you.

Jamesrus

Also what Flag flew over ALL the ports into which slaves were brought into this country through?

WHat flags flew over the ships that brought them here? I know...not American, or COnfederate. SOmeone else saw a need to keep the institution of slavery ongoing here.

Jamesrus

Offline jamesrus

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 137
  • Gender: Male
  • You want my gun? Take it from me then..I'm waiting
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2007, 09:34:17 PM »
Hey Iron, heres your hero the segrgationist.

Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes [1]
August 14, 1862


This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 371


by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. E. M. Thomas, the Chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive had to say to them. Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long time been his inclination, to favor that cause; and why, he asked, should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You here are freemen I suppose.

A VOICE: Yes, sir.

The President---Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 372


inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your raceis made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.

But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 373


we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself, and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race---something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.

The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me---the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.

The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.

  Author: Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.
  Title: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5, P. 370-373. 
  Publication date: 1953 


Jamesrus

Offline doc_kreipke

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Gender: Male
Re: States Rights vs. Slavery
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2007, 05:16:04 AM »
It would probably been difficult indeed to find a racial integrationist among 19th century American males in either the North or South. Most, including Lincoln, accepted the notion of Negro inferiority without second thought. Lincoln, like Davis, was a product of his time.

The above text, of course, refers to a dialogue that Lincoln had with contemporary black leaders to discuss voluntary colonization. The rest of the story is that the committee of blacks fervidly asserted their preference of staying in the USA rather than relocating to Liberia. Convinced by the committee's vehemence, Lincoln abandoned his proposal.
-K