"What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"

[Iceweasel]

He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.


But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.


But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

He was trying to be diplomatic and avoid a civil war. Understandable.


But there is no way that the South would not have surrendered sooner and easier if slavery was still on the table.


His actions reveal his words to be lies.

Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..

He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.

You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.

It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".

Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's most important objective was to save the union.

And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.

Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.

Your denial is strong.

YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.

In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".

Too funny.

You have a big problem.

Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.

 

[katsteve2012]

Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..

He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.

You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.

It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".

Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's most important objective was to save the union.

And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.

Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.

Your denial is strong.

YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.

In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".

Too funny.

You have a big problem.

Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.

Whether his words were in fact lies or he was exercising "diplomacy" is nothing but speculating in the oursuit of a romanticized version of how slavery actially ended. Lincoln did not complete his term due to his assasinatoon. All that is left are his words. Slaves ceased to be slaves after slavery by default but were still not freed from 2nd class citizenship..

He had plenty of time to commit actions that revealed his true intent.

You are the one that is ignoring reality in the "pursuit" of a slanted version of how slavery ended.

It is obvious how slavery ended. It ended because the south surrendered, the union was preserved, Lincoln was assasinated 5 days later, slaves were released from slavery by default and introduced to Jim Crow which remained in effect for the next 100 years. Now you have made some ridiculous statements in the past,
up to and including that "Lincoln was an abolitionist".

Slavery was NOT the central issue over which the war was fought. Lincoln's most important objective was to save the union.

And there is nothing that you can present or imagine that proves otherwise.

Ignoring the fact that slavery was the reason for the war.

Your denial is strong.

YOUR denial of true history is not my problem. Slavery was not the reason for the war. The presiding president during that era stated it himself.

In your imaginary world...... "his words did not mirror his actions".

Too funny.

You have a big problem.

Lincoln on Slavery - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

Lincoln, in a speech at Peoria, attacked slavery on the grounds that its existence within the United States made American democracy appear hyprocritical in the eyes of the world. However, he also confessed his uncertainty as how to end slavery where it then existed, because he believed that neither colonolization nor racial equality were practical.

"I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery's spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

But the point is it's WHY the south departed. History is not your friend.

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

 

[IM2]

I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?

It is sad to read a bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery. No one white died to free me. That's a lie.

This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing. This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.

I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie I did not celebrate July for this year either. And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.

So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.

 

[Mudda]

I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?

It is sad to read a bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery. No one white died to free me. That's a lie.

This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing. This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.

I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie I did not celebrate July for this year either. And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.

So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.

July 4th celebrates America which clearly you hate. If you hate it so much here, why don't you go somewhere that you'd enjoy? I know I would. But then again, you're probably on a no-fly list, so that means you can't go to Africa, where having flies land on your face in a national pastime. Sort of like a poor hump's version of baseball and catching flies.

 

[Iceweasel]

I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?

It is sad to read a bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery. No one white died to free me. That's a lie.

This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing. This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.

I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie I did not celebrate July for this year either. And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.

So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.

But this is a horrible country, You complain all day everyday so your black ass is highly hypocritical.

"We were not free"??? WTF, you don't live in reality. You are a slave to history and not mentally stable. You are a person but you think you are a race of beings.

 

[Correll]

I will not be moving anywhere, I was born in America. So kiss my black ass.. When one of you butthurt whites who don't like the government move back to Europe I might consider the move to Africa , OK?

It is sad to read a bunch of grown men and women who must lie to themselves every day in order to justify their existence. This thread is not about the civil war. That war was not fought for slavery. No one white died to free me. That's a lie.

This now July 7th. I did not celebrate July the 4th. We and yes I said we, were not free on that day.. We do not have to be grateful to whites for doing the right thing. This attitude of you should be grateful to us white folks because you could still be slaves if not for us, you can stick up your asses too.

I don't celebrate July 4th. It's a lie I did not celebrate July for this year either. And all of the hollering you raggedy, trifling white conservatives did here in this thread did not make me do it nor shall it ever.

So it's July 7th. The 4th is over. So is this thread.

And yet you had the nerve to claim in another thread, that Rush supposedly claiming the blacks were being taught to hate America was "Racist".


And here you are, obviously hating America. Some one taught you to do that.

Do you consider yourself an American?

 

[ProudVeteran76]

And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight to win your freedom from Britain either.

So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.

What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

For the rest of the speech:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm


I agree. Let their present ancestors go back to their own " native" countries

 

[ChrisL]

So? Don't celebrate the 4th then. Sit at home and pout instead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So? Don't celebrate the 4th then. Sit at home and pout instead.

Just like every other day for him......

 

[katsteve2012]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

 

[Correll]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

 

[katsteve2012]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

 

[Correll]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.

Seems to be talking morality.

 

[katsteve2012]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.

Seems to be talking morality.

Really? Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?

Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.

 

[blastoff]

And none of you were here on July 4th, 1776, none of you fought the British for your freedom either. And since most of you are from ancestors who came here after this happened, your ancestors did not fight to win your freedom from Britain either.

So without further ado, one of the greatest speeches in American history.

What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"
FREDERICK DOUGLASS SPEECH, 1852

Fellow citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

For the rest of the speech:

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/douglass.htm

What to the slave? I dunno. As soon as I come across one I'll ask though.

 

[Correll]

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.

Seems to be talking morality.

Really? Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?

Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.

1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.


2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.

 

[katsteve2012]

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.

Seems to be talking morality.

Really? Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?

Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.

1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.


2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.

Hilarious. Do you really believe some of the things that you post?

The "majority" of white male voters did not vote for Lincoln. He won 40% of the popular vote and did so without the support of any southern states.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines

 

[Correll]

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

This man won the Presidency twice, by winning the majority of white male votes.

Seems to be talking morality.

Really? Back in that era and beyond, he majority of presidents were elected by the majority of the white male vote. Or were you not aware of that fact?

Also, the same Lincoln also stated that "if he could have preserved the union and not freed a single slave or vice versa, he would have done so.

1. That's my point. The majority of white male voters voted for the man who had a real problem with slavery on morality grounds.


2. It is common for people, especially politicians to be on record with conflicting statements. ONe thing someone can do to judge which statements were true, is to compare them to the speakers actions. Another is to consider the motivations at the time of the different quotes. Both with Lincoln, shows that he was a rabid anti-slavery guy.

Hilarious. Do you really believe some of the things that you post?

The "majority" of white male voters did not vote for Lincoln. He won 40% of the popular vote and did so without the support of any southern states.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines

I stand corrected.

Instead of winning an absolute majority of white male voters, he "only" won a strong plurality, leading to more electoral votes than all his opponents combined.

His election was still a mandate for the anti-slavery movement, as evidence by the fact that the nation was torn in two, before he even took office.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No, I dont have a "problem". And there are different perspectives on why the Civil War was even fought, so history in some cases, especially the romanticized version is in fact, not my "friend".

There are some here who actually believe that the war was fought to free slaves.

I am not one of the those who believe that.

There are indisputable facts though, we can have opinions on morals and motives but the south wanted/needed slavery to keep production going, mostly cotton. It was a contentious issue from day one and slavery was the root cause of the war. The south didn't just up and leave in a snit.

That I agree with. Slaves were the labor force that sustained the south, and industrializing the entire nation raised a conflict. The moral issues are debatable but in many cases it is a matter of opinion.

You can claim anything is a matter of opinion, if you are emotionally committed to avoiding a truth that conflicts with what you believe.

Dismissing the morality of slavery, and the political furor over it, would be just as delusional as dismissing the economics of the conflict between the Industrial NOrth and agricultural south.

And your point is what? You have an opinion as well and seem determined tp push the narrative that American society in 1865 actually had a moral concern over the welfare of slaves who were not even considered to be human.

Lincoln only wanted to free slaves so they'd rebel against their masters (I believe he had Haiti in mind) and help win the war.

Blacks were mistreated when they got to the North.