Oppose gun control? YOU'RE A CONFEDERATE!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The Emancipation Proclamation only covered those states in rebellion at that time.  The Thirteenth Amendment to cover all states what in process before the war ended.  

While Lee surrender on 9 Apr 1865 the last Confederate General did not surrender until 23 Jun 1865.  So slavery was only in effect for ~6months in the northern states for 6 months after the war ended.   

plus the entire length of "the war to end slavery"   that they continued for 6 months after the war much less made the emancipation proclamation exclude their own slaves was just the cherry on top of the hypocritical icing

[TommyGunn]

A good point, but some folks don't understand the context.

Pointing out that he disbanded the Klan isn't supposed to prove that he's MLK, people. It just means that the early NRA (being a Northern-based outfit, led by Union Army officers), was naturally opposed to the early Klan, which was mainly concerned with restoring Democrat Party control in the South.

Even the early Klan had a well established hatred for blacks, irregardless of their democratic leanings.

[MechAg94]

Even the early Klan had a well established hatred for blacks, irregardless of their democratic leanings.

That is likely true, but it was freed slaves that were turning out to vote Republican so they were an obvious target anyway. 

[MechAg94]

IMO, pointing out inconvenient information about famous people is good.  Their is nothing inherently wrong about it.  It is the asshats who condemn heroes who are not perfect that are the idiots.  Nearly every heroic figure you can think of had their bad side or skeletons, just like everyone else. 

[TommyGunn]

That is likely true, but it was freed slaves that were turning out to vote Republican so they were an obvious target anyway. 

Also true.

[Perd Hapley]

Even the early Klan had a well established hatred for blacks, irregardless of their democratic leanings.

So, you thought I was trying to say that the Klan was not racist?   


The point is, people misjudge history, and historical characters, if they just see everything in terms of the racial politics. The Klan was not just about racism. To say that Grant opposed the Klan is not to claim that he was a stalwart of racial equality.

This likewise applies to the issues of slavery and the Civil War.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm saying that if the War Between the States was really the noble effort to end slavery it's portrayed as, the North probably would have ended their own slavery too.

Oh, well I don't think the war was a "noble efffort to end slavery," or at least it didn't start out that way. Of course, some people saw it that way from the beginning. (I once came across something, I think it was an old newspaper from Colorado, in which young men enlisting for the Union Army spoke of wanting to go and fight to end slavery.)

Are you talking about slavery in border states, or was slavery legal in some of the actual Northern states? I don't recall the details on that. I seem to recall that it was practiced in Illinois, despite being outlawed. I'm not sure what Lincoln, or Congress, could have done about that.

[Tallpine]

Don't forget that Father Abraham Jesus Lincoln was an evil Republican 

[TommyGunn]

So, you thought I was trying to say that the Klan was not racist?   


The point is, people misjudge history, and historical characters, if they just see everything in terms of the racial politics. The Klan was not just about racism. To say that Grant opposed the Klan is not to claim that he was a stalwart of racial equality.

This likewise applies to the issues of slavery and the Civil War.

I wasn't saying that at all.
In fact IIRC it was Nathan Bedford Forrest who was the original founder of the KKK.   While he really didn't intend it to be racist or even violent, the fact was it very quickly devolved from what he intended into exactly what it was; an organization intent upon the oppression of the newly freed Black population.
I believe Forrest tried to undue what he'd created but he couldn't get the proverbial toothpaste back into its tube; the deed was done. 
Try not to impute into my posts that which I do not directly state.

[TommyGunn]

Don't forget that Father Abraham Jesus Lincoln was an evil Republican 

Yeah but let's all be thankful he was not a RINO.

[Balog]

Oh, well I don't think the war was a "noble efffort to end slavery," or at least it didn't start out that way. Of course, some people saw it that way from the beginning. (I once came across something, I think it was an old newspaper from Colorado, in which young men enlisting for the Union Army spoke of wanting to go and fight to end slavery.)

Are you talking about slavery in border states, or was slavery legal in some of the actual Northern states? I don't recall the details on that. I seem to recall that it was practiced in Illinois, despite being outlawed. I'm not sure what Lincoln, or Congress, could have done about that.

I believe it was either NY or MA that had the last remaining slave in the Union. And I'm more railing against the revisionist history that misrepresents the root cause of the war. While it may have been "slavery" it wasn't the practice of owning slaves that the North wished to end, but rather the economic power and autonomy that gave to the South.

And since Lincoln was more than happy to use troops against other citizens and suspend the parts of the Constitution he didn't like for "national security" I'd say he was a rather prototypical Republican.

[Perd Hapley]

Try not to impute into my posts that which I do not directly state.

I didn't "directly state" that the Klan was race-neutral, but that seems to be how you were reading it. I was just trying to clear things up. It seems I failed, since I still don't know why you would respond that way.

I believe it was either NY or MA that had the last remaining slave in the Union. And I'm more railing against the revisionist history that misrepresents the root cause of the war. While it may have been "slavery" it wasn't the practice of owning slaves that the North wished to end, but rather the economic power and autonomy that gave to the South.

And since Lincoln was more than happy to use troops against other citizens and suspend the parts of the Constitution he didn't like for "national security" I'd say he was a rather prototypical Republican.

Again, how was Lincoln supposed to have freed slaves living in New York and Massachusetts? And how would Lincoln's abuses of power enter into it?

[TommyGunn]

I didn't "directly state" that the Klan was race-neutral, but that seems to be how you were reading it. I was just trying to clear things up. It seems I failed, since I still don't know why you would respond that way......

   This isn't going to go anywhere.   Forget it.

[Balog]

Again, how was Lincoln supposed to have freed slaves living in New York and Massachusetts? And how would Lincoln's abuses of power enter into it?

If he could start a damned war to end slavery in the south I'm confident he could have figured out a way to end the practice in his own states. If ending slavery was important enough to send federal troops to kill Southerners and shred the Constitution, why wasn't it important enough to do the same to Northerners?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm no expert, but maybe you're overlooking the fact that no Northern states seceded, or tried to remove military installations from Lincoln's control?

Also, I seem to recall that the North had already found a way to end slavery. It was called gradual abolition. The South decided not to end it all.

[Tallpine]

And since Lincoln was more than happy to use troops against other citizens and suspend the parts of the Constitution he didn't like for "national security" I'd say he was a rather prototypical Republican.

Yeah, the spots haven't really changed.  The Republicans only started to look good when the Democrats became Communists 

[Scout26]

If he could start a damned war to end slavery in the south I'm confident he could have figured out a way to end the practice in his own states. If ending slavery was important enough to send federal troops to kill Southerners and shred the Constitution, why wasn't it important enough to do the same to Northerners?

Ummm

1)  Lincoln didn't start the Civil War.  Seven states seceded before he was even inaugurated on 4 March 1861. Even then hostilities didn't start until 12 Apr 1861, when Confederate Forces fired on Ft. Sumter.

2)  The initial objective was to preserve the Union, not free or end slavery.  Freeing slaves (not ending slavery) only became a war goal with the Emancipation Proclamation.  And let's take a look a that document.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.

The ending of slavery, making of freedmen citizens, giving them voting (and other civil) rights only took place with the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

So to say the war was about slavery is to miss the point of the war.  It was in essence over state's rights.   Sadly the state's rights side lost simply because "the hill they staked their flag" (Slavery) on was and is morally repugnant.

[Perd Hapley]

My wife makes cornbread in muffin tins.

Ummm

1)  Lincoln didn't start the Civil War.  Seven states succeeded before he was even inaugurated on 4 March 1861. Even then hostilities didn't start until 12 Apr 1861, when Confederate Forces fired on Ft. Sumter.

Ummmmmmm

"seceded"   

[Tallpine]

to say the war was about slavery is to miss the point of the war.  It was in essence over state's rights.

Tax Rebellion 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so why were the other.9 mill slaves less deserving of freedom?  location?

[Perd Hapley]

so why were the other.9 mill slaves less deserving of freedom?  location?

Which slaves are you talking about, and who said they were less worthy of freedom?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

473626]
Which slaves are you talking about, and who said they were less worthy of freedom?

apparently abe

[/b]It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time.

[Perd Hapley]

apparently abe

[/b]It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time.

1. Not this stuff again.

2. No American president, not even Lincoln, had the sort of dictatorial powers to declare slavery illegal in states not in rebellion. The Proclamation was the act of a military commander, exercising authority over territory reclaimed from the enemy.

3. For Lincoln to try to free the slaves in loyal states would have been terrible strategy, as it would have softened their support for the Union.


This sort of criticism of the Emancipation Proclamation is a symptom of very poor education in our country. Shame on us.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

lincoln was not bound bt the powers he legally had in other areas    so it just wasn't "practical"?

[Tallpine]

He fooled just enough of the people just enough of the time, right up until his last play.