Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Mr. President]

I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.

Yes this was my point.

There were many interests behind emancipation. The whole North-South conflict was partly one of competing economic elites, the new industrial/commercial/capitalist elite mostly in the North versus the older planter/slaveowner/quasi-feudal elite almost all in the South. The conflict manifested over tariffs, over government subsidy of industrial development and infrastructure, but most sharply over slavery. The capitalist elite wanted to add slaves to the labor pool so as to increase the labor supply and keep wages low, and this required freeing the slaves from bondage.

Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South. It does not disprove anything I said only adds to it.

At the same time, emancipation as a moral movement should not be discounted. The condemnation of slavery as inhumane and unjustifiable was sincere on the part of many activists, including both sympathetic or religiously-motivated whites such as William Lloyd Garrison and former slaves such as Frederick Douglas.

Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war. So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality. If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages.

As for Lincoln's own motivation in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, as I see it he was dealing with several realities touching on slavery.

1) Britain and France were considering entering the war on the side of the Confederacy and forcing a negotiated peace. By changing the war from one over union only to one over slavery, Lincoln made certain that doing this would put Britain and France on the side of slavery, where they certainly did not want to be, and forestalled that diplomatic disaster.

A mere advantage seeing as how both France and England needed the grain provided by the North. Who were producing it at a remarkable rate due to advancements in technology. The British people ie. the working class actually supported the North. While that itself may not have kept Britain from war the two Russian fleets that spent the winter in American Harbors also stiffled any talk of active engagement by British or French Military.

2) Neither Lincoln as president, nor Congress, had the constitutional authority to end slavery in any territory not in rebellion. Lincoln could not free the slaves in Maryland, for example. To finally bring slavery to an end required a constitutional amendment. Lincoln did have the authority however to free the slaves in rebellious territories as an emergency measure, part of putting down the rebellion. Hence the limitations on the Proclamation.

Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy. Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.

3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.

It did meet a Union need for manpower. The numbers of confederates did not include those slaves which were digging ditches and subsequently running the farms while their masters were at war. In the North the men who left their businesses were not supplemented by a supply of slavery as abundantly as in the South. Hence the need for manpower was to ensure war fighters existed and warring northerners could tend to the economic business at hand.

4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.

I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery. But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.

 

[Dragon]

Yes this was my point.

Not much of a point, frankly. It's not in dispute that, prior to 1964, the Republicans were the civil rights party. What's in dispute is whether they still are.

Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South.

It proves nothing of the sort. You are treating the position on slavery in the Union as a monolith, when it was not. The motive I stated existed only among the capitalists, and I suspect few of them were quite so bloodless and calculating as to make that their only motive for ending something as inhumane as slavery. Say rather, they had no economic incentive to retain the institution (just the opposite), and so the natural opposition to it on the part of any human being with a conscience was not overridden, as it was for the planter elite, by economic interests.

Besides the capitalists, there were northerners who sincerely wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, and other northerners who couldn't be bothered about it one way or another, and even some citizens of the Union, mostly in the border states, who wanted to keep it in force.

Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war. So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality. If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages.

You seem to be getting a bit confused about the Union's (as opposed to the Confederacy's) motivations for the war. The Confederate states seceded in order to protect slavery, and fought the war for the same reason, but the Union initially fought the war only to reverse the secession and preserve the Union intact. As Lincoln put it, if he could restore the Union by freeing all the slaves, by freeing none of them, or by freeing some and leaving others alone, he would do any of those. (In the end, the third approach served his purpose best.)

As for "equality," for most white people, north and south alike, that wasn't even on the radar yet, which is why, despite the 14th Amendment, it was not enacted into law at that time. There was not a sufficient constituency for it.

Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy. Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.

That slavery was legal in the Union longer than in the Confederacy is untrue. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation freed many slaves eventually, it did not make slavery illegal anywhere. It was a one-time emancipation, a punitive measure aimed at slave-owners in rebellion, depriving them of their property. There was nothing at law preventing the slave-owners who had lost their slaves due to the Proclamation from buying more, if they had the money to do so. Only the 13th Amendment ended slavery, and it did so throughout all parts of the country where slavery was still legal, which included the entire former Confederacy as well as several Union states.

It did meet a Union need for manpower.

Let's take a look at that.

Throughout the course of the war, about two million men fought for the Union. Of those, 180,000 (approximately) were black, or less than ten percent of the total. The number of Confederate soldiers is uncertain, but is almost certainly less than a million men throughout the course of the war.

Most of the black soldiers were not employed in combat functions, partly because of racism on the part of white Union officers, partly because the Confederates tended to kill blacks who surrendered. There were of course notable exceptions like the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.

The Emancipation Proclamation actually caused a net reduction in volunteers for the U.S. Army. The Irish immigrants in particular, who had volunteered in large numbers before, viewed blacks as a threat to their jobs, much the way working-class whites today often view Hispanic immigrants. So to the extent the Proclamation remedied a manpower shortage, it remedied a shortage that it had itself created.

Regarding the manpower differences between North and South, note that the Union had more than a 2-to-1 advantage in total population COUNTING the Southern slaves. (19 million compared to 9 million.)

I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery. But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.

You are presenting a false dilemma here. Those were not the only two motives, as Lincoln's own example testifies. It's clear that he did not believe in racial equality, but equally clear that he opposed slavery as a moral matter, because it was wrong to enslave even "racial inferiors." Among those who opposed the institution, that was probably the prevailing sentiment (although we may safely assume that black emancipationists didn't share it, I believe).

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of which answers why the GOP has failed since the election of 1968 when it comes to minorities.

 

[daveman]

Perhaps the accurate way to put it is that neither party is the "real ally" of African-Americans, but that the Republicans are their "real enemies."

You misspelled "bullshit".

 

[daveman]

The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities. End of debate until it changes.

Thank you Jake for that "useful" post

My post is accurate. The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.

How do you define "useful"?

Because Democrats' vote-buying schemes have done far more damage to minorities than they've helped.

 

[Jroc]

My post is accurate. The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.

People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much

Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.

See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"

 

[Salt Jones]

People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much

Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.

See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"[/QUOTE

Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?

 

[Jroc]

Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.

See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"

Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?

Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able

 

[Brutus]

See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"

Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?

Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able

Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1791. Jefferson stood for freedom from big liberal govt. Modern Republicans are identical. Liberals have no place in America.

 

[Mr. President]

Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash

 

[NoNukes]

Tell me how jake don't tease with me wordplay.

I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.

There were many interests behind emancipation. The whole North-South conflict was partly one of competing economic elites, the new industrial/commercial/capitalist elite mostly in the North versus the older planter/slaveowner/quasi-feudal elite almost all in the South. The conflict manifested over tariffs, over government subsidy of industrial development and infrastructure, but most sharply over slavery. The capitalist elite wanted to add slaves to the labor pool so as to increase the labor supply and keep wages low, and this required freeing the slaves from bondage.

At the same time, emancipation as a moral movement should not be discounted. The condemnation of slavery as inhumane and unjustifiable was sincere on the part of many activists, including both sympathetic or religiously-motivated whites such as William Lloyd Garrison and former slaves such as Frederick Douglas.

As for Lincoln's own motivation in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, as I see it he was dealing with several realities touching on slavery.

1) Britain and France were considering entering the war on the side of the Confederacy and forcing a negotiated peace. By changing the war from one over union only to one over slavery, Lincoln made certain that doing this would put Britain and France on the side of slavery, where they certainly did not want to be, and forestalled that diplomatic disaster.

2) Neither Lincoln as president, nor Congress, had the constitutional authority to end slavery in any territory not in rebellion. Lincoln could not free the slaves in Maryland, for example. To finally bring slavery to an end required a constitutional amendment. Lincoln did have the authority however to free the slaves in rebellious territories as an emergency measure, part of putting down the rebellion. Hence the limitations on the Proclamation.

3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.

4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.

This is known as history, and it is not the Republican party of today.

 

[NoNukes]

I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.

Yes this was my point.



Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South. It does not disprove anything I said only adds to it.



Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war. So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality. If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages.



A mere advantage seeing as how both France and England needed the grain provided by the North. Who were producing it at a remarkable rate due to advancements in technology. The British people ie. the working class actually supported the North. While that itself may not have kept Britain from war the two Russian fleets that spent the winter in American Harbors also stiffled any talk of active engagement by British or French Military.



Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy. Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.

3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.

It did meet a Union need for manpower. The numbers of confederates did not include those slaves which were digging ditches and subsequently running the farms while their masters were at war. In the North the men who left their businesses were not supplemented by a supply of slavery as abundantly as in the South. Hence the need for manpower was to ensure war fighters existed and warring northerners could tend to the economic business at hand.

4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.

I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery. But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.

Lincoln said in a speech that he did not believe that Blacks were equal to Whites.

 

[NoNukes]

People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much

Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.

See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"

Every non white on the thread has said that it is incorrect. Guess you are waiting for someone white.

 

[NoNukes]

Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?

Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able

Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1791. Jefferson stood for freedom from big liberal govt. Modern Republicans are identical. Liberals have no place in America.

Jefferson was a liberal.

 

[Jroc]

Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash

There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power yet to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake won’t even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .

 

[Dragon]

far to the left liberals are running the country

With this statement, you have demonstrated you wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if one bit you on the ass.

 

[Jroc]

far to the left liberals are running the country

With this statement, you have demonstrated you wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if one bit you on the ass.

Big government leftist, you can play with semantics all you want, we know what liberals are as defined today. Start a thread on it if you like.

 

[Dragon]

Big government leftist

I knew what you meant. To say that leftists are running the government is nonsense.

 

[NoNukes]

Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash

There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power yet to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake won’t even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .

If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?

 

[NoNukes]

Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash

There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power yet to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake won’t even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .

A Black man's opinion on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.