If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[Sundance508]

Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America. And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.

Economics of Slavery

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal but it also exists in many other countries illegally.

 

[Sundance508]

by Amy M. Wrobel
[email protected]

This is not written to offend anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs, but I can assure you that if you were taught and believe the "Northern ways of life" that this will, for lack of better terms, piss you off. I will warn you now I am a very intellectual individual and if you try to contradict me I can throw a book of solid facts at you. I am going to speak about the black Confederates. Yes, they existed and there were over 65,000 of them, both slave and free. What the war was really about, and both the point of view of Confederate Generals and Union Generals on the act of slavery. I will also touch on how blacks were treated both before and after the war and how the white population is being treated now as a minority.

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

< Mod Edit -- Shortened for "Fair Use" Sundance508

I will not deny that most slaves were treated poorly. I feel pity for those who had to endure lashes for not doing their "masters bidding". But as I said before, Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves. During the 17th century Native Americans (My Ancestors) were enslaved by colonists on a common basis. But just because Southern whites owned slaves it is now taken out on the white population today. My family never once owned a slave and a select few of my ancestors fought beside them in the Civil War. My Aunt Evelynn is a Southern black woman whom I love dearly. As well as friends of both my husband and myself who are colored. I do not agree with slavery on any point. There were free blacks whom owned slaves and a large majority of northerners owned slaves.

< Mod Edit -- Shortened for "Fair Use" Sundance508

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written off by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war." Confederate General Patrick R. Cleburne 1864

CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The Civil war was NOT over slavery

 

[Slash]

Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America. And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.

Economics of Slavery

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal but it also exists in many other countries illegally.

The Civil war solved nothing huh? All them N!ggers would be just as well off with the white man as their master for generations huh? How many slaves freed? Only a really sick racist individual would think that stopping the perpetuation and spread of slavery in the United States and freeing 4 million slaves amounted to... Nothing? really? Tired of letting that racism lay low huh, it kinda pops it's head out pretty blatantly when you aren't looking doesn't it?

Based on your website you link there, that would be like freeing half of the existing slaves in the world today. Same percentage of the worlds population. But you think that is... NOTHING.

I don't know how people get this kind of sick mentality, but I'm glad we no longer let them control the world anymore and have shoved them down to anonymous internet trolls. That's one dying breed that we sure won't miss.

 

[Slash]

by Amy M. Wrobel
[email protected]

This is not written to offend anyone who doesn't share my same beliefs, but I can assure you that if you were taught and believe the "Northern ways of life" that this will, for lack of better terms, piss you off. I will warn you now I am a very intellectual individual and if you try to contradict me I can throw a book of solid facts at you. I am going to speak about the black Confederates. Yes, they existed and there were over 65,000 of them, both slave and free. What the war was really about, and both the point of view of Confederate Generals and Union Generals on the act of slavery. I will also touch on how blacks were treated both before and after the war and how the white population is being treated now as a minority.

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

John Parker, a former slave, recorded that many colored Confederate soldiers were killed in action. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen who saw action at the 1st Battle of Bull Run. There were also two black regiments, one free and one slave, who participated in the same battle on behalf of the South. One black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer by the name of James Washington. One was in Company D, 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army and became 3rd Sergeant. There were also higher ranking commissioned black Confederates. James Russell was a free 'man of color' and the cook for Company C, 24th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. Unfortunately, he was killed in action at Missionary Ridge on November 25th, 1863. Private Louis Napoleon Nelson was also a free man of color and served time in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry under General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He fought at Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Brice's Crossing, and Vicksburg and survived the war.

General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage." As I said before, these two men both owned slaves, and did not want to free them. I honestly do not see how so many "politically correct" people can stand there and say the "North was right."

Confederate General Robert E. Lee, however, saw the world of slavery from a different view. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery is an institution of a moral and political evil" In 1858. In 1866 he also made a statement that "All the south ever desired was that the union, as established by our forefathers, be preserved; and that the Government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." It wasn't a far fetched idea yet the people in this country then and still today are yet to grasp hold of something like morals, purity, or truth. But I guess that's where Confederate States President Jefferson Davis comes in with "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."

I will not deny that most slaves were treated poorly. I feel pity for those who had to endure lashes for not doing their "masters bidding". But as I said before, Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves. During the 17th century Native Americans (My Ancestors) were enslaved by colonists on a common basis. But just because Southern whites owned slaves it is now taken out on the white population today. My family never once owned a slave and a select few of my ancestors fought beside them in the Civil War. My Aunt Evelynn is a Southern black woman whom I love dearly. As well as friends of both my husband and myself who are colored. I do not agree with slavery on any point. There were free blacks whom owned slaves and a large majority of northerners owned slaves.

Now because of slavery over 150 years ago, whites are being treated like dirt. It is almost like the mentality of a kid I knew in school who told me once that since I'm white that my family owned slaves and I should owe him everything I own. That's not the mentality of a country that should be living together in harmony. You never see the ones who are pissed at the white population for crimes committed 150 plus years ago ever leaving to go live in Africa. If you are going to hold every white person accountable for the acts of whites AND blacks more than a lifetime ago, then go to Africa and hold them accountable as well. Until then, learn the facts before you speak. If you speak intellectually I will gladly listen to and respect you, otherwise I will blow you off as another ignorant individual who couldn't pay attention to true history to save your life.

If you would like the sources from which I found all this information, message me and I will gladly send it to you. I applaud those who actually will look up the correct history on their own.

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written off by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war." Confederate General Patrick R. Cleburne 1864

CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The Civil war was NOT over slavery

Kinda funny you try and say Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. Remind me what his party was founded on? Remind me what his opponents claimed he was? Remind me what other leaders claimed he was? Remind me what one of the first things he did in office was (Free'd the slaves in DC). Remind me what was one of the largest arguable misuses of presidential power was (emancipation). Remind me the ONLY President to ever sign an amendment was.... (Lincoln on the 13th).

Personally I've always believed actions speak louder than words, especially words on the campaign trail.

I've already given you why Lincoln didn't want his abolitionist leanings to be the known cause of war. 2 reasons. Getting votes in middle states. Those speeches and campaigns were basically the opponents claiming he was going to start a war of abolitionism, and him trying to seem moderate. And of course waking up the next day losing the USA to an enemy is a pretty strong detractor isn't it? The two states around DC were slave states that had yet to secede. Telling them the war was over slavery at the begining would have ensured their secession and the fall of Washington DC.

And you have a nice Lee quote there don't you. Why didn't you keep going on it? Was it because when he starts going into the "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race," bit it kind of loses that myth that he was a kind man.

Maybe it was more based in the fact that Lee was known as a particularly brutal slave owner. Who would even break up families of slaves which was something pretty rare due to the absolute terror it caused the families. Maybe it was because even though his father in law's will called for his slaves to be freed, he kept them, nearly causing a revolt until a court judgement finally forced him to let them go. But yeah, lets parse down a little bit of that quote and think that's who he was instead. Because why read history when we can just pick and choose the little pieces we want to hear, and then try and burn the rest we disagree with.

Kinda funny on the Grant quote how quickly his statement changed when he was no longer fighting to keep Washington DC from falling between two seceding states. Remind me what he said soon after why they fought.. ""Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," Hmmm, and then again "as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

He also said "There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."

You are going to need to burn a LOT of books to erase that history. You are going to need a LOT of white out. Just because you choose which quotes to parse and use, doesn't mean the others fail to exist. That's called context. Ask ANYONE how important it is to understanding history and it's the KEY part. And you for some reason want to ignore it. Care to tell me why the context is something you wish erased?

That's what sickens me. These racist jackasses who would rather burn and twist America's history to suit their beliefs than just read it.

 

[Sundance508]

Slavery is alive and well and arises when economics demands it....we are well on our way to that point....if the elitist establishment forces prevail we will see a new form of slavery arise in America. And of course..........as has been shown it exists even in the old form in many areas of the world as we speak...so the civil war solved nothing....the issues that were the basis for that struggle are still with us.

Economics of Slavery

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal but it also exists in many other countries illegally.

The Civil war solved nothing huh? All them N!ggers would be just as well off with the white man as their master for generations huh? How many slaves freed? Only a really sick racist individual would think that stopping the perpetuation and spread of slavery in the United States and freeing 4 million slaves amounted to... Nothing? really? Tired of letting that racism lay low huh, it kinda pops it's head out pretty blatantly when you aren't looking doesn't it?

Based on your website you link there, that would be like freeing half of the existing slaves in the world today. Same percentage of the worlds population. But you think that is... NOTHING.

I don't know how people get this kind of sick mentality, but I'm glad we no longer let them control the world anymore and have shoved them down to anonymous internet trolls. That's one dying breed that we sure won't miss.

What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment? There were no food stamps in those days. There was no welfare dept. in those days. So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?

 

[Slash]

The "he only freed slaves in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation" bit is equally retarded.

In the United States we elect a president. He is not our King. He does not write laws. He is in what we call the EXECUTIVE branch. Meaning he executes laws that the LEGISLATIVE branch writes.

So saying he didn't free slaves in the middle states that didn't revolt is like saying Trump likes Obamacare since he didn't repeal it. Not in his power.
Lincoln though decided that states in open rebellion were not protected by the Constitution. Therefore he didn't need legislation and could just have an executive order that freed their slaves.

After the war, he realized that wouldn't stand up in court, especially with those states no longer in rebellion. So he went all in, dirty politics and all pushing congress to pass the 13th amendment. He fought so hard for it, that when it was passed, Congress brought him in to sign the Amendment. Still the only Amendment to ever have the signature of a President on it.


But hey, if we ignore context and try to rewrite history we can tell your side of the story. lol

 

[Sundance508]

True and comprehensive emancipation came in 1865 with passage of the 13th Amendment. Union troops went to many plantations and had the slave owners tell the slaves that they were just as free as they, the owners, were. There was often rejoicing at first, but as Booker T. Washington noted, after the initial joy, many slaves worried about what they would do. If they had good masters, many stayed on the plantation, continued to work and received the food, clothing, shelter and healthcare they were provided as slaves. Some masters did not tell their slaves they were free, and this was not all bad for the slaves. Many slaves wanted to leave their plantations to prove they were free, but then found the same work at neighboring plantations.

 

[Sundance508]

The "he only freed slaves in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation" bit is equally retarded.

In the United States we elect a president. He is not our King. He does not write laws. He is in what we call the EXECUTIVE branch. Meaning he executes laws that the LEGISLATIVE branch writes.

So saying he didn't free slaves in the middle states that didn't revolt is like saying Trump likes Obamacare since he didn't repeal it. Not in his power.
Lincoln though decided that states in open rebellion were not protected by the Constitution. Therefore he didn't need legislation and could just have an executive order that freed their slaves.

After the war, he realized that wouldn't stand up in court, especially with those states no longer in rebellion. So he went all in, dirty politics and all pushing congress to pass the 13th amendment. He fought so hard for it, that when it was passed, Congress brought him in to sign the Amendment. Still the only Amendment to ever have the signature of a President on it.


But hey, if we ignore context and try to rewrite history we can tell your side of the story. lol

The official end of slavery in the United States happened in stages.

State laws in Northern states had begun the process in the late 18th century.

In April 1862 the U.S. Congress passed & Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in Washington D.C.

But the first great national step came with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared free all persons held as slaves in areas then in rebellion against the United States, and authorized the armed forces to enforce it.

Meanwhile, several of the border slave-states still in the Union passed their own laws to end slavery.

Finally, the full legal end of slavery throughout the nation was established with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment - recommended by Congress in January 1865, completing the state-ratification process n December of that year.

 

[Slash]

What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment? There were no food stamps in those days. There was no welfare dept. in those days. So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?

They were FREED! Can you believe that! For years they weren't even people. Now, when they had a kid, that kid didn't belong to master and could be sold off. It was their baby. No longer had to have sex with master to stay alive. Many moved North for work. Many West to the new Frontier. Many found their families that they had been ripped apart from when sold off to others. And for all of those, no longer were they living in a government that would kill them for moving!

Many continued working in the same line of work as wage laborers for their former owners too. Without the slave laws that prevented them from reading, many began to get educations. And gradually life continued to improve for them. Along came Civil Rights. And we started booting those racist fucks out of our government.

Yeah it was tough, the white nationals weren't the pussy version of today, and would lynch and murder and make it as hard for them as possible. Pass laws to keep them down. But their lives were immensurably better because they were people for once, and they had a say in what their life would be.

 

[Slash]

The official end of slavery in the United States happened in stages.

State laws in Northern states had begun the process in the late 18th century.

In April 1862 the U.S. Congress passed & Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in Washington D.C.

But the first great national step came with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect on January 1, 1863. It declared free all persons held as slaves in areas then in rebellion against the United States, and authorized the armed forces to enforce it.

Meanwhile, several of the border slave-states still in the Union passed their own laws to end slavery.

Finally, the full legal end of slavery throughout the nation was established with the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment - recommended by Congress in January 1865, completing the state-ratification process n December of that year.

Exactly. The first national steps to freeing the slaves, or abolishing slavery, by Lincoln. The Abolitionist by action.

And feel free to read up on Lincoln and his cabinet and how they fought members of congress on passing the 13th. Pretty amazing read. Plenty of people call Lincoln the president who had the dirtiest politics and overstepped his powers the most. And both of those were in his fight against slavery. Which makes it kinda retarded when you hear someone say "well on this campaign speech he said"...

Actions are what matter in your life. If you say "I respect women" then rape 20 women, I don't think you respect women. But that's how these "Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist" people talk.... Well he said it so that is all that matters...

 

[Sundance508]

Less than 200,000 were freed by Abraham Lincoln after the victory of the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln didn't have permission to effect slavery in some southern states.

Updated: It's actually a lot worse than this.

The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return.

There was also some thinking that advancing Union armies would be able to arm freed slaves and turn them against their former masters. This executive order did free about 20,000 slaves in Union occupied Confederate states, many of whom were drafted in to the Union army.

While is it factual the Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States.

The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).

 

[Sundance508]

Henry Louis Gates Jr.

How many Africans were taken to the United States during the entire history of the slave trade?


Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about us, right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as African-American exceptionalism. (In other words, if it's in "the black Experience," it's got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again.

The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.


In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans. And I, for one, find this amazing.

By the way, how did historian Joel A. Rogers—writer of the 1934 book 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof, and to whom this series is an homage—do on this question? Well, incredibly, in his "Amazing Fact #30," Rogers says, "About 12,000,000 Negroes were brought to the New World!" Not even W.E.B. Du Bois got this close to the most accurate count of the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic in the slave trade.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and founding director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. He is also editor-in-chief of The Root. Follow him on Twitter andFacebook.

 

[Sundance508]

What do you think happened to all those Negroes that were freed by the l3th amendment? There were no food stamps in those days. There was no welfare dept. in those days. So what do you think happened to all those former slaves after the war was over?

They were FREED! Can you believe that! For years they weren't even people. Now, when they had a kid, that kid didn't belong to master and could be sold off. It was their baby. No longer had to have sex with master to stay alive. Many moved North for work. Many West to the new Frontier. Many found their families that they had been ripped apart from when sold off to others. And for all of those, no longer were they living in a government that would kill them for moving!

Many continued working in the same line of work as wage laborers for their former owners too. Without the slave laws that prevented them from reading, many began to get educations. And gradually life continued to improve for them. Along came Civil Rights. And we started booting those racist fucks out of our government.

Yeah it was tough, the white nationals weren't the pussy version of today, and would lynch and murder and make it as hard for them as possible. Pass laws to keep them down. But their lives were immensurably better because they were people for once, and they had a say in what their life would be.

A man with a empty stomach is not free to begin with. Now one must understand that most of the freed negroes had no money....thus they could not afford to go very far...not much farther than their feet would carry them in a day or two...thus out of necessity they had to go back to doing the same kind of work they did before and if not for their former mastahs...one not too far away. The great Black Migration to the North did not happen until the WWII era. A few did manage to get out West but a very small percentage.

Great Migration - Black History - HISTORY.com

 

[Slash]

Less than 200,000 were freed by Abraham Lincoln after the victory of the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln didn't have permission to effect slavery in some southern states.

Updated: It's actually a lot worse than this.

The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return.

There was also some thinking that advancing Union armies would be able to arm freed slaves and turn them against their former masters. This executive order did free about 20,000 slaves in Union occupied Confederate states, many of whom were drafted in to the Union army.

While is it factual the Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States.

The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).

And that's where we have to rewrite history that "oh it was just a political move". It was one that didn't earn him any supporters outside of his own party, but hey, what does that matter. 3 million slaves legal status changed that day and stayed changed. The 13th amendment protected his proclamation (and freed that final 41,000 or so slaves still in the US). What it really did is backed his proclamation with an amendment that would stand up if someone challenged it in court.

And Lincoln didn't "allow" slavery in the non-seceding states anymore than Trump has allowed Obamacare to exist. It was outside of his powers plain and simple. We try and give him these KING type powers and say "well he didn't change that" when that's not how our government even works.

And just read about his re-election campaign. It's #1 goal was pushing that 13th amendment. That's what he rode on. And he took over with a lame duck congress. One wanting to sit back and win their next election before doing anything. And he pushed through one of the most controversial amendments on a lame duck congress.

And slavery may have continued one more generation. Or two... or ten. The thing is, no one knows. I mean what is the entirety of the US trade deficit based around? Cheap labor. People keep saying "well in a more modern world slave labor would be phased out by machines".. China and Vietnam don't make better machines than the US, they don't pay their employees what we do here.

So there's no more proof that those slaves would be freed within a generation as there is that they would still be slaves today.

 

[Slash]

A man with a empty stomach is not free to begin with. Now one must understand that most of the freed negroes had no money....thus they could not afford to go very far...not much farther than their feet would carry them in a day or two...thus out of necessity they had to go back to doing the same kind of work they did before and if not for their former mastahs...one not too far away. The great Black Migration to the North did not happen until the WWII era. A few did manage to get out West but a very small percentage.

Absolutely they were free. Freedom doesn't mean you get everything handed to you on a silver platter. The first people to come to America from Europe, the pilgrims and initial settlers from the West had it VERY hard here, and were coming for freedoms.

So yes, while it was hard on them, obviously MUCH MUCH MUCH better off as free men than someone else's property with no rights.

And many really did move. According to the US census, in the late 1800's 70% of the blacks in Cincinnatti, and 65% of the blacks in Detroit were southern born. Over half in Chicago as well. I agree that a lot of racist white nationalists were in politics, especially in the South that fought and fought to keep them down.

But if you think for a moment that slavery was a better option, let me ask you. How many blacks ever fought to have the 13th amendment repealed so they could go back to how it was?

 

[Sundance508]

While on vacation last month, I had the opportunity to visit the Slater Mill in Pawtucket, RI. This was the first textile mill in the United States, opened in 1792. The textile mill, as well as the nearby machine shop and the house of one of the owners, have been restored and are open for tours by the public. While the site is not directly Civil War-related, I recommend it to any student of history who wants to visit the area.

During my tour, the point was emphasized over and over how many dangers the mill workers faced and how little concern was shown for their safety. The guys who worked in the machine shop, who faced the most dangerous conditions, were paid $12 per week, which was considered very good, compared to what the people who worked in the textile mill (who also faced numerous threats to their health and safety) were being paid. And if someone got sick or hurt, the company simply hired someone else to take their place.

We were also told that the mill workers lived in company housing, were required to do all their shopping at the company store, and were even obliged to attend worship at a company-approved church.

Technically, these workers were not slaves. But I came away with the impression that the company owned them every bit as securely as the plantation owners owned their slaves.

And these sort of conditions for workers up north existed before and after the War...I am talking about white workers as well as black workers....not technically slaves....but was there any difference? Many informed persons have claimed that white workers up north actually had worse living and working conditions than black slaves did down south.

http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/WhiteSlaves.pdf

 

[Slash]

Technically, these workers were not slaves. But I came away with the impression that the company owned them every bit as securely as the plantation owners owned their slaves.

And these sort of conditions for workers up north existed before and after the War...I am talking about white workers as well as black workers....not technically slaves....but was there any difference? Many informed persons have claimed that white workers up north actually had worse living and working conditions than black slaves did down south.

http://solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/WhiteSlaves.pdf

I see a HUGE difference there. Lets say one of them was working at the mill and had a baby. Would that baby become property of the Mill to decide what to do with it? Would it be forced to abandon any education? Could the mill owner sell that employees baby to another mill owner?

Lets say someone there after working decided to quit. Would they be killed for that decision?

Lets say someone failed to show up for work or did a poor job. For how long could their boss beat them or rape their wife?

Could you castrate or otherwise mutilate workers there for poor performance or leaving the job?

Could those employees vote and run for office?

Were they protected by the Constitution and laws of the US?

They literally had laws in the South that REQUIRED punishments for runaway slaves. The owner HAD to punish them and some said those punishments HAD to be physical.

Life was hard for a lot of people back in the day. But no, life as a slave, as a piece of property rather than a person is not something I'd like.

Norway by EVERY quality of life survey I've seen has a better quality of life than the USA. Doesn't mean if someone from Norway stole my kids and made them their slaves, I would be saying "well at least their quality of life is better".

 

[Sundance508]

Life is always hard for the poor..black,white, free, sharecropper or slave.


The South has long carried the stigma of racism and bigotry The fact that slavery ended abruptly because the South lost the War serves to reinforce this common stereotype. For this reason, most Southerners take little pride in their nation's role in the War Between the States. The only thing they can boast about is how well they fought — but they are not allowed to defend the cause itself. They have been told that they cannot talk of principle or speak of righteousness. The institution of slavery has so blackened the Southern position that nothing about the South can be viewed as good or right. Slavery is considered to be such a wicked practice that it alone is sufficient to answer the question of which side was right in that unfortunate war. The fact that the South practiced slavery is enough to cause many moderns to feel they do not even have to listen to the various biblical and constitutional arguments that swirled around that controversy. Consequently, to have a closed mind on this issue is to be cloaked in virtue. How could men have supported slavery? The question is especially difficult when we consider that these were men who lived in a pervasively Christian culture

We have all heard of the heartlessness — the brutalitites, immoralities, and cruelties — that were supposedly inherent in the system of Southern slavery. We have heard how slave families were broken up, of the forcible rape of slave women, of the brutal beatings, about the horrible living conditions, and of the unrelenting work schedule and back-breaking routine — all of which go together to form our impression of the crushing oppression which was slavery in the South. The truthfulness of this description has seldom been challenged.

The point of this is to establish that this impression is largely false. It is important to note, however, that the impression is not entirely false. The truth is, Southern slavery is open to criticism because it did not follow the biblical pattern at every point.

Slavery was not the “crushing oppression” we think it was but slavery was not all good. The South had a “pervasively Christian culture” and that the impression so many have of the brutality of the south is “largely false.” The South was a truly Christian culture and that slavery in the south was much less brutal and more harmonious than our history books would suggest.

The Abolitionists Were Godless Lying Provocateurs

By the time of the War, the intellectual leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. In contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian. This is not to say there were no Christians in the North, or that no believers fought for the North. It is simply the recognition that the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God as well of the South.

Slavery is sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures but Southern Slavery was not in line with Old Testament Slavery.
An important distinction between Hebrew slavery — i.e. slavery in a nation covenanted with God, with laws received from His hand — and the slavery seen in the pages of the New Testament. In the former, we see how God’s laws govern and regulate the practice of slavery in a nation called by His name. In the latter, we see God’s laws as they teach His people how to live within a culture having ungodly laws concerning slavery. In the Roman Empire the system of slavery was, along with the rest of that culture, in rebellion against the true and living God. In the Hebrew republic — the only permanent slaves were foreigners (Lev. 25:44-46) or Hebrews who voluntarily submitted themselves to a more permanent servile status (Ex. 21:5-6). But in the Greco/Roman world, the system of slavery was pagan from top to bottom, with the slaves having virtually no recognized rights at all. So a vast difference exists between the laws God gave to His covenant people for the regulation of slavery among themselves, and the laws God gave to His covenant people to regulate their conduct in the midst of a pagan system.

Some of the state laws regulating slavery cannot be defended biblically (the laws forbidding the teaching of reading and writing, for example). One cannot defend the abuse some slaves had to endure. None can excuse the immorality some masters and overseers indulged in with some slave women. The separation of families that sometimes occurred was deplorable. These were sad realities in the Southern system. Our purpose here is not to defend any such practices — where and when they occurred.
But the question still needs to be asked, "How widespread were these instances of unbiblical and ungodly treatment on the part of Southern slave holders?" We have condemned such abuses, but were they commonplace or exceptional? Our concern is first to lay out certain biblical principles, and then turn to facts which are seldom addressed in public, though they are not altogether unknown. An accurate representation of the nature of Southern slavery has yet to be widely disseminated. And as a consequence, there has been a great deal of falsehood paraded about in the pretense of truth. The South has been stigmatized and slandered, and generations have been misled over the true nature of the "peculiar institution" and, as a consequence, they have not understood the true nature of the South in general. We must know the truth about slavery. We have no concern to whitewash the sins of the South — or the North, for that matter. To be continued............

 

[Sundance508]

Sin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we have resolved to abandon sin, this must include the sin of believing a lie.
In the mid-seventies, American evangelicals began to wake up to the fact that our culture was beginning to tumble down around our ears. In 1973 the Supreme Court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for the various states to outlaw the dismemberment of the unborn. Men like Francis Schaeffer were used by God to rattle the pervasive evangelical complacency and to make us realize the ramifications of what was occurring — and what was coming. So a significant minority of the evangelical church began to mobilize and plunged into a cultural war for which we were woefully unprepared. All we knew was that they had begun to kill babies. How can they do that? This was America. As the political battle began to take shape, the lack of historical perspective among evangelicals became more and more manifest. This lack of historical understanding was harmful in two ways — and in both ways the integrity of God's Word was attacked. The first was the result of the attempt by evangelicals to portray the pro-life movement as a modern form of abolitionism. We were taught that earlier Christian social "reformers" like Charles Finney were ardent abolitionists, and we pro-lifers were walking in their footsteps. We were taught that Roe v. Wade was comparable to the Dred Scott decision. And so we argued and talked and marched accordingly. The only problem was... it wasn't true. For the sake of a convenient argument against the monstrosity of abortion, we abandoned the clear teaching of the Bible on another subject — how slavery was to be understood. Suppose a man presented himself for membership in your church. Upon inquiring as to what he did for a living, you learned that he was an abortionist. Should he be admitted into membership. Of course not. Now suppose this same church was moved back in time, and a man presented himself for membership along with three of his slaves. Now what do you do? If he is admitted to membership, then it is clear that abortion and slavery are not considered analogous. And if he is refused membership, then what are you going to do when he (his name was Philemon) goes back and tells the apostle Paul what you did to him? It is obvious that in a fallen world, an institution like slavery will be accompanied by many attendant evils. Such evils existed with ancient Hebrew slavery, ancient Roman slavery, and with American slavery. The issue is not whether sinners will sin, but rather how Christians are commanded to respond to such abuses and evils. And nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Ephsians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-5. But we mentioned that the harm was two-fold. The embarrassment of evangelicals over the plain teaching of the Bible can be put to an adept use by those in rebellion against God. Dr. Jerry Falwell was once in a television debate with a liberal Episcopalian bishop. Sad to say, the liberal bishop mauled Dr. Falwell badly regarding sodomy, and Falwell was maintaining the biblical position, and the bishop responded by saying yes, but the Bible allows for slavery. Now what was Falwell going to do on national television? Does he say that the bishop is correct, the Bible does allow for slavery, and that he has no problem with it? We can see the headlines now. Or perhaps he could say that the bishop was wrong — but the good bishop was right. So he did the only thing he could do, which was to hem and haw. One time a man was handing out tracts at a gay and lesbian dance. Those attending the dance did not appear to be pleased, and someone apparently called a liberal Methodist pastor to come and deal with him. He came down, and in the course of the discussion, the Christian said that Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an abomination. The liberal pastor responded by saying yes, but the Old Testament allowed for slavery. The Christian responded by saying yes, it certainly did. "So what's your point?" If those who hate the Word of God can succeed in getting Christians to be embarrassed by any portion of the Word of God, then that portion/will continually be employed as a battering ram against the/godly principles that are currently under attack. In our day, three of the principle issues are abortion, feminism, and sodomy. If we respond to the "embarrassing parts" of Scripture by saying, "That was then, this is now," we will quickly discover that liberals can play that game even more effectively than embarrassed conservatives. Paul prohibited eldership to women? That was then, this is now. Moses condemned sodomy? That was then, this is now. In a certain sense, we are backing into an informed discussion of the War Between the States. You have been told many times that the war was over slavery, but in reality it was over the biblical meaning of constitutional government. The inflammatory issue is slavery, however, and so the real issue is obscured in the minds of many. But is this not curious? The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here..aka... I will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this "inflammatory" position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago. This points to the need for Christians to learn the biblical way of avoiding "problem texts." This is the way of a priori submission. Christians must recognize that they are under the authority of God, and they may not develop their ideas of what is "right" and "fair" apart from the Word of God. And when the Bible is our only standard of right and wrong, problem texts disappear. This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe? To be continued....If I do not get banned or this thread is not buried.

 

[Sundance508]

In the early nineteenth century, the intellectual leadership of the North apostatized from their previous cultural commitment to the Christian faith. The watershed event in this regard the capture of Harvard by the Unitarians in 1805. This cultural apostasy was not nearly as advanced in the South, although there were some signs of it. By the time of the War, the intellectual leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. In contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian. This is not to say there were no Christians in the North, or that no believers fought for the North. It is simply the recognition that the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God as well as of The South.

As an aside, it is interesting to note the revival that took place in the Confederate army during the War. It was so widespread that it has been estimated that (with the possible exception of Cromwell's army) the Confederate Army was the largest body of evangelicals under arms in the history of the world. This of course raises the obvious question — if the South was so "right" and "Christian" as all that, then why did she lose the War? Didn't God know how right the South was? We must reject the childish mentality which seeks to engage in mindless partisanship at the expense of truth. All attempts to say that the North represented nothing good, and that the South contained nothing sinful are examples of this kind of infantilism. R.L. Dabney, a godly man who fought for the South, made the point that the South lost the war because she was under the judgment of God. When northern Israel led the way in rebellion against God, the conservatism of southern Judah did not avoid final apostasy, but simply traveled that path more slowly than Israel to the north. In a similar way, the South had not been entirely free from the various currents of unbelief. Although the South stood for much that was admirable, the biblical principle remains — to whom much is given, much is required. And although the South was correct about the central issues of that War, southern diehards must learn the hard lesson of Habbakuk, who had to accept that God can use an ungodly nation to judge another nation which is "not as bad" (Hab. 1:13). Some Christians balk at having a sympathetic view of the South because they know that racism is evil. This following is a very important point to emphasize. Like abolitionism, all forms of race hatred or racial vainglory are forms of rebellion against God. Such things are to be vigorously opposed because the Word of God opposes them. In brief, God has raised up all nations from one man (Acts 17:26). We are all cousins. And not only are the races connected through God's creation of Adam, we are united (this time in harmony) in the redemption purchased by the Son of God. "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:9-10). We must remember that the leadership of the early church at Antioch contained at least one black man (Acts 13:1). And what happened to Miriam when she opposed the marriage of Moses to a black woman (Num. 12)? As Christians, we regard the gift at Pentecost to be a great reversal of Babel, and we believe that our missionary efforts will result in the elimination of racial hatreds in Christ. Because of a strong popular bigotry against the South, it is necessary for us to assert as strongly as we can that racism and sympathy for the Southern cause are not necessary companions. Rather, when biblically understood, they are antithetical. Because of this, economic death of slavery in our nation would have been hastened had there been more widespread obedience to the Word of God on the part of everyone — abolitionists, slaves, and slave owners. To be continued...............