Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

[Travlyr]

In light of the Lincoln Movie currently playing in the theaters, it seems appropriate to post the intentions of the Southern Confederacy when Lincoln was elected as president of the Union.


Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp)


Preamble

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Article I

Section I. All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sec. 2. (I) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.

(2) No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(3) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six.

(4) When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Sec. 3. (I) The Senate of the Confederate States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen for six years by the Legislature thereof, at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; and each Senator shall have one vote.

(2) Immediately after they shall be assembled, in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or other wise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

(3) No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States; and who shall not, then elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

(4) The Vice President of the Confederate States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.

(5) The Senate shall choose their other officers; and also a president pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the Confederate states.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Confederate States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Confederate States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

Sec. 4. (I) The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators.

(2) The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall, by law, appoint a different day.

Sec. 5. (I) Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.

(2) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number, expel a member.

(3) Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

(4) Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Sec. 6. (I) The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the Confederate States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 'o Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the Confederate States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the Confederate States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

Sec. 7. (I) All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.

(2) Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederate States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respective}y. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

(3) Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the Confederate States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him; or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of both Houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.

Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

(2) To borrow money on the credit of the Confederate States.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

(4) To establish uniform laws of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the Confederate States; but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.

(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

(6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the Confederate States.

(7) To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the Ist day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.

(8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

(9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

(10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

(11) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

(12) To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

(13) To provide and maintain a navy.

(14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Confederate States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

(17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and

(18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Confederate States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

(5) No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.

(7) No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.

(8) No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

(11) No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

(12) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(13) A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(14) No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

(15) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

(16) No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(17) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

(18) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Confederacy, than according to the rules of common law.

(19) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Sec. 10. (I) No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.

(2) No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

(3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

ARTICLE II

Section I. (I) The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as follows:

(2) Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the Confederate States shall be appointed an elector.

(3) The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of. the Confederate States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall,in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability of the President.

(4) The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

(5) But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the Confederate States.

(6) The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the Confederate States.

(7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.

(8) In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

(9) The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the Confederate States, or any of them.

(10) Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

Sec. 2. (I) The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the Confederate States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the Confederate States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the Confederate States, except in cases of impeachment.

(2) He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the Confederate States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

(3) The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity. inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor.

(4) The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess.

Sec. 3. (I) The President shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Confederacy, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the Confederate States.

Sec. 4. (I) The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the Confederate States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE III

Section I. (I) The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Sec. 2. (I) The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Confederate States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederate States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State, where the State is plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign state.

(2) In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

(3) The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Sec. 3. (I) Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against.them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

(2) The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

ARTICLE IV

Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

(2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

(4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

ARTICLE V

Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

ARTICLE VI

I. The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.

2. All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the Confederate States under this Constitution, as under the Provisional Government.

3. This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

4. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the Confederate States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Confederate States.

5. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the several States.

6. The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof.

ARTICLE VII

I. The ratification of the conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

2. When five States shall have ratified this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and Vice President; and for the meeting of the Electoral College; and for counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall, also, prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government.

Adopted unanimously by the Congress of the Confederate States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, sitting in convention at the capitol, the city of Montgomery, Ala., on the eleventh day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and Sixty-one.

HOWELL COBB, President of the Congress.

South Carolina: R. Barnwell Rhett, C. G. Memminger, Wm. Porcher Miles, James Chesnut, Jr., R. W. Barnwell, William W. Boyce, Lawrence M. Keitt, T. J. Withers.

Georgia: Francis S. Bartow, Martin J. Crawford, Benjamin H. Hill, Thos. R. R. Cobb.

Florida: Jackson Morton, J. Patton Anderson, Jas. B. Owens.

Alabama: Richard W. Walker, Robt. H. Smith, Colin J. McRae, William P. Chilton, Stephen F. Hale, David P. Lewis, Tho. Fearn, Jno. Gill Shorter, J. L. M. Curry.

Mississippi: Alex. M. Clayton, James T. Harrison, William S. Barry, W. S. Wilson, Walker Brooke, W. P. Harris, J. A. P. Campbell.

Louisiana: Alex. de Clouet, C. M. Conrad, Duncan F. Kenner, Henry Marshall.

Texas: John Hemphill, Thomas N. Waul, John H. Reagan, Williamson S. Oldham, Louis T. Wigfall, John Gregg, William Beck Ochiltree.

The Southern Confederacy was a white only nation; negro slaves were not recognized as people and had no rights; expansion of slavery was specifically stated; with no method for slaves ever to be free anywhere in the Confederacy; and no explicit stated right for states to secede. Personally, I am very happy Abraham Lincoln did not allow Jefferson Davis to conquer the Union.

[ronaldo23]

intradasting...

[Brian Coulter]

....

[heavenlyboy34]

In light of the Lincoln Movie currently playing in the theaters, it seems appropriate to post the intentions of the Southern Confederacy when Lincoln was elected as president of the Union.


Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp)





The Southern Confederacy was a white only nation; negro slaves were not recognized as people and had no rights; expansion of slavery was specifically stated; with no method for slaves ever to be free anywhere in the Confederacy; and no explicit stated right for states to secede. Personally, I am very happy Abraham Lincoln did not allow Jefferson Davis to conquer the Union.
Davis never sought to "conquer the Union". There's a reason the civil war is more properly called The War Of Northern Aggression. As RP has made clear, slavery could have been ended without a "civil war" (a misnomer). Blacks didn't have any significant rights in the North either, you know.

[Travlyr]

Davis never sought to "conquer the Union". There's a reason the civil war is more properly called The War Of Northern Aggression. As RP has made clear, slavery could have been ended without a "civil war" (a misnomer). Blacks didn't have any significant rights in the North either, you know.

The Siege of Washington: The Untold Story of the Twelve Days That Shook the Union (http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Washington-Untold-Twelve/dp/0199759898/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) by John Lockwood & Charles Lockwood


"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

When Fort Sumter was captured, Varina Davis, the wife of Confederate president Jefferson Davis sent invitations to her friends to attend a May 1 tea after Jefferson Davis had licked the North and was the new occupant of the White House.

[Travlyr]

Cornerstone Speech


Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States of America
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

Excerpt,

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

Read the rest of the speech here (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76).

[dillo]

"we want slaves"

and

"we want freedom"

makes me laugh

[heavenlyboy34]

The Siege of Washington: The Untold Story of the Twelve Days That Shook the Union (http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Washington-Untold-Twelve/dp/0199759898/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) by John Lockwood & Charles Lockwood
:rolleyes: Winner's history. You should at least make your misinformation more convincing, sir.
April 12, 2011 Today Is the 150th Anniversary of the Bombardment of Fort Sumter (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/85383.html) Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo (tdilo@aol.com) on April 12, 2011 05:09 AM

Fort Sumter Death Toll: 1 horse, no humans

Death Toll From Lincoln's

Response to Fort Sumter: 670,000 humans (including 50,000 Southern civilians); thousands of horses

[heavenlyboy34]

"we want slaves"

and

"we want freedom"

makes me laugh
There's more than enough hypocrisy and foolishness on both sides of that conflict to go around. ;)

[jmdrake]

There's more than enough hypocrisy and foolishness on both sides of that conflict to go around. ;)

OMFG! It's a civil war/Lincoln/slavery thread and I finally agree with HB on something! This world is definitely coming to an end. When does that Mayan calendar thing kick in again?

[ronpaulfollower999]

There were no slaves in the North. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

OMFG! It's a civil war/Lincoln/slavery thread and I finally agree with HB on something! This world is definitely coming to an end. When does that Mayan calendar thing kick in again?
+rep for the lolz :D

[klamath]

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Whaaat??????? I thought they were fighting for the right of the people to leave a Union?????????????????? Oh I guess it didn't mean the confederacy or negros......

[heavenlyboy34]

Whaaat??????? I thought they were fighting for the right of the people to leave a Union?????????????????? Oh I guess it didn't mean the confederacy or negros......
insurrection and rebellion=secession to you? (I don't think anyone ever said the CSA was an example of a good/libertarian government anyway)

[klamath]

insurrection and rebellion=secession to you? (I don't think anyone ever said the CSA was an example of a good/libertarian government anyway)
Isn't it something kind of like firing on fort sumpter.............And you think wrong when you say "anyone"

[Southron]

Single 6 year term for President. I like it.

[Confederate]

[/CENTER]
Personally, I am very happy Abraham Lincoln did not allow Jefferson Davis to conquer the Union.

The Confederate States did not want to conquer the USA.

[Confederate]

There were no slaves in the North. :rolleyes:

Every single citizen of the Union was and still is a slave.

[jmdrake]

Every single citizen of the Union was and still is a slave.

:rolleyes: I guess we should have stayed with Great Britain then.

[heavenlyboy34]

Every single citizen of the Union was and still is a slave.OMFG, we agree on something! :eek: :)

[Confederate]

:rolleyes: I guess we should have stayed with Great Britain then.

The Revolution was a great thing, but don't kid yourself if you think people were truly sovereign citizens in 1776. It has gone downhill since then, especially since the War of Northern Aggression.

[jmdrake]

OMFG, we agree on something! :eek: :)

Let me see if I get this straight. So you believe that going from the 1787 (the formation of the union) you believe that everyone was a slave? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc all willingly agreed to be slaves? Ummm...okay.

[heavenlyboy34]

:rolleyes: I guess we should have stayed with Great Britain then.
WTF? http://uarrr.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/wtf.jpg

[jmdrake]

The Revolution was a great thing, but don't kid yourself if you think people were truly sovereign citizens in 1776. It has gone downhill since then, especially since the War of Northern Aggression.

So you believe Jefferson, Washington etc all willingly agreed to be slaves? That's your position? And do you think in the confederate states had won, their people (minus the blacks of course) would not have been slaves? Do you realize that the southern states were the first to institute a draft?

[jmdrake]

Well if everybody who created the United States either became or remained a slave, what's the point of the revolution? Seriously? :confused:


WTF? http://uarrr.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/wtf.jpg

[torchbearer]

The Confederate States did not want to conquer the USA. That must be the latest history being taught in schools.
The evil confederate empire just wouldn't leave the peace loving/open-minded progressives of the northern states alone. Lincoln had no choice but to defend his sovereign nation from attack and thus, reluctantly, fought the defensive war of northern negro freedom.

[Confederate]

Well if everybody who created the United States either became or remained a slave, what's the point of the revolution? Seriously? :confused:

The Revolution was a great first step towards freedom.

[Confederate]

So you believe Jefferson, Washington etc all willingly agreed to be slaves? That's your position? And do you think in the confederate states had won, their people (minus the blacks of course) would not have been slaves? Do you realize that the southern states were the first to institute a draft?

Did the USA have taxation since the beginning? Yes.
Did the USA have eminent domain since the beginning? Yes.
Did the US Constitution guarantee the right of secession at all levels? No.

[Travlyr]

There were no slaves in the North. :rolleyes:

There were both free and slave Northern states. For the most part, when slave masters took their slaves to the free states they were only allowed to transit through the state with their slaves and not stay. If they lingered with their slaves, then the anti-slavery people would kidnap the slaves and free them through the Underground railroad. The Fugitive slave laws of 1850 worked to return the slaves back to the slave owner, but many states would not comply. For example, Dred Scott became a free man who was re-enslaved by a decision by the Supreme Court. The Confederate Constitution intended to put a stop to slave masters losing their rightful property. The Southern Confederacy intended to force slavery on the free states because slavery was very popular.

Who wouldn't want to own a slave?

Lincoln was fearful of slavery spreading throughout the Union even in the free states.

Pre-Civil War (http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=5&subjectID=2)

Mr. Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery were closely connected to his ideas about work, wealth and justice. Friend and political colleague Joseph Gillespie wrote: "Mr. Lincolns sense of justice was intensely strong. It was to this mainly that his hatred of slavery may be attributed. He abhorred the institution. It was about the only public question on which he would become excited.

I recollect meeting with him once at Shelbyville when he remarked that something must be done or slavery would overrun the whole country. He said there were about 600,000 non slave holding whites in Kentucky to about 33,000 slave holders. That in the convention then recently held it was expected that the delegates would represent these classes about in proportion to their respective numbers but when the convention assembled there was not a single representative of the non slaveholding class.

Every one was in the interest of the slaveholders and said he this thing is spreading like wild fire over the Country. In a few years we will be ready to accept the institution in Illinois and the whole country will adopt it. I asked him to what he attributed the change that was going on in public opinion. He said he had put that question to a Kentuckian shortly before who answered by saying — you might have any amount of land, money in your pocket or bank stock and while travelling around no body would be any the wiser but if you had a darkey trudging at your heels every body would see him & know that you owned slaves — It is the most glittering ostentatious & displaying property in the world and now says he if a young man goes courting the only inquiry is how many negroes he or she owns and not what other property they may have.

The love for Slavery property was swallowing up every other mercenary passion. Its ownership betokened not only the possession of wealth but indicated the gentleman of leisure who as was above and scorned labour. These things Mr. Lincoln regarded as highly seductive to the thoughtless and giddy headed young men who looked upon work as vulgar and ungentlemanly. Mr Lincoln was really excited and said with great earnestness that this spirit ought to be met and if possible checked. That slavery was a great & crying injustice an enormous national crime and that we could not expect to escape punishment for it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Let me see if I get this straight. So you believe that going from the 1787 (the formation of the union) you believe that everyone was a slave? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc all willingly agreed to be slaves? Ummm...okay.
The coup of 1787 did make slaves of most people, yes. Jefferson, Washington, etc were not slaves. Then, as now, there was a slave class and the elites (and cronies). There wasn't even a middle class then, so if you look at it from the perspective of a person at that time, it's clearer.

BTW, I wouldn't date the formation of the Union to 1787. I suggest 1781 (Articles of Confederation ratified).

[Travlyr]

That must be the latest history being taught in schools.
The evil confederate empire just wouldn't leave the peace loving/open-minded progressives of the northern states alone. Lincoln had no choice but to defend his sovereign nation from attack and thus, reluctantly, fought the defensive war of northern negro freedom.

It is documented truth.

[torchbearer]

It is documented truth. I'm sure the government has printed many such documents for your consumption. That is what my previous post was about. You are a product.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sure the government has printed many such documents for your consumption. That is what my previous post was about. You are a product.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to torchbearer again :( The Court Historians were indeed victorious in that regard.

[Travlyr]

I'm sure the government has printed many such documents for your consumption. That is what my previous post was about. You are a product.

Actually, I am a student of history. Abraham Lincoln grew up in virtual anarchy. He rejected it as a young man. I can document Lincoln's history back to his grandfather Abraham.

[Confederate]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to torchbearer again :( The Court Historians were indeed victorious in that regard.

Don't worry, I repped him for you.

PS: This is what freedom looks like

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/confederate-flags.jpg

[torchbearer]

Actually, I am a student of history. Abraham Lincoln grew up in virtual anarchy. He rejected it as a young man. I can document Lincoln's history back to his grandfather Abraham. What was the Union armies stay in Alexandria, la like? what were they concerned with? what were they stealing and who were they leaving behind for reprisal?

[Travlyr]

Don't worry, I repped him for you.

PS: This is what freedom looks like

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/confederate-flags.jpg

Yeah... for white people.

[torchbearer]

we have local history documents that paint a completely different picture of what the union army was doing in Louisiana. and it had nothing to do with slaves or defending a republic.
saying you are an expert at government sanctioned history isn't saying much.
most historical text lie outside of the classroom.

[torchbearer]

Yeah... for white people. Its a form of government, one that has a weak central government.
confederacy is a step closer to Jeffersonian principles. only libtards mix that up with slavery.

[klamath]

So we killed a bunch of people in the revolution, treated the tories like crap, all to secure slavery to ourselves but YES it was still worth it???????????

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't worry, I repped him for you.

PS: This is what freedom looks like

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/confederate-flags.jpgThankee, sir. +10000 for that pic. I'll try to +rep ya for that ASAP. Out of ammo now. :(

[Travlyr]

What was the Union armies stay in Alexandria, la like? what were they concerned with? what were they stealing and who were they leaving behind for reprisal?

I do not understand your question and I do not consider myself an expert on the Civil War. I simply understand who Lincoln was prior to the war. He was not a tyrant. Abraham Lincoln did not like killing. He did not even like to kill an animal to eat even though he had to kill sometimes to eat. During the Black Hawk War, Lincoln killed no one but he did defend a Black Hawk Indian and set him free when his platoon wanted to kill him.

[torchbearer]

So we killed a bunch of people in the revolution, treated the tories like crap, all to secure slavery to ourselves but YES it was still worth it??????????? they should have stayed separate states with no federal government. then slavery would have lost out through competing states... assuming there would be at least some states that had freedom for all.

[torchbearer]

I do not understand your question and I do not consider myself an expert on the Civil War. I simply understand who Lincoln was prior to the war. He was not a tyrant. Abraham Lincoln did not like killing. He did not even like to kill an animal to eat even though he had to kill sometimes to eat. During the Black Hawk War, Lincoln killed no one but he did defend a Black Hawk Indian and set him free when his platoon wanted to kill him. You are wrapped up in a personality and missing the massacre that played out by his decisions.

[Travlyr]

Its a form of government, one that has a weak central government.
confederacy is a step closer to Jeffersonian principles. only libtards mix that up with slavery.

The Confederate Constitution and Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander H. Stephens disagrees with you in their own words.

[heavenlyboy34]

they should have stayed separate states with no federal government. then slavery would have lost out through competing states... assuming there would be at least some states that had freedom for all.You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to torchbearer again :( I'll +rep ya again when I get a chance.

[torchbearer]

Thankee, sir. +10000 for that pic. I'll try to +rep ya for that ASAP. Out of ammo now. :( I gave him one for you.

[torchbearer]

The Confederate Constitution and Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander H. Stephens disagrees with you in their own words. what is a federation? what is a confederation?
hint: google is your friend.

[jmdrake]

So we killed a bunch of people in the revolution, treated the tories like crap, all to secure slavery to ourselves but YES it was still worth it???????????

Yeah. Somebody gets what I'm saying. And so far I haven't heard any evidence of how "free" the confederate constitution was. A constitution that guarantees the right to own slaves and a government that conscripts even white people isn't exactly a model of freedom. Hate Lincoln all you want. But the romanticism of the confederacy around here is just laughable.

[Confederate]

Yeah... for white people.

Slavery would have died out without the need for The Great Negro Savior Lincoln to step in.

[jmdrake]

Its a form of government, one that has a weak central government.
confederacy is a step closer to Jeffersonian principles. only libtards mix that up with slavery.

Because only "libtards" think that a draft is slavery. :rolleyes: And only libtards think that a constitutionally guaranteed right to own slaves = slavery. :rolleyes: I'm willing to go with the "both sides sucked" argument. But if the south was so great, why did they have to force people to fight for them?

[Travlyr]

Yeah. Somebody gets what I'm saying. And so far I haven't heard any evidence of how "free" the confederate constitution was. A constitution that guarantees the right to own slaves and a government that conscripts even white people isn't exactly a model of freedom. Hate Lincoln all you want. But the romanticism of the confederacy around here is just laughable.

Indeed it is.

[jmdrake]

Slavery would have died out without the need for The Great Negro Savior Lincoln to step in.

Draft = slavery. The confederacy had slavery for white people. Lincoln picked up on that from them.

[torchbearer]

Yeah. Somebody gets what I'm saying. And so far I haven't heard any evidence of how "free" the confederate constitution was. A constitution that guarantees the right to own slaves and a government that conscripts even white people isn't exactly a model of freedom. Hate Lincoln all you want. But the romanticism of the confederacy around here is just laughable. from what I read, the citizens of Louisiana weren't beholden to Georgia or a confederate government. perhaps that was because it was new and they were losing the war for a couple years near the end.
these people still had to deal with the Louisiana government, but that is an easier task than changing a federal one. I romanticize people breaking away from a federal tyrant. I romanticize people breaking away from collectives.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Confederate Constitution and Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander H. Stephens disagrees with you in their own words.
You're missing the point. Torch is talking about confederation in general (which Americans chose for themselves till the coup of 1787), not the CSA specifically.

[Confederate]

So we killed a bunch of people in the revolution, treated the tories like crap, all to secure slavery to ourselves but YES it was still worth it???????????

There are different forms of slavery. Just because you're not someone's property doesn't mean you're not the property of the state. There are also differing levels of slavery, being subjects of The Crown is much different from being a citizen of a republic. In neither cases, however, are you truly free, meaning completely self-governing.

Revolution against the British was worth it, because originally the USA was a confederacy which was much more free than the federation which took its place.

[torchbearer]

Because only "libtards" think that a draft is slavery. :rolleyes: And only libtards think that a constitutionally guaranteed right to own slaves = slavery. :rolleyes: I'm willing to go with the "both sides sucked" argument. But if the south was so great, why did they have to force people to fight for them? maybe you missed that point? I was talking about forms of government. a confederacy does not equal slavery. that is the libtard demagoguery that leads to the miss direction in thinking.

[jmdrake]

Did the USA have taxation since the beginning? Yes.
Did the USA have eminent domain since the beginning? Yes.
Did the US Constitution guarantee the right of secession at all levels? No.

Did the confederacy of the south have taxation from the beginning? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south guarantee the right to own slaves? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south have the draft from the beginning? Yes.

What's the point to fight for your "freedom" if you accept from the get go that your supporting a system that enslaves whites as well as blacks (the confederacy)?

[Travlyr]

Slavery would have died out without the need for The Great Negro Savior Lincoln to step in.

If Jefferson Davis had conquered Washington City prior to May 1, 1861 as claimed by his Secretary of War, then how would slavery ever ended in America. I would love to have two slaves. A man slave to do my labor and a woman for cooking and fun. I would never vote to end slavery.

[heavenlyboy34]

Draft = slavery. The confederacy had slavery for white people. Lincoln picked up on that from them. Wrong. Conscription existed in the Revolutionary War in some states. Monroe wanted conscription in every state.

[Confederate]

If Jefferson Davis had conquered Washington City prior to May 1, 1861 as claimed by his Secretary of War, then how would slavery ever ended in America. I would love to have two slaves. A man slave to do my labor and a woman for cooking and fun. I would never vote to end slavery.

Slavery ended in the Northern states without a war, didn't it?

[torchbearer]

Did the confederacy of the south have taxation from the beginning? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south guarantee the right to own slaves? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south have the draft from the beginning? Yes.

What's the point to fight for your "freedom" if you accept from the get go that your supporting a system that enslaves whites as well as blacks (the confederacy)? slavery existed either way. the war wasn't fought over slaves. had the south not rebelled, those states could still be holding slaves today.

[Confederate]

Did the confederacy of the south have taxation from the beginning? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south guarantee the right to own slaves? Yes.
Did the confederacy of the south have the draft from the beginning? Yes.

What's the point to fight for your "freedom" if you accept from the get go that your supporting a system that enslaves whites as well as blacks (the confederacy)?

I never said Confederate citizens weren't slaves in some form. Anyone living under a government is.

My original comment was: "Every single citizen of the Union was and still is a slave." I wasn't talking about the CSA.

What I support is a Confederacy over a federation.

[heavenlyboy34]

n/m

[Confederate]

n/m

Did you commit a thought crime and decide to erase it? :p

[jmdrake]

maybe you missed that point? I was talking about forms of government. a confederacy does not equal slavery. that is the libtard demagoguery that leads to the miss direction in thinking.

You are dodging the point. The picture that "confederate" posted was not of a confederacy. It was of the confederacy as in the confederate states of the south. Travlr rightfully said that represented freedom for white people. (Actually that's wrong because that government enslaved white people through a draft). So cut the "I'm just talking about a form of government" bull. I'm fully aware of the Iroquois confederation, the "articles of confederation" and other confederation "forms of government". This is a flag of "a confederacy".

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/political/revolutionary-war-flag.jpg

[jmdrake]

I never said Confederate citizens weren't slaves in some form. Anyone living under a government is.

My original comment was: "Every single citizen of the Union was and still is a slave." I wasn't talking about the CSA.

What I support is a Confederacy over a federation.

Hey, this is the flag of a republic! Freeduuuuuum!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/New_USSR.png

[Confederate]

You are dodging the point. The picture that "confederate" posted was not of a confederacy. It was of the confederacy as in the confederate states of the south. Travlr rightfully said that represented freedom for white people. (Actually that's wrong because that government enslaved white people through a draft). So cut the "I'm just talking about a form of government" bull. I'm fully aware of the Iroquois confederation, the "articles of confederation" and other confederation "forms of government". This is a flag of "a confederacy".

You used my favorite word a lot in that post.

[torchbearer]

You are dodging the point. The picture that "confederate" posted was not of a confederacy. It was of the confederacy as in the confederate states of the south. Travlr rightfully said that represented freedom for white people. (Actually that's wrong because that government enslaved white people through a draft). So cut the "I'm just talking about a form of government" bull. I'm fully aware of the Iroquois confederation, the "articles of confederation" and other confederation "forms of government". This is a flag of "a confederacy".


post 62.
slavery is immoral. the federal government was fine with it.
Lincoln was fine with slavery.
He only cared about ruling over all.

Letter to Horace GreeleyWritten during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve. President Lincoln made his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours,
A. Lincoln.

[Confederate]

Hey, this is the flag of a republic! Freeduuuuuum!

I didn't mention the word republic in my post. And even under any republic, no matter how free, you are still a slave if you don't have the full right to secession and self-governance.

Not that I'm necessarily against that, I'm a statist after all.

[Confederate]

The Great Emancipator:


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union…"

[jmdrake]

post 62.
slavery is immoral. the federal government was fine with it.
Lincoln was fine with slavery.

Yeah yeah. I've heard that bullshit argument too many times to count. Lincoln completed compensated emancipation in D.C. and attempted it in all of the border states. And he made it clear he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave laws or allow the expansion of slavery outside of where it already was. The southern states saw that as a threat and said so.

And once again, when you're losing an argument you try to change the subject. I didn't say shit about whether Lincoln was trying to end slavery. I said that "confederate" had posted a flag of a particular confederacy and not some abstract "ideal" confederacy. So it's not "libtard" to look at that particular flag, which stood for a group that not only enshrined the "right" to own slaves in the founding document but also enslaved white people via a draft and say "Hey, that particular confederacy engaged in slavery."

[Confederate]

Yeah yeah. I've heard that bullshit argument too many times to count. Lincoln completed compensated emancipation in D.C. and attempted it in all of the border states. And he made it clear he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave laws or allow the expansion of slavery outside of where it already was. The southern states saw that as a threat and said so.

And once again, when you're losing an argument you try to change the subject. I didn't say shit about whether Lincoln was trying to end slavery. I said that "confederate" had posted a flag of a particular confederacy and not some abstract "ideal" confederacy. So it's not "libtard" to look at that particular flag, which stood for a group that not only enshrined the "right" to own slaves in the founding document but also enslaved white people via a draft and say "Hey, that particular confederacy engaged in slavery."

I don't why you're arguing with him about a picture I posted and he hasn't even mentioned.

I think you're just trying to change the subject because you realized I was right when I said that every citizen of the Union was and is a slave.

[jmdrake]

I didn't mention the word republic in my post.

I know you didn't. That wasn't my point. You posted a flag that stood for the CSA, and then you and TB want to say you're just talking about a confederacy. Like most people at RPF I think a republic is a good thing. (Ron Paul wants to restore the republic after all). But if I posted a flag of the U.S.S.R., which after all was a "republic", I don't think many people would look at that flag and say "Hey, that stands for freedom".

[torchbearer]

@jmdrake, I would also romanticize a slavery rebellion. the breaking up of the states was a good thing as it was breaking up the federal government monopoly. the slavery issue would be dealt with by my time for sure, because I wouldn't put up with the shit. but the south was right in so much as it needed weaker central government. if we had this happen today, it would be great.
yet ,you know, that now anyone talks about states leaving- you get chris Mathews tingling leg telling you those people are racist.
the OP is a product of that cancerous thought. our overlords are using the sins of our fathers to keep us fighting against our own paths to freedom now.
you can't even think about leaving the federal government without being called racist and support slavery. and its all false.

[Travlyr]

Slavery ended in the Northern states without a war, didn't it?

Yeah. But the Southern slave masters were determined to keep their slaves and started a war to do it. Who can blame them? If they would have won the war then whites might still be enjoying our slaves. Can you imagine owning Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, or millions upon millions of other really cool black people? I would love to own any of them.

[torchbearer]

Yeah yeah. I've heard that bullshit argument too many times to count. Lincoln completed compensated emancipation in D.C. and attempted it in all of the border states. And he made it clear he wasn't going to enforce the fugitive slave laws or allow the expansion of slavery outside of where it already was. The southern states saw that as a threat and said so.

And once again, when you're losing an argument you try to change the subject. I didn't say shit about whether Lincoln was trying to end slavery. I said that "confederate" had posted a flag of a particular confederacy and not some abstract "ideal" confederacy. So it's not "libtard" to look at that particular flag, which stood for a group that not only enshrined the "right" to own slaves in the founding document but also enslaved white people via a draft and say "Hey, that particular confederacy engaged in slavery." I'm trying to point out that when debating secession and civil war, slavery is not relevant to the topic. it is in fact, changing the argument.

[jmdrake]

I don't why you're arguing with him about a picture I posted and he hasn't even mentioned.

Don't be daft. Travlr responded to your picture by saying that was "freedom for white people" and torchbearer called that being "libtard" and you and he are dishonestly trying to pretend that you were just talking about a confederacy in the abstract.



I think you're just trying to change the subject because you realized I was right when I said that every citizen of the Union was and is a slave.

Only someone not being honest with themselves would follow this thread and think I was the one trying to change the subject. And no, I do not "realize" you were right. I "realize" you are confused. But that's okay.

[Confederate]

I know you didn't. That wasn't my point. You posted a flag that stood for the CSA, and then you and TB want to say you're just talking about a confederacy. Like most people at RPF I think a republic is a good thing. (Ron Paul wants to restore the republic after all). But if I posted a flag of the U.S.S.R., which after all was a "republic", I don't think many people would look at that flag and say "Hey, that stands for freedom".

Torchbearer was talking about the ideals of a confederacy, not the CSA in specific. I personally wish the CSA had won the War for Southern Independence and that two competing nations (or more) had been established in the present-day territory of the USA.

Republic doesn't mean freedom, though. All it means is that there is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. Either way, under a republic or a monarchy we are all slaves.

[jmdrake]

I'm trying to point out that when debate secession and civil war, slavery is not relevant to the topic.

A) That's not a syntactically correct sentence.
B) Confederate brought up "slavery" as in "everyone in the union is and was a slave" so it is relevant.
C) Considering that slavery was mentioned in the CSA constitution and in CSA declarations of secession it is relevant.
D) Your need to divorce slavery from the confederacy is laughable.
E) The draft = slavery. It's funny how you won't address that.

[jay_dub]

Yeah... for white people.

Well, the whole damn country didn't care much for the Negro. The average Northerner couldn't care less about slavery so long as the blacks stayed out of their states. The infamous 'Jim Crow' laws had their origin in the Black Codes begun in the Northern states.

Here's a few examples:

Slavery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time, Ohio, with slave-state Kentucky across the river, took the lead in aggressively barring black immigration.

When Virginian John Randolph's 518 slaves were emancipated and a plan was hatched to settle them in southern Ohio, the population rose up in indignation. An Ohio congressman warned that if the attempt were made, "the banks of the Ohio ... would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated slaves."[1]

According to historian Leon F. Litwack, Ohio "provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents."[2] The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free.

"No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement" Likwack wrote, "until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days."

http://www.slavenorth.com/ohio.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ILLINOIS, INDIANA

The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory.

The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[1]

http://www.slavenorth.com/northwest.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon Constitution of 1859

Article I Section 35.-- No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them. (Repealed November 3, 1926).

Article II Section 6.--No Negro, Chinaman, or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. (Repealed June28, 1927).

http://www.ccrh.org/center/posters/colorl/orcon.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no moral high ground that either side can claim in regards to Negros. The South wanted to continue slavery. The North didn't need it as it had plenty of immigrants to fill its factories with cheap labor. The North did, however, make use of slaves early on and many prominent Northern families made their fortunes in the slave trade.

It could be argued that the whole country benefited from slavery. The South was made prosperous by slavery and the tariffs that the South paid the lion's share of benefited the North. It wasn't slavery that Lincoln couldn't abide...it was secession and the loss of revenue as the South pursued a policy of low tariffs. In short, the USA feared the commercial competition of a CSA.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

[Confederate]

Yeah. But the Southern slave masters were determined to keep their slaves and started a war to do it. Who can blame them? If they would have won the war then whites might still be enjoying our slaves. Can you imagine owning Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, or millions upon millions of other really cool black people? I would love to own any of them.

Not everyone in the Confederacy supported slavery and negro slavery would have died out on its own in the South like it did in the North and in every other nation in the western hemisphere that had it. The War for Southern Independence was not about slavery.

[Confederate]

B) Confederate brought up "slavery" as in "everyone in the union is and was a slave" so it is relevant.

Which I'm assuming you accept now?


E) The draft = slavery. It's funny how you won't address that.

The draft has been ruled constitutional in the USA, so US citizens are slaves.

[jmdrake]

Torchbearer was talking about the ideals of a confederacy, not the CSA in specific.

That's irrelevant. Trav was specifically responding to your picture which was specifically glorifying the CSA. Hey, that's your right to do that. But it's dishonest for Torchbearer to respond to Trav's post calling it "libtard" and then turn around and say "Oh I'm just talking about the ideals of the confederacy". I don't understand why you can't get that.

[klamath]

Yeah. Somebody gets what I'm saying. And so far I haven't heard any evidence of how "free" the confederate constitution was. A constitution that guarantees the right to own slaves and a government that conscripts even white people isn't exactly a model of freedom. Hate Lincoln all you want. But the romanticism of the confederacy around here is just laughable.
I really REALLY have to hand it to you JM, sticking around. I think I would have left this place as a hypocritical racist den. Beating their chests about freedom and then calling the Confederate constitution a step in the right direction. Basically it is the US constitution with Slavery solidly codified into it. It didn't even explicitly give people the right to leave THEIR confederation as it is claimed that is what they were fighting for. That is one hypocracy that is far too much for me to swallow.

[jmdrake]

Which I'm assuming you accept now?

No.



The draft has been ruled constitutional in the USA, so US citizens are slaves.

You said members of the union were always slaves. Today the government can kill citizens without trial. I'm not talking about today. Still today I have the option of leaving. (I'm not sure how much longer that option will be around or where the hell in this world I would go.)

[torchbearer]

A) That's not a syntactically correct sentence.
B) Confederate brought up "slavery" as in "everyone in the union is and was a slave" so it is relevant.
C) Considering that slavery was mentioned in the CSA constitution and in CSA declarations of secession it is relevant.
D) Your need to divorce slavery from the confederacy is laughable.
E) The draft = slavery. It's funny how you won't address that.

are you trying to argue the morality of slavery or the morality of secession?
I never once endorse a confederate constitution. never even read it. draft is slavery. and D is the big issue we have here. slavery was protect by the federal government. slavery was sanction by government. the same government you have today, and still treats you like a slave. but now you get to pick what job you do for their benefit.
I think you are being dishonest when I am clearly talking about principles of the action of secession and a weak central government and you keep associating that with slavery.
I almost feel like i'm saying, 'smaller government is better', and you are telling me, 'you are a slavery loving racist.'

[Confederate]

I really REALLY have to hand it to you JM, sticking around. I think I would have left this place as a hypocritical racist den. Beating their chests about freedom and then calling the Confederate constitution a step in the right direction. Basically it is the US constitution with Slavery solidly codified into it. It didn't even explicitly give people the right to leave THEIR confederation as it is claimed that is what they were fighting for. That is one hypocracy that is far too much for me to swallow.

I haven't seen a single racist post.

Nor did I ever say that the CSA's constitution was a step in the right direction. I said that a confederacy, which is what the United States of America was founded as under the Articles of Confederation until it became a federation under the current Constitution, is much preferable.

[Confederate]

slavery was sanction by government. the same government you have today, and still treats you like a slave. but now you get to pick what job you do for their benefit.

This is what I meant when I said that citizens of the Union still are slaves.

[jmdrake]

Well, the whole damn country didn't care much for the Negro. The average Northerner couldn't care less about slavery so long as the blacks stayed out of their states. The infamous 'Jim Crow' laws had their origin in the Black Codes begun in the Northern states.


Yes. Which is why I readily agreed with:

Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
There's more than enough hypocrisy and foolishness on both sides of that conflict to go around.

For the life of me I don't understand why certain people feel the need to point out that there was hypocrisy in the north to somehow justify their glorification of the south when (most of us) on the other side are willing to concede the hypocrisy of the north. Really, both sides sucked.

[jmdrake]

are you trying to argue the morality of slavery or the morality of secession?

Neither. I'm simply agreeing with Trav's position that the confederate flag at best represented freedom for white people. But it actually didn't because of the draft. And like I said in another post:

For the life of me I don't understand why certain people feel the need to point out that there was hypocrisy in the north to somehow justify their glorification of the south when (most of us) on the other side are willing to concede the hypocrisy of the north. Really, both sides sucked.

[Confederate]

You said members of the union were always slaves. Today the government can kill citizens without trial. I'm not talking about today. Still today I have the option of leaving. (I'm not sure how much longer that option will be around or where the hell in this world I would go.)

When have US citizens not been slaves to their governments?

And even if you leave, US citizens have to pay taxes no matter where they live.

And even if you do renounce your citizenship, you have be a citizen of another country, which just means you're changing slavemaster.

[jmdrake]

This is what I meant when I said that citizens of the Union still are slaves.

And the draft was sanctioned by the confederate states which treated white people like slaves. So I see no reason to glorify the confederate flag as some sort of "move toward freedom". Not even an incremental one. But hey, if it makes you feel good fine.

[torchbearer]

Neither. I'm simply agreeing with Trav's position that the confederate flag at best represented freedom for white people. But it actually didn't because of the draft. And like I said in another post:

For the life of me I don't understand why certain people feel the need to point out that there was hypocrisy in the north to somehow justify their glorification of the south when (most of us) on the other side are willing to concede the hypocrisy of the north. Really, both sides sucked.

the confederacy, just by the fact that it was a smaller unit of government was preferable to the federal government.
that is why I keep pointing out the slavery isn't apart of this discussion. smaller unit of government doesn't mean slavery. that is demagoguery.

[Confederate]

And the draft was sanctioned by the confederate states which treated white people like slaves. So I see no reason to glorify the confederate flag as some sort of "move toward freedom". Not even an incremental one. But hey, if it makes you feel good fine.

I do think that a confederacy and secession from the federal government are steps in the right direction.

[jmdrake]

When have US citizens not been slaves to their governments?

And even if you leave, US citizens have to pay taxes no matter where they live.

And even if you do renounce your citizenship, you have be a citizen of another country, which just means you're changing slavemaster.

And if you feel that way then there is no reason to glorify in the new "slavemaster" CSA. Fly this flag instead.

http://swimport.com/flags/F25-bandana.jpg

[jmdrake]

I do think that a confederacy and secession from the federal government are steps in the right direction.

A) Says you.
B) Gotta love that draft!
C) It's funny that you never address point B.

[Confederate]

And the draft was sanctioned by the confederate states which treated white people like slaves. So I see no reason to glorify the confederate flag as some sort of "move toward freedom". Not even an incremental one. But hey, if it makes you feel good fine.

But you agree that US citizens are slaves to the federal government, right?

[jmdrake]

the confederacy, just by the fact that it was a smaller unit of government was preferable to the federal government.
that is why I keep pointing out the slavery isn't apart of this discussion. smaller unit of government doesn't mean slavery. that is demagoguery.

Except in this case it did. Smaller government = draft of white people. Yeah draft!

[Confederate]

A) Says you.
B) Gotta love that draft!
C) It's funny that you never address point B.

I'd rather live under the CSA's confederate system than under the North's federal system.

I never said that people in the CSA weren't all slaves. They would have been even without the draft.

It's funny how you refuse to acknowledge that you're a slave to the government.

[jmdrake]

But you agree that US citizens are slaves to the federal government, right?

Now in 2012 when the federal government can kill you without trial? Yes. In 1787 or even 1863? No. We can just agree to disagree and be done with it.

[jmdrake]

I'd rather live under the CSA's confederate system than under the North's federal system.

I never said that people in the CSA weren't all slaves. They would have been even without the draft.

It's funny how you refuse to acknowledge that you're a slave to the government.

It's funny how you refuse to acknowledge that the CSA enslaved white people in a way the Union had not up until that point. Your original statement was not "we are now slaves". It was "we have always been slaves". And, if you believe that, then the CSA didn't offer an escape from slavery, not even for white people. It was not even a reduction in slavery.

[Confederate]

Except in this case it did. Smaller government = draft of white people. Yeah draft!

Smaller government = easier to change laws, such as abolishing the draft!

But do tell me more about how the Union winning abolished the draft...

[torchbearer]

Except in this case it did. Smaller government = draft of white people. Yeah draft! the closer the unit of government, the more control you can exert over it as an individual.
if Louisiana imposed a draft, I can easily change my rep. the elections are small. we can fix it fast.
if D.C. imposes a draft, I can't do shit about it. that far removed. elections that big.

so, even if a smaller unit becomes tyrannical, it is preferable to the larger unit that will become tyrannical and no one can do anything about it.

[Confederate]

It's funny how you refuse to acknowledge that the CSA enslaved white people in a way the Union had not up until that point.

When did I refuse to acknowledge that?

PS:


"The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion.... Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.... Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?

Daniel Webster (December 9, 1814 House of Representatives Address)

[klamath]

Yes. Which is why I readily agreed with:

Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
There's more than enough hypocrisy and foolishness on both sides of that conflict to go around.

For the life of me I don't understand why certain people feel the need to point out that there was hypocrisy in the north to somehow justify their glorification of the south when (most of us) on the other side are willing to concede the hypocrisy of the north. Really, both sides sucked. You have that right.

[jmdrake]

Smaller government = easier to change laws, such as abolishing the draft!

But do tell me more about how the Union winning abolished the draft...

It didn't. The union learned that slave trick from the CSA all too well. As I keep saying, and you keep stubbornly ignoring...both sides sucked!

[jmdrake]

the closer the unit of government, the more control you can exert over it as an individual.
if Louisiana imposed a draft, I can easily change my rep. the elections are small. we can fix it fast.
if D.C. imposes a draft, I can't do shit about it. that far removed. elections that big.

so, even if a smaller unit becomes tyrannical, it is preferable to the larger unit that will become tyrannical and no one can do anything about it.

Yeah. But the CSA draft wasn't instituted at the state level. It was instituted at the federal....excuse me confederate level. Same shit, different animal.

[jay_dub]

Yes. Which is why I readily agreed with:

Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
There's more than enough hypocrisy and foolishness on both sides of that conflict to go around.

For the life of me I don't understand why certain people feel the need to point out that there was hypocrisy in the north to somehow justify their glorification of the south when (most of us) on the other side are willing to concede the hypocrisy of the north. Really, both sides sucked.

I don't think hypocrisy becomes apparent except under the false construct that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. I don't subscribe to that and see where there is no hypocrisy. The North was quite upfront about its attitude towards the Negro, so much so that it was codified in several states.

It's just that there is so much ignorance about the issue of slavery that it is sometimes useful to point these things out in order to see the whole cloth of the history of that period.

The fact is that Lincoln could find no excuse to begin hostilities with the South until the manufactured incident at Fort Sumter. In many ways, what Lincoln did following that is mirrored in Bush's actions following 9/11.

[torchbearer]

It didn't. The union learned that slave trick from the CSA all too well. As I keep saying, and you keep stubbornly ignoring...both sides sucked!

the union and csa were the same political fucks. what was good about the situation is that they were fighting each other. today, they are working together.

[torchbearer]

Yeah. But the CSA draft wasn't instituted at the state level. It was instituted at the federal....excuse me confederate level. Same shit, different animal. if Louisiana citizens opposed such chains, do you not think they'd secede themselves? Louisiana had the least in common with any other state.
It was still kinda a French colony, but with no official connection with france.

[Confederate]

It didn't. The union learned that slave trick from the CSA all too well.

The CSA learned that slave trick from US President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe.

[klamath]

It's funny how you refuse to acknowledge that the CSA enslaved white people in a way the Union had not up until that point. Your original statement was not "we are now slaves". It was "we have always been slaves". And, if you believe that, then the CSA didn't offer an escape from slavery, not even for white people. It was not even a reduction in slavery.
Yeaw try and be a small non slaveholder homesteader and leave the drafted ranks in the southern army to get your crops in so your family didn't starve. That's right free access to heaven.

[heavenlyboy34]

The CSA learned that slave trick from US President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe.
Oh, snap! :D

[Origanalist]

It is documented truth.

Oh fer Fcks sake.

[RockEnds]

I do not understand your question and I do not consider myself an expert on the Civil War. I simply understand who Lincoln was prior to the war. He was not a tyrant. Abraham Lincoln did not like killing. He did not even like to kill an animal to eat even though he had to kill sometimes to eat. During the Black Hawk War, Lincoln killed no one but he did defend a Black Hawk Indian and set him free when his platoon wanted to kill him.

Black Hawk was a chief. There were Sauk Indians and Fox (Mesquaki) Indians, but no Black Hawk Indians. I don't profess to know a single thing about Lincoln's role in the Black Hawk wars, but I am aware of who was fighting whom.

[torchbearer]

Black Hawk was a chief. There were Sauk Indians and Fox (Mesquaki) Indians, but no Black Hawk Indians. I don't profess to know a single thing about Lincoln's role in the Black Hawk wars, but I am aware of who was fighting whom. the guy did admit he was a student of history. which is fine. but he shouldn't profess if he is just student.

[jmdrake]

The CSA learned that slave trick from US President Madison and Secretary of State Monroe.

James Madison was from Virginia and owned slaves. Had he been born later he might have been part of the CSA. And the fact is that whether he proposed a draft or not, the union didn't implement one until after the CSA did. Nice try.

[RockEnds]

the guy did admit he was a student of history. which is fine. but he shouldn't profess if he is just student.

That's what I was thinking. I haven't spent much time on the matter since 5th grade Iowa history, but Black Hawk along with Wapello, Appanoose, Keokuk, Mahaska, and Poweshiek are household names in these parts. Everyone here (at least used to be) students of that part of history for a year during elementary school.

http://iagenweb.org/census/1905/0006a-vi-a-cession_map.gif

[jmdrake]

if Louisiana citizens opposed such chains, do you not think they'd secede themselves? Louisiana had the least in common with any other state.
It was still kinda a French colony, but with no official connection with france.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a majority of Louisiana citizens wouldn't oppose. Regardless, this is all a bunch of woulda/coulda/shoulda. Both sides sucked. We should be able to all agree on that and move on.

[jmdrake]

the union and csa were the same political fucks. what was good about the situation is that they were fighting each other. today, they are working together.

See. We can agree on something. ;)

[torchbearer]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a majority of Louisiana citizens wouldn't oppose. Regardless, this is all a bunch of woulda/coulda/shoulda. Both sides sucked. We should be able to all agree on that and move on. both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.

[torchbearer]

the members of the fasci are held in bondage. that is the only way it stays together.
http://feastofhateandfear.com/images/fasci8_2.jpg

[jmdrake]

both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

[torchbearer]

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

libtards demagogue every time the idea of secession is brought up. they use an association of slavery to confederacy, which is false. that is all I was trying to state.

[torchbearer]

oh, and on the grammar and syntax police, people from south Louisiana don't speak your engrish.
there have been members from Louisiana who have stopped posting here because of people making fun of their grammar and syntax. most of us are Cajun. we say, who dat.

[samforpaul]

Well, the whole damn country didn't care much for the Negro. The average Northerner couldn't care less about slavery so long as the blacks stayed out of their states. The infamous 'Jim Crow' laws had their origin in the Black Codes begun in the Northern states.

Here's a few examples:

Slavery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time, Ohio, with slave-state Kentucky across the river, took the lead in aggressively barring black immigration.

When Virginian John Randolph's 518 slaves were emancipated and a plan was hatched to settle them in southern Ohio, the population rose up in indignation. An Ohio congressman warned that if the attempt were made, "the banks of the Ohio ... would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated slaves."[1]

According to historian Leon F. Litwack, Ohio "provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents."[2] The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free.

"No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement" Likwack wrote, "until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days."

http://www.slavenorth.com/ohio.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ILLINOIS, INDIANA

The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory.

The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[1]

http://www.slavenorth.com/northwest.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon Constitution of 1859

Article I Section 35.-- No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them. (Repealed November 3, 1926).

Article II Section 6.--No Negro, Chinaman, or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. (Repealed June28, 1927).

http://www.ccrh.org/center/posters/colorl/orcon.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no moral high ground that either side can claim in regards to Negros. The South wanted to continue slavery. The North didn't need it as it had plenty of immigrants to fill its factories with cheap labor. The North did, however, make use of slaves early on and many prominent Northern families made their fortunes in the slave trade.

It could be argued that the whole country benefited from slavery. The South was made prosperous by slavery and the tariffs that the South paid the lion's share of benefited the North. It wasn't slavery that Lincoln couldn't abide...it was secession and the loss of revenue as the South pursued a policy of low tariffs. In short, the USA feared the commercial competition of a CSA.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.



Appreciate the links there, jay dub.

Very informational.

[heavenlyboy34]

both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.
That's the fact, Jack. :cool:

[itshappening]

Slavery is an abomination but it would have died out in the Confederacy as everyone has said because it would have been untenable. They would have had to change that constitution (eventually). It might have taken a while for it to happen but it would have happened naturally without a war and 500,000 American's dead.

Jefferson Davis and his vice president wouldn't been around forever so it doesn't matter what they said. Attitudes would have changed.

[itshappening]

Slavery ending in 1870 or 1900 or however long the South would have kept it going is neither here nor there.

500,000 people died in Lincoln's war and countless others disabled!

[Travlyr]

Slavery ending in 1870 or 1900 or however long the South would have kept it going is neither here nor there.

500,000 people died in Lincoln's war and countless others disabled!

This is the ignorance from the liberty movement that has to stop eventually. It was not Lincoln's war. Lincoln grew up in anarchy and he rejected it as a man. He was not a killer or tyrant. He was a man. He was basically drafted as president when slave masters wanted to expand slavery and abolitionists wanted to kill slave owners. It was not Lincoln's war.

[Travlyr]

Black Hawk was a chief. There were Sauk Indians and Fox (Mesquaki) Indians, but no Black Hawk Indians. I don't profess to know a single thing about Lincoln's role in the Black Hawk wars, but I am aware of who was fighting whom.

Right. I misspoke. One member of Black Hawk's tribe was saved by Lincoln when Black Hawk and his warriors were trying to re-inhabit Illinois. Lincoln was Captain of his platoon. When one of Black Hawk's tribe members wandered into their camp the Illinois militia wanted to kill him claiming he was a spy. Abraham stepped in and released the Indian. He never killed anyone. He hated violence.

[Origanalist]

Right. I misspoke. One member of Black Hawk's tribe was saved by Lincoln when Black Hawk and his warriors were trying to re-inhabit Illinois. Lincoln was Captain of his platoon. When one of Black Hawk's tribe members wandered into their camp the Illinois militia wanted to kill him claiming he was a spy. Abraham stepped in and released the Indian. He never killed anyone. He hated violence.

Ya, he was a regular Mahatma Gandhi.

[Travlyr]

Ya, he was a regular Mahatma Gandhi.
He was a boy who grew to be a man. Lincoln was a principled, honest, hard working man who freed the negro slaves in America. He never killed anyone his entire life. He was a man of circumstance.

[jmdrake]

libtards demagogue every time the idea of secession is brought up. they use an association of slavery to confederacy, which is false. that is all I was trying to state.

Fine. But I don't think anyone here equates the idea of secession with slavery. I don't. I'm betting Trav doesn't either. The 13 colonies seceded from Great Britain. That said, as a practical matter I don't see it as viable. Rich Hamblen (the guy who stood up for the militia clause of the 2nd amendment and lost) proudly wears his confederate lapel pin. Whenever the subject of secession is brought up his answer is "Yeah. You and who's army? The south already tried that and it didn't work." On the flipside, when just one southern state tried nullification they got the result they wanted (historically low tariffs).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo

Friendly advice that you can take or leave. If your method to advance the idea of states rights and limited government is to convince people that the south was somehow "right" WRT the civil war or the civil rights movement, you will have limited success in advancing your cause. That's just the truth. Take it or leave it. If, on the other hand, you show how states rights and a limited federal government can and have helped in causes they already agree on, that's a totally different matter. Jack Hunter does a great job of doing what you say you want to do here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xuiLht2eOs


oh, and on the grammar and syntax police, people from south Louisiana don't speak your engrish.
there have been members from Louisiana who have stopped posting here because of people making fun of their grammar and syntax. most of us are Cajun. we say, who dat.

Ummmm....who attacked your "engrish"? I certainly didn't.

[jmdrake]

Slavery is an abomination but it would have died out in the Confederacy as everyone has said because it would have been untenable. They would have had to change that constitution (eventually). It might have taken a while for it to happen but it would have happened naturally without a war and 500,000 American's dead.

Jefferson Davis and his vice president wouldn't been around forever so it doesn't matter what they said. Attitudes would have changed.

You know, I've heard this argument before. Nobody has ever responded to the question "Why would they have had to change their constitution and end slavery when slavery still exists"? Seriously? And nobody ever looks at the unique dynamic of regional slavery in the U.S. In other nations where slavery ended naturally, there was no concept of "slave state" and "free state". The idea that people in one region could secede and keep their slaves to my knowledge was not tried anywhere else. And considering how long "virtual slavery" continued through Jim Crowe laws and the sharecropping system, I'm not convinced of this "natural death" people love to talk about. I do believe, though, that it could have ended without war despite the regionalism. The problem Lincoln ran into when he tried compensated emancipation with the border states was "Who's going to pay for it?" Oh sure, people can always say "Well it would have been cheaper than war." And in hindsight it would have been. But considering how much people are against being taxed now for no obvious benefit, imagine the reaction of the person who didn't own slaves being taxed to pay the person who did own slaves to do what that person morally should be willing to do anyway. There was a way around that problem that I've talked about before, but nobody seems interested in listening to. Since the money for freeing slaves had to come from some sort of tax revenue, why allocate the money from protective tariffs to do that? Southern slave owners would win because they would have received money for their "property". (I put that in quotes because you really can't own another human being and it was illegitimate property.) Northern manufacturers would have still had the protection they needed. Slaves would have been freed. Taxpayers who didn't own slaves wouldn't have to feel like they were being taxed just for the benefit of slave owners. And for the "free traders" out there, the tariff should have been set to automatically expire once the full cost of freeing slaves and integrating them into society had been reached. But no, that wouldn't work because it makes too much sense.

[Travlyr]

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

I started this thread because too many people believe the propaganda from the Mises Institute, and LewRockwell.com, that the Southern states seceded to defend states rights. That is not what happened in 1861. The proof is in the documents.

People get it backwards. For Lincoln the issue was about states rights, rule of law, and honoring agreements (Article I. Section 10). The Southern Confederacy seceded, not to defend states rights as claimed, but to defend their right to own slaves. The Confederate Constitution did expand freedom and states rights but only for the white guys. If they had included everyone, then their Constitution would have been much, much, better than the U.S. Constitution. They didn't do that. As you stated, they centralized government to nationalize slavery for the benefit of white men.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo misrepresents Abraham Lincoln in his book, "The New Lincoln" by lying about him, taking Lincoln's quotes out-of-context, and ignoring the fact that Abraham grew up in virtual anarchy and rejected it as an adult. DiLorenzo wrote a biography of Lincoln while ignoring Lincoln's formative years and lying about Lincoln's objection to the morality of slavery among other lies. It is a stupid move promoted by the Mises Institute. If the liberty movement wants to move forward, then they must be honest, ethical, and truthful. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

[Aratus]

OMFG! It's a civil war/Lincoln/slavery thread and I finally agree with HB on something! This world is definitely coming to an end. When does that Mayan calendar thing kick in again?

today... and it goes to 0000 mayan style?

[Aratus]

i just had to give Travlyr some rep...

technically more of the slaves became

free during andrew johnson's term

in office than under poor abe lincoln's!

the 1868 senate trial was triggered by

the pardons done in 1865 as well as

who could vote and how citizens could

vote in the states that wanted re-entry

into the union. tariff rates were debated.

[Travlyr]

I don't think hypocrisy becomes apparent except under the false construct that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. I don't subscribe to that and see where there is no hypocrisy.

That's right. Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. He would have ended slavery if he thought he had the authority to do it, but Lincoln was well versed in the Constitution and correctly understood that an amendment to the constitution would be required to end slavery. That does not mean that Lincoln was not opposed to the institution of slavery. He grew up in an anti-slavery home, and as a young man he piloted a boat down the Mississippi River to New Orleans where he witnessed slave auctions and whipping posts. He saw slavery as an injustice all his life.


Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:101?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

March 3, 1837
The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:

Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.


They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.''

DAN STONE,

A. LINCOLN,

Representatives from the county of Sangamon.


The North was quite upfront about its attitude towards the Negro, so much so that it was codified in several states.

It's just that there is so much ignorance about the issue of slavery that it is sometimes useful to point these things out in order to see the whole cloth of the history of that period.

I agree.



The fact is that Lincoln could find no excuse to begin hostilities with the South until the manufactured incident at Fort Sumter.
That does not make any sense at all. Why would Lincoln provoke a war with a heavily armed and organized southern army when Washington City had virtually no defense, no army, a raided treasury, and a 75 year old General in charge?


In many ways, what Lincoln did following that is mirrored in Bush's actions following 9/11.
I don't see it that way at all. There are no documents to prove that. Lincoln was not looking for war.


Speech at Independence Hall

Abraham Lincoln 
February 22, 1861
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mr. Cuyler:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here in the place where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. (Great cheering.) I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and adopted that Declaration of Independence--I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army, who achieved that Independence. (Applause.) I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. (Great applause.) It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. (Cheers.) This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.

Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can’t be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle--I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. (Applause.)

Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. (Prolonged applause and cries of "That’s the proper sentiment.")

My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here--I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, (cries of "no, no"), but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) March 4, 1861

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ya, he was a regular Mahatma Gandhi. +rep ;)

[Tudo]

Equal rights for all, special rights for none.

And now the South is even more statist in foreign policy then the north.

[jay_dub]

This is the ignorance from the liberty movement that has to stop eventually. It was not Lincoln's war. Lincoln grew up in anarchy and he rejected it as a man. He was not a killer or tyrant. He was a man. He was basically drafted as president when slave masters wanted to expand slavery and abolitionists wanted to kill slave owners. It was not Lincoln's war.

Lincoln basically drafted???

Republican Convention of 1860

Confident that Seward would not have enough votes to lock up the nomination on the first ballot, Lincoln intended to get the second highest vote count on the first ballot and line up additional votes for the second ballot in order to show increasing strength. He hoped that this strategy--combined with the presence of an enthusiastic band of followers on the floor--would be sufficient to win the nomination on the third or subsequent ballot.

Lincoln’s men left no detail unattended in their pursuit of this strategy. They made certain that Seward’s New Yorkers were seated far from other critical delegations with whom they might collaborate. They printed hundreds of counterfeit tickets and distributed them to Lincoln supporters with instructions to show up early--in order to displace Seward’s supporters.

They also assigned two men with noted stentorian voices to lead the cheering. One of these men reportedly had a larynx powerful enough to allow his shout to be heard across Lake Michigan.

Finally, the third day arrived. One thousand Seward men marched behind a smartly uniformed brass band. They wound their way noisily through Chicago’s streets, playing the song “Oh, Isn’t He a Darling?” and finally arrived triumphantly in front of the Wigwam. To their horror, they found that they could not get in: the Lincoln men, admitted with their counterfeit tickets, had taken their seats.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/nomination.htm

[itshappening]

He was a boy who grew to be a man. Lincoln was a principled, honest, hard working man who freed the negro slaves in America. He never killed anyone his entire life. He was a man of circumstance.

Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves to Africa. He was writing to leaders around the world days before his death begging them to support this plan... and that's his own writings that scholars have discovered. Look it up.

He aint the saint you think he is.

[jay_dub]

He was a boy who grew to be a man. Lincoln was a principled, honest, hard working man who freed the negro slaves in America. He never killed anyone his entire life. He was a man of circumstance.

He may not have directly killed anyone, but the blood of a nation is on his hands. He manufactured the incident at Fort Sumter as he had no legal basis to prevent the South's secession. Here's a glimpse of how his actions were viewed by Northern newspapers.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

The grandson of Francis Scott Key, Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, was arrested as well as others who wrote against Lincoln. While he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, he wrote the following words. The date was September 13, 1861...... 47 years to the day!

"When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed."

When he was finally released on November 27, 1862 he wrote:

"We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort."

From......"Fourteen Months In the American Bastiles" by Francis Key Howard

Think it wasn't deliberate on Lincoln's part?

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "~Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

Lincoln was intimately involved in not only the pretext for, but the prosecution of, a war that utilized the concept of total war, including on a civilian population. He had no objections to the abuses and war crimes of some of his officers.

Here's one notable instance.

In April, 1862 Union General John Basil Turchin unleashed his troops on Athens, Alabama. Turchin told his troops, "I shut mine eyes for two hours. I see nothing". What followed was a spree of looting, raping and pillaging. When news of this brutality reached General Don Carlos Buell in June, he launched an investigation and had Turchin relieved of his command on July 2. Charges stemmed from not only the brutal behavior but also from Turchin's having his wife accompany him in the field. Turchin was court-marshaled, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal from the Army in August, 1862.

President Lincoln set the order aside and promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, retroactive to July 17.

From ...Encyclopedia of the American Civil War P. 1984

[itshappening]

You know, I've heard this argument before. Nobody has ever responded to the question "Why would they have had to change their constitution and end slavery when slavery still exists"? Seriously? And nobody ever looks at the unique dynamic of regional slavery in the U.S. In other nations where slavery ended naturally, there was no concept of "slave state" and "free state".

Because attitudes in the South would have changed and slavery abolished over time. Maybe in 1900, maybe in 1920, I don't know, who knows but it would have happened. It happened everywhere else. Are you seriously telling me the CSA would have kept slavery going well into the 50's, the 60's, and possibly now? Maybe they would have transitioned to an apartheid system and even South Africa could only keep that going until the 1990's when it eventually collapsed after international boycotts and pressure to reform. Zimbabwe/Rhodesia kept white minority rule until the 1980's but was cut off from the UK and Mugabe took over.

The reality is slavery would have ended peacefully and without war natually. A war that had, lets not forget, terrible consequences, 500,000 dead and many more disabled. Nearly every American family was touched by the civil war (population was a lot lower then!) and in many cases devastated. A whole generation lost.

[Travlyr]

Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves to Africa. He was writing to leaders around the world days before his death begging them to support this plan... and that's his own writings that scholars have discovered. Look it up.

A lot of people supported colonization for African slaves. Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, Harriet Beecher Stowe, even William Lloyd Garrison did for a while. Several states funded the practice. "In 1850 (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam002.html), Virginia set aside $30,000 annually for five years to aid and support emigration. In its Thirty-Fourth Annual Report, the society acclaimed the news as "a great Moral demonstration of the propriety and necessity of state action!" During the 1850s, the society also received several thousand dollars from the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Maryland legislatures."

[heavenlyboy34]

Just as an aside (not to derail the thread), a bit about what RP said on this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY

[Travlyr]

He may not have directly killed anyone, but the blood of a nation is on his hands. He manufactured the incident at Fort Sumter as he had no legal basis to prevent the South's secession.

The blood of the nation is not on Lincoln's hands. He did not want war and he made that very clear in all of his speeches prior to the Southern forces firing on Fort Sumter. Even the Confederate Secretary of War admitted to starting the war.

The Siege of Washington: The Untold Story of the Twelve Days That Shook the Union (http://www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Washington-Untold-Twelve/dp/0199759898/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) by John Lockwood & Charles Lockwood


"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capital at Washington before the first of May."

When Fort Sumter was captured, Varina Davis, the wife of Confederate president Jefferson Davis sent invitations to her friends to attend a May 1 tea after Jefferson Davis had licked the North and was the new occupant of the White House.

[Travlyr]

He aint the saint you think he is.
Nobody is calling him a saint. He was a man who got some things right and some things wrong just like Jefferson, Washington, you and me.

[Travlyr]

Just as an aside (not to derail the thread), a bit about what RP said on this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY

Unfortunately, Thomas J. DiLorenzo does not have any credibility regarding Abraham Lincoln. He outright lied in "The Real Lincoln." He starts out by claiming Lincoln had a 28 year political career when in fact, by checking the official records, Lincoln served five terms in the Illinois legislature and one term as U.S. Congressman for a total of 12 year political career before becoming president. Then DiLorenzo goes on and on and lies about a bunch of other stuff. He claims that Lincoln blocked the Democrats attempt at auditing the State Bank of Illinois, yet Lincoln is on record in 1835 as writing an amendment to audit the bank.

It is public record. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:67?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

[jmdrake]

Because attitudes in the South would have changed and slavery abolished over time. Maybe in 1900, maybe in 1920, I don't know, who knows but it would have happened. It happened everywhere else. Are you seriously telling me the CSA would have kept slavery going well into the 50's, the 60's, and possibly now?

Are you seriously telling me that someone who could do this to a boy in 1955 because he whistled at a white woman and the all white jury that let those monsters free would have any qualms about keeping someone as a slave?

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/1955_jpg.jpg?w=700

Are you seriously telling me that the people who still illegally keep chattel slavery even in the 21st century wouldn't lobby to keep slavery legal in the CSA?



Maybe they would have transitioned to an apartheid system and even South Africa could only keep that going until the 1990's when it eventually collapsed after international boycotts and pressure to reform. Zimbabwe/Rhodesia kept white minority rule until the 1980's but was cut off from the UK and Mugabe took over.


Or maybe they would have kept slavery. They transitioned to an apartheid system when slavery was abolished through force. And international boycotts are just another form of pressure. Who knows, if the CSA had survived and somehow flourished (doubtful considering how behind the South was in industry before the civil war...which is largely why they lost the civil war) they might have become strong enough so that they could have supported South Africa through trade. Who knows?



The reality is slavery would have ended peacefully and without war natually.


That's not "reality". That's your fantasy and conjecture. I laid out a plan how slavery could have ended peacefully and without war. But it wouldn't have ended naturally. Even your "international boycott/pressure" idea isn't slavery ending "naturally".

[jmdrake]

Lincoln wanted to deport the slaves to Africa. He was writing to leaders around the world days before his death begging them to support this plan... and that's his own writings that scholars have discovered. Look it up.


Another convenient lie. Lincoln did want to provide the opportunity for slaves to leave that wanted to leave. But he never took any steps to deport freed slaves. And yes, I've done the research. The compensated emancipation plan that was enacted in Washington D.C. provided funds for those who wanted to emigrate to Africa, but it forced no one to leave.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/

Print-Friendly Version

The District of Columbia Emancipation Act

F. Dielman's sketch of Celebration of D.C. Abolition of Slavery. 1866On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration. Over the next 9 months, the Board of Commissioners appointed to administer the act approved 930 petitions, completely or in part, from former owners for the freedom of 2,989 former slaves.

Although its combination of emancipation, compensation to owners, and colonization did not serve as a model for the future, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act was an early signal of slavery's death. In the District itself, African Americans greeted emancipation with great jubilation. For many years afterward, they celebrated Emancipation Day on April 16 with parades and festivals.



He aint the saint you think he is.

He wasn't the monster you pretend him to be either.

[itshappening]

it's a pretty safe bet slavery would have ended at _some point_. It did not need a war of conquest by Lincoln and his Union forces. They could have had a diplomatic solution and left the South to its own devices but the conquest was driven by spite and plunder, certainly not about freeing the oppressed slaves that he supported being oppressed and 'not touching' .

[itshappening]

Another convenient lie. Lincoln did want to provide the opportunity for slaves to leave that wanted to leave. But he never took any steps to deport freed slaves. And yes, I've done the research. The compensated emancipation plan that was enacted in Washington D.C. provided funds for those who wanted to emigrate to Africa, but it forced no one to leave.

There were letters from him days before his assassination to other leaders I believe asking them to support his idea of deporting them to an unknown state in Africa, maybe a new state. I think he was asking the British for help with that.

[jmdrake]

There were letters from him days before his assassination to other leaders I believe asking them to support his idea of deporting them to an unknown state in Africa, maybe a new state. I think he was asking the British for help with that.

The undisputed fact is that when Lincoln actually implemented compensated emancipation he did so with a voluntary immigration plan. I posted the evidence. You have not posted any evidence. You can either accept the facts as presented or continue to live in denial. I care not which option you choose. I also see that you have yet to comment on the actual plan I laid out how slavery could have ended without war. I find that odd. Maybe it disturbs your fantasy that slavery would have ended "naturally".

[jmdrake]

it's a pretty safe bet slavery would have ended at _some point_. It did not need a war of conquest by Lincoln and his Union forces. They could have had a diplomatic solution and left the South to its own devices but the conquest was driven by spite and plunder, certainly not about freeing the oppressed slaves that he supported being oppressed and 'not touching' .

It's 2012. It's almost 2013. Slavery still exists in the world. It's not a safe bet that slavery would have ended through "wishful thinking". Even Ron Paul tacitly admits this when he talks about "compensated emancipation". I have simply gone a step further than Dr. Paul and pointed out that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation and explained how compensated emancipation actually could have worked in the large if Lincoln had tried the approach of tying it to tariffs.

[Travlyr]

Lincoln basically drafted???

Republican Convention of 1860

Confident that Seward would not have enough votes to lock up the nomination on the first ballot, Lincoln intended to get the second highest vote count on the first ballot and line up additional votes for the second ballot in order to show increasing strength. He hoped that this strategy--combined with the presence of an enthusiastic band of followers on the floor--would be sufficient to win the nomination on the third or subsequent ballot.

Lincoln’s men left no detail unattended in their pursuit of this strategy. They made certain that Seward’s New Yorkers were seated far from other critical delegations with whom they might collaborate. They printed hundreds of counterfeit tickets and distributed them to Lincoln supporters with instructions to show up early--in order to displace Seward’s supporters.

They also assigned two men with noted stentorian voices to lead the cheering. One of these men reportedly had a larynx powerful enough to allow his shout to be heard across Lake Michigan.

Finally, the third day arrived. One thousand Seward men marched behind a smartly uniformed brass band. They wound their way noisily through Chicago’s streets, playing the song “Oh, Isn’t He a Darling?” and finally arrived triumphantly in front of the Wigwam. To their horror, they found that they could not get in: the Lincoln men, admitted with their counterfeit tickets, had taken their seats.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/nomination.htm

Lincoln wasn't even there. He was in Springfield during the Chicago 1860 nominating convention.

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/politics/1860.html


Lincoln supporters then traveled to Springfield, where the candidate had waited throughout the convention, to formally notify him of his nomination.

[itshappening]

It's 2012. It's almost 2013. Slavery still exists in the world. It's not a safe bet that slavery would have ended through "wishful thinking". Even Ron Paul tacitly admits this when he talks about "compensated emancipation". I have simply gone a step further than Dr. Paul and pointed out that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation and explained how compensated emancipation actually could have worked in the large if Lincoln had tried the approach of tying it to tariffs.

So why didn't he do it then? Could he not talk to Davis? No, the war was about conquest and plunder. It was about money as Dickens said, not slavery. He wanted to conquer the South and force them into his Union for economic reasons.

[TheTexan]

If you want to free the slaves, forcing 9 million people to join your Union so they can be your tax-slaves is the wrong way to do it.

[Travlyr]

You know, I've heard this argument before. Nobody has ever responded to the question "Why would they have had to change their constitution and end slavery when slavery still exists"? Seriously? And nobody ever looks at the unique dynamic of regional slavery in the U.S. In other nations where slavery ended naturally, there was no concept of "slave state" and "free state". The idea that people in one region could secede and keep their slaves to my knowledge was not tried anywhere else. And considering how long "virtual slavery" continued through Jim Crowe laws and the sharecropping system, I'm not convinced of this "natural death" people love to talk about. I do believe, though, that it could have ended without war despite the regionalism. The problem Lincoln ran into when he tried compensated emancipation with the border states was "Who's going to pay for it?" Oh sure, people can always say "Well it would have been cheaper than war." And in hindsight it would have been. But considering how much people are against being taxed now for no obvious benefit, imagine the reaction of the person who didn't own slaves being taxed to pay the person who did own slaves to do what that person morally should be willing to do anyway. There was a way around that problem that I've talked about before, but nobody seems interested in listening to. Since the money for freeing slaves had to come from some sort of tax revenue, why allocate the money from protective tariffs to do that? Southern slave owners would win because they would have received money for their "property". (I put that in quotes because you really can't own another human being and it was illegitimate property.) Northern manufacturers would have still had the protection they needed. Slaves would have been freed. Taxpayers who didn't own slaves wouldn't have to feel like they were being taxed just for the benefit of slave owners. And for the "free traders" out there, the tariff should have been set to automatically expire once the full cost of freeing slaves and integrating them into society had been reached. But no, that wouldn't work because it makes too much sense.

I agree. I am no longer convinced of the "natural death" of slavery either. I used to believe that slavery would have eventually extinguished itself peacefully because it would be too expensive to maintain and technology would replace slaves, but, for most people, once a slave owner always a slave owner especially if it is enshrined in law. To me, the Southern Confederacy proved that with their willingness to go to war to defend their right to own slaves.

Testimony of Wesley Norris (http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris)


It has frequently been represented by the friends and admirers of Robert E. Lee, late an officer in the rebel army, that, although a slaveholder, his treatment of his chattels was invariably kind and humane. The subjoined statement, taken from the lips of one of his former slaves, indicates the real character of the man:


My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

[jmdrake]

So why didn't he do it then?

Maybe he wasn't as smart as I am? ;) Or maybe it's 20/20 hindsight? All I know is that he tried compensated emancipation and was only partially successful. Trying to assign motives beyond that just isn't an honest evaluation of the historical facts.

[itshappening]

Maybe he wasn't as smart as I am? ;) Or maybe it's 20/20 hindsight? All I know is that he tried compensated emancipation and was only partially successful. Trying to assign motives beyond that just isn't an honest evaluation of the historical facts.

He wouldn't talk with Davis because he was only interested in plundering, humiliating and conquering the South.

The war could have been stopped at any time and a diplomatic solution found.

The practices of the CSA that we find abhorrent would have changed over time.

[jay_dub]

Lincoln wasn't even there. He was in Springfield during the Chicago 1860 nominating convention.

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/politics/1860.html

So, in your mind Lincoln not personally passing out the counterfeit tickets amounts to him being drafted for the Presidency?

Strange, coming from someone that calls himself the Anti-Counterfeiter.

[Travlyr]

He wouldn't talk with Davis because he was only interested in plundering, humiliating and conquering the South.

The war could have been stopped at any time and a diplomatic solution found.

The practices of the CSA that we find abhorrent would have changed over time.

Abraham Lincoln was not interested in plundering, humiliating, and conquering. He was against nationalizing and expanding slavery and he had sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. He was duty bound.

He couldn't talk with Davis because that would legitimize the Confederacy and no one who supported the Union would have allowed that. The Southern Confederacy could have stopped the war anytime and re-joined the Union. They were in violation of Article I. Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There are many biographies written about Lincoln's character by people who knew him intimately.

Carl Schurz (http://www.trip.net/~bobwb/schurz/lincoln.html)
Henry Ketcham (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Abraham-Lincoln-Henry-Ketcham/dp/1619492105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356114780&sr=8-1&keywords=henry+ketcham)
William H. Herndon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=william%20herndon&sprefix=william%20hern,stripbooks,246&rh=n:283155%2Ck%3Awilliam%20herndon) was his business partner for 20 years. "Mr. Lincoln was the most generous, forebearing, and charitable man I ever knew," said William H. Herndon.
Read Abraham Lincoln own words. Lincoln's Inaugurals, Addresses and Letters (http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Inaugurals-Addresses-Selections-ebook/dp/B004TIKMKM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356115055&sr=1-1&keywords=lincoln+inaugural%2C+addresses+and+letter s)


"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." - Abraham Lincoln

[jay_dub]

I agree. I am no longer convinced of the "natural death" of slavery either. I used to believe that slavery would have eventually extinguished itself peacefully because it would be too expensive to maintain and technology would replace slaves, but, for most people, once a slave owner always a slave owner especially if it is enshrined in law. To me, the Southern Confederacy proved that with their willingness to go to war to defend their right to own slaves.

Testimony of Wesley Norris (http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris)

It has frequently been represented by the friends and admirers of Robert E. Lee, late an officer in the rebel army, that, although a slaveholder, his treatment of his chattels was invariably kind and humane. The subjoined statement, taken from the lips of one of his former slaves, indicates the real character of the man:


My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.


I find it VERY hard to believe that a slave would speak so well. Have you ever listened to any of the slave narratives? The statement of Wesley Norris sounds like something someone much more educated wrote. But hey, it *could* have happened, but more likely he made his mark at the bottom of a statement drawn up by someone else.

[jmdrake]

He wouldn't talk with Davis because he was only interested in plundering, humiliating and conquering the South.

The war could have been stopped at any time and a diplomatic solution found.

The practices of the CSA that we find abhorrent would have changed over time.

That's your opinion. And an opinion you give without supporting facts. You want to stick to it that's fine. I've given supporting facts for my opinion and I will stick with it. I'm done arguing with you over it.

[Travlyr]

So, in your mind Lincoln not personally passing out the counterfeit tickets amounts to him being drafted for the Presidency?

Strange, coming from someone that calls himself the Anti-Counterfeiter.
What I meant by Lincoln being drafted, which I should have said "hand selected," is everywhere he went he won the hearts and minds of everyone who agreed with him. He was a great speaker and had a sharp mind.

As far as the Republican convention in Chicago, I had not heard the story about the counterfeit tickets. If indeed what you say is true, then since he wasn't there how would he have been able to control that?

From Page 108 to 119 Proceedings of the Republican national convention held at Chicago, May 16, 17 and 18, 1860 (https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofrep00repuiala#page/116/mode/2up) it appears that Mr. Lincoln was very very popular with the entire crowd.

[jay_dub]

What I meant by Lincoln being drafted, which I should have said "hand selected," is everywhere he went he won the hearts and minds of everyone who agreed with him. He was a great speaker and had a sharp mind.

As far as the Republican convention in Chicago, I had not heard the story about the counterfeit tickets. If indeed what you say is true, then since he wasn't there how would he have been able to control that?

From Page 108 to 119 Proceedings of the Republican national convention held at Chicago, May 16, 17 and 18, 1860 (https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofrep00repuiala#page/116/mode/2up) it appears that Mr. Lincoln was very very popular with the entire crowd.

Should Lincoln be given a pass just because he wasn't physically there? It was his people acting on his behalf passing out the counterfeits. Had it not been for the counterfeit tickets, Seward likely would have won the nomination.

By that logic, we should excuse Romney for all the shenanigans pulled on his behalf, including the rules shoved through at Tampa. After all, he wasn't there.

[Confederate]

What I meant by Lincoln being drafted, which I should have said "hand selected," is everywhere he went he won the hearts and minds of everyone who agreed with him. He was a great speaker and had a sharp mind.

As far as the Republican convention in Chicago, I had not heard the story about the counterfeit tickets. If indeed what you say is true, then since he wasn't there how would he have been able to control that?

From Page 108 to 119 Proceedings of the Republican national convention held at Chicago, May 16, 17 and 18, 1860 (https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofrep00repuiala#page/116/mode/2up) it appears that Mr. Lincoln was very very popular with the entire crowd.

You really have a man crush on warmonger Lincoln

[itshappening]

Abraham Lincoln was not interested in plundering, humiliating, and conquering. He was against nationalizing and expanding slavery and he had sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. He was duty bound.

He couldn't talk with Davis because that would legitimize the Confederacy and no one who supported the Union would have allowed that. The Southern Confederacy could have stopped the war anytime and re-joined the Union. They were in violation of Article I. Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.


There are many biographies written about Lincoln's character by people who knew him intimately.

Carl Schurz (http://www.trip.net/~bobwb/schurz/lincoln.html)
Henry Ketcham (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Abraham-Lincoln-Henry-Ketcham/dp/1619492105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356114780&sr=8-1&keywords=henry+ketcham)
William H. Herndon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=william%20herndon&sprefix=william%20hern,stripbooks,246&rh=n:283155%2Ck%3Awilliam%20herndon) was his business partner for 20 years. "Mr. Lincoln was the most generous, forebearing, and charitable man I ever knew," said William H. Herndon.
Read Abraham Lincoln own words. Lincoln's Inaugurals, Addresses and Letters (http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Inaugurals-Addresses-Selections-ebook/dp/B004TIKMKM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356115055&sr=1-1&keywords=lincoln+inaugural%2C+addresses+and+letter s)

He was NOT against slavery. He said it many times and to different audiences that he had no interest in freeing slaves mostly because they would head to the north. He promised northerners that they wouldn't have to put up with blacks in their territory and they cheered him.

He supported amending the constitution to enshrine slavery in law. He wrote letters to governors asking to ratify this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

The South didn't want to re-join the Union, they have a right to self-determination and to seceed should they wish. Lincoln wanted to conquer them and humiliate them for economic reasons. This is why the war lasted years and until the South was utterly defeated and Davis imprisoned.

[heavenlyboy34]

He was NOT against slavery. He said it many times and to different audiences that he had no interest in freeing slaves mostly because they would head to the north. He promised northerners that they wouldn't have to put up with blacks in their territory and they cheered him.

He supported amending the constitution to enshrine slavery in law. He wrote letters to governors asking to ratify this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

The South didn't want to re-join the Union, they have a right to self-determination and to succeed should they wish. Lincoln wanted to conquer them and humiliate them for economic reasons. This is why the war lasted 5 long years until the South was utterly defeated and Davis imprisoned. +rep

[Travlyr]

He was NOT against slavery. He said it many times and to different audiences that he had no interest in freeing slaves mostly because they would head to the north. He promised northerners that they wouldn't have to put up with blacks in their territory and they cheered him.

He supported amending the constitution to enshrine slavery in law. He wrote letters to governors asking to ratify this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

The South didn't want to re-join the Union, they have a right to self-determination and to succeed should they wish. Lincoln wanted to conquer them and humiliate them for economic reasons. This is why the war lasted years and until the South was utterly defeated and Davis imprisoned.

Does this really sound like a man who is not morally against slavery to you?

In 1837, he documented his displeasure of slavery, and the abolition movement, in the permanent record of the Legislature of Illinois which was a very bold and a politically unpopular position at the time:


Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:101?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

March 3, 1837
The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.


They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.



The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.''

DAN STONE,

A. LINCOLN,

Representatives from the county of Sangamon.

Lincoln was fearful of slavery spreading throughout the Union even in the free states. (http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=5&subjectID=2)

Mr. Lincoln's attitudes toward slavery were closely connected to his ideas about work, wealth and justice. Friend and political colleague Joseph Gillespie wrote: "Mr. Lincolns sense of justice was intensely strong. It was to this mainly that his hatred of slavery may be attributed. He abhorred the institution. It was about the only public question on which he would become excited. I recollect meeting with him once at Shelbyville when he remarked that something must be done or slavery would overrun the whole country. He said there were about 600,000 non slave holding whites in Kentucky to about 33,000 slave holders. That in the convention then recently held it was expected that the delegates would represent these classes about in proportion to their respective numbers but when the convention assembled there was not a single representative of the non slaveholding class. Every one was in the interest of the slaveholders and said he this thing is spreading like wild fire over the Country. In a few years we will be ready to accept the institution in Illinois and the whole country will adopt it. I asked him to what he attributed the change that was going on in public opinion. He said he had put that question to a Kentuckian shortly before who answered by saying — you might have any amount of land, money in your pocket or bank stock and while travelling around no body would be any the wiser but if you had a darkey trudging at your heels every body would see him & know that you owned slaves — It is the most glittering ostentatious & displaying property in the world and now says he if a young man goes courting the only inquiry is how many negroes he or she owns and not what other property they may have. The love for Slavery property was swallowing up every other mercenary passion. Its ownership betokened not only the possession of wealth but indicated the gentleman of leisure who as was above and scorned labour. These things Mr. Lincoln regarded as highly seductive to the thoughtless and giddy headed young men who looked upon work as vulgar and ungentlemanly. Mr Lincoln was really excited and said with great earnestness that this spirit ought to be met and if possible checked. That slavery was a great & crying injustice an enormous national crime and that we could not expect to escape punishment for it.


In a Speech in U. S. House of Representatives on the Presidential Question (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:516?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)
July 27, 1848

Lincoln declared, “I am a Northern man, or rather, a Western free state man, with a constituency I believe to be, and with personal feelings I know to be, against the extension of slavery.”


The “House Divided” Speech, ca. 1857–1858 (http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/lincoln/resources/%E2%80%9Chouse-divided%E2%80%9D-speech-ca-1857%E2%80%931858)
by Abraham Lincoln
Why, Kansas is neither the whole, nor a tithe of the real question.

“A house divided against itself can not stand”

I believe this government can not endure permanently, half slave, and half free.
I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent developments have but confirmed me.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and put it in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawfull in all the states, old, as well as new. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see, how little, even now, remains to be done.

That decision may be reduced to three points. The first is, that a negro can not be a citizen. That point is made in order to deprive the negro in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the U. S Constitution which declares that: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all previleges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The second point is, that the U. S constitution protects slavery, as property, in all the U. S. territories, and that neither congress, nor the people of the territories, nor any other power, can prohibit it, at any time prior to the formation of State constitutions.

This point is made, in order that the territories may safely be filled up with slaves, before the formation of State constitutions, and thereby to embarrass the free states[.]



Excerpt from Speech at New Haven (http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/haven.htm)
March 6, 1860
“We think Slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the Territories, where our votes will reach it. We think that a respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men -- in short, we think Slavery a great moral, social and political evil, tolerable only because, and so far as its actual existence makes it necessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that, it ought to be treated as a wrong.” - Abraham Lincoln


Executive Mansion, (http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/11/if-slavery-is-not-wrong-nothing-is.html)
Washington, April 4, 1864.
A.G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.

My dear Sir:
You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.” - Abraham Lincoln

[itshappening]

Lincoln said many different things to different people. He was a politician and vote seeking.

You don't seem to understand this point.

If he was so anti-slavery, why did he want to amend the constitution with this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

He also supported deporting all blacks to Africa !

Why? Because it was politically popular.

His goal was always economic. He wanted to keep the South in the Union for economic reasons. The South had to be conquered and defeated and forced back into the Union after a long bloody war to satisfy Lincoln and his backers. Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Travlyr]

You really have a man crush on warmonger Lincoln

No, I have a love for truth and a hate for slavery. The Confederacy had a love for slavery so much so that they embedded it into their Constitution. I have studied Lincoln for years. When I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, I found out where you guys are getting your misinformation. Read people who knew Lincoln for the truth. William H. Herndon's biography is excellent, or Carl Schurz, or Henry Ketcham. DiLorenzo is a known liar.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, I have a love for truth and a hate for slavery. The Confederacy had a love for slavery so much so that they embedded it into their Constitution. I have studied Lincoln for years. When I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, I found out where you guys are getting your misinformation. Read people who knew Lincoln for the truth. William H. Herndon's biography is excellent, or Carl Schurz, or Henry Ketcham. DiLorenzo is a known liar.
Yes, the court historians would never lie or distort the truth. :rolleyes: DiLorenzo is not a known liar except in your not so humble opinion.

[itshappening]

No, I have a love for truth and a hate for slavery. The Confederacy had a love for slavery so much so that they embedded it into their Constitution. I have studied Lincoln for years. When I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, I found out where you guys are getting your misinformation. Read people who knew Lincoln for the truth. William H. Herndon's biography is excellent, or Carl Schurz, or Henry Ketcham. DiLorenzo is a known liar.

Why don't you email Dilorenzo and confront him with these supposed lies? He's easily contactable.

Maybe you can post his response here if he bothers replying to you.

[Travlyr]

Lincoln said many different things to different people. He was a politician and vote seeking.

You don't seem to understand this point.

If he was so anti-slavery, why did he want to amend the constitution with this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

He also supported deporting all blacks to Africa !

Why? Because it was politically popular.


Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Proof that Lincoln believed in not dictating to the people what was good for them and his firm belief in States Rights. He did not have any control over amendments to the Constitution. Nonetheless, he was personally opposed to the institution of slavery on moral grounds.

[Travlyr]

Why don't you email Dilorenzo and confront him with these supposed lies? He's easily contactable.

Maybe you can post his response here if he bothers replying to you.

Did you read his book? He said that Lincoln opposed auditing the State Bank of Illinois.

Here is Lincoln's amendment to audit the State Bank of Illinois.

Amendment to an Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the State of Illinois (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:67?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

[December 22, 1835]
SEC 5 The said corporation shall, at the next session of this General Assembly, and at each subsequent general session, during the existence of it's charter, report to the same, the amount of debts due from said corporation, the amount of debts due to the same, the amount of specie in it's vaults, and and [sic] an account of all lands then owned by the same, and the amount for which such lands have been taken: and moreover, if said corporation shall, at any time neglect or refuse, to submit it's books, papers, and all and every thing necessary to a full and fair examination of it's affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the General Assembly for the purpose of making such examination, the said corporation shall forfeit it's charter.

Annotation

[1] AD, I-Ar. The amendment was not adopted.

If that is not a lie, then it sure is a distortion of the truth.

[itshappening]

He wrote to governors urging them to ratify that amendment and his lawyers wrote it!

Lincoln was a politician and had a lust for power. That explains his actions more than anything.

[itshappening]

I dont care about auditing the bank of illinois, email him and take him to task about it and post his response here.

Lincoln's war cost 500,000 lives based on his desire to conquer and destroy the South and you quarrel about an audit to the bank of illinois?

Lincoln would be considered a war criminal today.

[Confederate]

He wrote to governors urging them to ratify that amendment and his lawyers wrote it!

Lincoln was a politician and had a lust for power. That explains his actions more than anything.

That explains all his action actions, especially causing a war that claimed the lives of 500,000 Americans.

[Confederate]

No, I have a love for truth and a hate for slavery. The Confederacy had a love for slavery so much so that they embedded it into their Constitution. I have studied Lincoln for years. When I read "The New Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, I found out where you guys are getting your misinformation. Read people who knew Lincoln for the truth. William H. Herndon's biography is excellent, or Carl Schurz, or Henry Ketcham. DiLorenzo is a known liar.

You just can't bear the thought of the South seeking freedom and not being beholden to your powerhungry, warmongering, psychopaths in DC.

[Confederate]

Proof that Lincoln believed in not dictating to the people what was good for them and his firm belief in States Rights. He did not have any control over amendments to the Constitution. Nonetheless, he was personally opposed to the institution of slavery on moral grounds.

That's like "pro-life" politicians who say "I'm personally pro-life, but I have no problem with you personally murdering your child." It's hypocricy and trying to pander to both sides of the argument. Lincoln was just that, he was a hypocritical, power-hungry, liar. He claimed to oppose slavery, yet on many occasions said he wouldn't interfere with slavery in slave states and wouldn't force them to give up slavery. It just shows that the cause of war had nothing to do with the slave issue! It was about CONTROL.

[Travlyr]

That's like "pro-life" politicians who say "I'm personally pro-life, but I have no problem with you personally murdering your child." It's hypocricy and trying to pander to both sides of the argument. Lincoln was just that, he was a hypocritical, power-hungry, liar. He claimed to oppose slavery, yet on many occasions said he wouldn't interfere with slavery in slave states and wouldn't force them to give up slavery. It just shows that the cause of war had nothing to do with the slave issue! It was about CONTROL.

If the war did not have anything to do with slavery, then why did the seceding states claim it did?

Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why the South Went To War (http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92)

Lincoln was about principle.
1860 Republican Party Platform (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620)

[Travlyr]

You just can't bear the thought of the South seeking freedom and not being beholden to your powerhungry, warmongering, psychopaths in DC.

I don't know why you still defend freedom for white people only. The Confederate Constitution was written to keep privileged white people free and negro's enslaved permanently. Talk about power hungry psychopaths.

[jmdrake]

Lincoln said many different things to different people. He was a politician and vote seeking.

True. So does Rand Paul. If I took Rand Paul at his word for everything he said I couldn't support him. Rand said that his reason for differing fro his father's position on military tribunals is that some of the evidence obtained from the terrorists might have come from torture and that could be a problem when trying to prosecute them. What Rand didn't say, and what I hope he secretly knows, is that contrary to what most rank and file conservatives believe (and most liberals for that matter) it's actually harder to use torture against someone in a military tribunal. Well...at least it was until the 2011 NDAA passed. (Prior to that someone couldn't confess to a capital crime to a military tribunal precisely over concern that such a confession might have come from torture.)



You don't seem to understand this point.

If he was so anti-slavery, why did he want to amend the constitution with this:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).


You're talking about the Corwin amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment). Corwin drafted it (not "Lincoln's lawyers" as you claim). That's an ignorant claim on your part because the amendment was drafted when Buchanan was still president. Maybe you believe a candidate Abraham Lincoln had a staff of lawyers drafting amendments to send to the POTUS? :rolleyes: Buchanan "signed" the amendment. Lincoln sent it out, without comment, to the governors. (No, he didn't "urge them to ratify it.) And why was the amendment drafted? Did Corwin harbor some love for slavery and hatred for African Americans? No. He realized that slavery was one of the main issues driving the secessionists. The hope was to take slavery off of the table, at least temporarily. Here is what Georgia secessionists declared as part of their reasons for secession.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

The "it" being the union. If slavery had been confined to the slave states, eventually "free" states would have had a 2/3rds majority. Then, even if the Corwin amendment had passed, it could have been repealed. Now you say "But how could it be repealed when it says no amendment shall be passed which shall give or authorize congress the power to abolish slavery"? Simple. The following amendment gives no such authority.

The 13th amendment to the U.S. constitution barring amendments to the U.S. constitution that bar slavery is hereby repealed.

It's that simple. The Corwin amendment simply would have meant that an amendment to bar slavery would have been a two step process instead of a one step process. It was a clever ploy that meant nothing. The southern secessionists could see through it. Ironically their apologists many years later apparently cannot.

The real argument regarding slavery was over it's expansion and whether or not fugitive slave laws would be enforced. From Lincoln's first inaugural address.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

He made it as clear as possible that he didn't believe the federal government was required to enforce fugitive slave laws or require states to enforce them. He made it clear that he didn't believe the federal government was barred from prohibiting the expansion of slavery. Southern states disagreed.



He also supported deporting all blacks to Africa !


Total lie that I've already disproven. You've offered no evidence to back up your position. I've given you proof that despite what you may think about Lincoln, when given the chance he did not "deport" a single black man, woman or child. He provided funds for voluntary emigration for those who wanted to do so. I'm wondering why you or others think that's a bad thing?

[jmdrake]

That's like "pro-life" politicians who say "I'm personally pro-life, but I have no problem with you personally murdering your child." It's hypocricy and trying to pander to both sides of the argument. Lincoln was just that, he was a hypocritical, power-hungry, liar. He claimed to oppose slavery, yet on many occasions said he wouldn't interfere with slavery in slave states and wouldn't force them to give up slavery. It just shows that the cause of war had nothing to do with the slave issue! It was about CONTROL.

Some people claim Ron Paul is a hypocrite because he doesn't support banning all abortions at the federal level, although he did vote to federally ban partial-birth abortions and has made other moves to try to stem the tide of abortions. Please see: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion I disagree with them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Total lie that I've already disproven. You've offered no evidence to back up your position. I've given you proof that despite what you may think about Lincoln, when given the chance he did not "deport" a single black man, woman or child. He provided funds for voluntary emigration for those who wanted to do so. I'm wondering why you or others think that's a bad thing?
Incorrect.

The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lincoln/) laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.
Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/belize/) and another in Guyana (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/guyana/), both colonial possessions of Great Britain (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/great-britain/) at the time, said Phillip W. Magness (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/phillip-w-magness/), one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.
Historians have debated how seriously Lincoln took colonization efforts, but Mr. Magness (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/phillip-w-magness/) said the story he uncovered, to be published next week in a book, “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/movement-for-black-resettlement/),” shows the president didn’t just flirt with the idea, as historians had previously known, but that he personally pursued it for some time.
“The way that Lincoln historians have grappled with colonization has always been troublesome. It doesn’t mesh with the whole ‘emancipator,’ ” Mr. Magness (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/phillip-w-magness/) said. “The revelation of this story changes the picture on that because a lot of historians have tended to downplay colonization. … What we know now is he did continue the effort for at least a year after the proclamation was signed.”
Mr. Magness (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/phillip-w-magness/) said the key documents he and his co-author, Sebastian N. Page (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/sebastian-n-page/), a junior research fellow at Oxford, found were in British archives, and included an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.
By early 1864, the scheme had fallen apart, with British officials fretting over the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation and the risk that the South could still win the war, and with the U.S. Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-congress/) questioning how the money was being spent.
Roughly a year later, Lincoln was assassinated.
The Belize (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/belize/) and Guyana (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/guyana/) efforts followed other aborted colonization attempts in present-day Panama (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/panama/) and on an island off the coast of Haiti (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/haiti/), which actually received several hundred freed slaves in 1862, but failed the next year.
Michael Burlingame (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-burlingame/), chair of Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/university-of-illinois-at-urbana-champaign/) at Springfield, said there are two ways to view Lincoln’s public support for colonization.
One side holds that it shows Lincoln could not envision a biracial democracy, while the other stance — which Mr. Burlingame (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-burlingame/) subscribes to — says Lincoln’s public actions were “the way to sugarcoat the emancipation pill” for Northerners.
“So many people in the North said we will not accept emancipation unless it is accompanied by colonization,” said Mr. Burlingame (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-burlingame/), adding that Lincoln himself had always made clear colonization would be voluntary and nobody would be forced out of the United States.
The newly released documents underscore just how hot a topic colonization was in the 1800s, when prominent statesmen debated whether blacks and whites could ever live together in a functioning society.
Earlier in the century, the American Colonization Society already had organized efforts to ship thousands of black Americans to Africa to the colony of Liberia, and the debate over colonization raged even within the black community.
Frederick Douglass, one of the country’s most prominent free blacks, generally opposed colonization, though Mr. Burlingame (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-burlingame/) said on a couple of occasions he showed signs he might embrace it — including appearing open to a venture in Haiti (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/haiti/) during the Civil War.
Still, Douglass also rejected the argument that blacks and whites couldn’t live together, and he pointed to places in the North as examples of where it already was happening.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/book-lincoln-sought-to-deport-freed-slaves/#ixzz2FjBDMKZc
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

[Confederate]

Some people claim Ron Paul is a hypocrite because he doesn't support banning all abortions at the federal level, although he did vote to federally ban partial-birth abortions and has made other moves to try to stem the tide of abortions. Please see: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion I disagree with them.

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would ban all abortions at the federal level by granting the unborn the right to life. Whether states would prosecute all murders of unborn children is a different matter.

But yes, I do consider Ron Paul a "pro-life" hypocrite because he does not condemn contraceptives and "morning after" pills.

[Travlyr]

I dont care about auditing the bank of illinois, email him and take him to task about it and post his response here.

Lincoln's war cost 500,000 lives based on his desire to conquer and destroy the South and you quarrel about an audit to the bank of illinois?

Lincoln would be considered a war criminal today.

It is the lie that bothers me. If I can't trust an biographical author to tell me the truth about a man he is documenting, then why should I believe anything he writes.

Let me ask you this. DiLorenzo stated in his book, "The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today." Do you believe that? According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln embraced the "American System" promoted by Henry Clay.


"American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry. This "System" consisted of three mutually reenforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture. Funds for these subsidies would be obtained from tariffs and sales of public lands. Clay argued that a vigorously maintained system of sectional economic interdependence would eliminate the chance of renewed subservience to the free-trade, laissez-faire "British System."

Or do we labor under international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of elastic money power and control?

DiLorenzo would have us believe they are the same. Is that another lie or do you really believe that the "Federal Reserve System" is the same as the "American System?"

Also, calling it Lincoln's war demonstrates very little historical study on your part. The war had been brewing for years.

[itshappening]

Jmdrake, he wrote to the governor of Florida urging him to pass the Corwin amendment:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/bizarre&id=4379128

Indeed, he wrote to all governors urging its passage.

[Travlyr]

Jmdrake, he wrote to the governor of Florida urging him to pass the Corwin amendment:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/bizarre&id=4379128

Indeed, he wrote to all governors urging its passage.

If it had passed, then wouldn't that have been a peaceful way to end the slavery issue as well as letting the people decide for themselves? Perhaps Lincoln was looking for any peaceful solution possible even if he did not personally agree with it.

[itshappening]

It is the lie that bothers me. If I can't trust an bibliographical author to tell me the truth about man, then why should I believe anything he writes.

Let me ask you this. DiLorenzo stated in his book, "The war created the highly centralized state that Americans labor under today." Do you believe that? According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln embraced the "American System" promoted by Henry Clay.



Or do we labor under international banker's "Federal Reserve System" of elastic money power and control?

DiLorenzo would have us believe they are the same. Is that another lie or do you really believe that the "Federal Reserve System" is the same as the "American System?"

I highly doubt Dilorenzo was lying, why don't you put it to him and report back here when he replies? Email him and be polite.

[itshappening]

If it had passed, then wouldn't that have been a peaceful way to end the slavery issue as well as letting the people decide for themselves? Perhaps Lincoln was looking for any peaceful solution possible even if he did not personally agree with it.

The South didn't want to be in the Union any more, they have a right to self-determination. Lincoln was a tyrant who fought a long, bloody war to force the south back into the union at gunpoint and destroy them. He blockaded them, imprisoned their political leaders and plundered their lands. Do you dispute these facts? He also shut down newspapers and ordered the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested! He was a tyrant.

If Florida leaves the union today would you send in the troops and kill a million floridians?

[Travlyr]

I highly doubt Dilorenzo was lying, why don't you put it to him and report back here when he replies? Email him and be polite.

The "American System" and the "Federal Reserve System" are two completely different economic systems. DiLorenzo is an economics professor. Either he is lying or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which do you think it is?

[itshappening]

The "American System" and the "Federal Reserve System" are two completely different economic systems. DiLorenzo is an economics professor. Either he is lying or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which do you think it is?

Email him and report back here but don't accuse him of lying or I doubt he will reply.

[Travlyr]

Email him and report back here but don't accuse him of lying or I doubt he will reply.

I have no intention of writing him. His "The Real Lincoln" book reviews currently stand at about 40% negative on Amazon.com with many of the negative reviews being written by scholars and historians. I may write a review myself, but his reputation, and the Mises Institute's reputation, is at stake. I think the people at the Mises Institute should investigate and support the truth. The truth is that Lincoln believed the institution of slavery was wrong. He firmly believed that.

Another interesting note about DiLorenzo's "The New Lincoln" is that he did not touch on Lincoln's boyhood or early manhood at all. Thomas and Sarah Lincoln raised Abraham in an anti-slavery home. Why a biographer would not include a man's formative years in the biography is concerning in itself.

[Confederate]

I have no intention of writing him. His "The Real Lincoln" book reviews currently stand at about 40% negative on Amazon.com with many of the negative reviews being written by scholars and historians.

hahaahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[heavenlyboy34]

hahaahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This^ LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

[Travlyr]

hahaahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I laughed that hard yesterday when you -rep me for posting the Confederate Constitution pointing out the slavery declarations.
"Stop insulting the Confederacy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?399085-Constitution-of-the-Confederate-States-March-11-1861&p=4784249&viewfull=1#post4784249)!"

[Confederate]

I laughed that hard yesterday when you -rep me for posting the Confederate Constitution pointing out the slavery declarations.
"Stop insulting the Confederacy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?399085-Constitution-of-the-Confederate-States-March-11-1861&p=4784249&viewfull=1#post4784249)!"

I didn't -rep the Confederate Constitution. I'd never insult such a beautiful, holy document of freedom and liberty.

[Travlyr]

I didn't -rep the Confederate Constitution. I'd never insult such a beautiful, holy document of freedom and liberty.For white people.

[Aratus]

^ THIS ^

[klamath]

I didn't -rep the Confederate Constitution. I'd never insult such a beautiful, holy document of freedom and liberty. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I think what you believe is right there. You really do believe blacks are subhumans don't you?

[Confederate]

For white people.

There were free blacks in the Confederacy.

[Confederate]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I think what you believe is right there. You really do believe blacks are subhumans don't you?

When have I ever said that? I've said I'm against negro slavery, which would have died out on it's own in the Confederacy without a war, just like it did in the rest of the western world.

Also, if I acknowledge blacks as humans, how could I think they're are subhuman? That doesn't make any logical sense. I believe in equal treatment under the law to all people, regardless of race.

The only person I could see as "subhuman" is a murderer or rapist whose actions have made him lose his humanity and deserve to be executed.

[klamath]

When have I ever said that? I've said I'm against negro slavery, which would have died out on it's own in the Confederacy without a war, just like it did in the rest of the western world.

Also, if I acknowledge blacks as humans, how could I think they're are subhuman? That doesn't make any logical sense. I believe in equal treatment under the law to all people, regardless of race.

The only person I could see as "subhuman" is a murderer or rapist whose actions have made him lose his humanity and deserve to be executed. Alright have fun.

[osan]

Giving a slave any proportion of a vote makes no sense whatsoever. The act of doing so smacks of the tacit admission that slavery is wrong and that by so granting proportional voting rights, slavery is somehow given the appearance of respectability and moral legitimacy.

What a load of crap.

Besides, even so granted, I read nothing therein that obliges the slave owner to grant access of his slaves to the polling places at the assigned times. Nor is there any talk of a slave's ballot being secret. This implies the ability of the owners to deny voting access and even where granted, there is nothing to prevent the owner from monitoring the slave's vote. Because of the nature of slavery, what then is to stop the owner from, say, beating his slave to death in the event said slave votes in opposition to the owner's expressed wishes?

In the face of slavery, the tacit values implicit in the concept of voting become a sad joke to justify endless face-palming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReMuAjkvlsgKNhPgfqlZpILm7Eecyfj 21dOOy9K3rU2lirIkKi https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsSdLE5CIY-jfu92LUOuLOgq-Fwv0Bj54JAECCV6AITIhpQOXJ

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTP_Rvjw_h2UV7F5b2CWUA8WspzI6N9s dxmOK-t9GwjsQ0WoXEQ https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyIjGgxibIcdaFD4AmddurnyMzFp2mA We77SgTidZ_l6ohudBWOw

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1DggK4OJpmq7McV1IlusoxpjiaVT4h Kc8IjRsJZuPMTrG-Kdqfw https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9Gomx_gjcf1gVM3gQ7mIGO9QYHF2Wn-lfEt2vwZMroZiWLzfPrg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaOCoeLe-uzFGQHxc3gUVC0qqVZnpFGZzWSz9ADdGRvLUJz5pE https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDYvtnnG9OWqFRGipuBc2iX3ha1zeXx _Yjj5gfeRpmJ3VmFeRy https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRS7e5ZAQDbw8uLyeOpnwoWNFunKsTJX edl2FU27uHJXWdyx4QB


While I thoroughly reject the actions taken by that monster Abraham Lincoln on behalf of his handlers, I am in no way favorably impressed with the fundamental concept of the Confederacy. When compared with the conceptual structure of the Union, the CSA pales into the ridiculous n-th rate status of an embarrassingly poor stand-up routine.

[heavenlyboy34]

Giving a slave any proportion of a vote makes no sense whatsoever. The act of doing so smacks of the tacit admission that slavery is wrong and that by so granting proportional voting rights, slavery is somehow given the appearance of respectability and moral legitimacy.

What a load of crap.

Besides, even so granted, I read nothing therein that obliges the slave owner to grant access of his slaves to the polling places at the assigned times. Nor is there any talk of a slave's ballot being secret. This implies the ability of the owners to deny voting access and even where granted, there is nothing to prevent the owner from monitoring the slave's vote. Because of the nature of slavery, what then is to stop the owner from, say, beating his slave to death in the event said slave votes in opposition to the owner's expressed wishes?

In the face of slavery, the tacit values implicit in the concept of voting become a sad joke to justify endless face-palming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReMuAjkvlsgKNhPgfqlZpILm7Eecyfj 21dOOy9K3rU2lirIkKi https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsSdLE5CIY-jfu92LUOuLOgq-Fwv0Bj54JAECCV6AITIhpQOXJ

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTP_Rvjw_h2UV7F5b2CWUA8WspzI6N9s dxmOK-t9GwjsQ0WoXEQ https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyIjGgxibIcdaFD4AmddurnyMzFp2mA We77SgTidZ_l6ohudBWOw

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1DggK4OJpmq7McV1IlusoxpjiaVT4h Kc8IjRsJZuPMTrG-Kdqfw https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9Gomx_gjcf1gVM3gQ7mIGO9QYHF2Wn-lfEt2vwZMroZiWLzfPrg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaOCoeLe-uzFGQHxc3gUVC0qqVZnpFGZzWSz9ADdGRvLUJz5pE https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDYvtnnG9OWqFRGipuBc2iX3ha1zeXx _Yjj5gfeRpmJ3VmFeRy https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRS7e5ZAQDbw8uLyeOpnwoWNFunKsTJX edl2FU27uHJXWdyx4QB


While I thoroughly reject the actions taken by that monster Abraham Lincoln on behalf of his handlers, I am in no way favorably impressed with the fundamental concept of the Confederacy. When compared with the conceptual structure of the Union, the CSA pales into the ridiculous n-th rate status of an embarrassingly poor stand-up routine.
Come, now. You could say the same thing about the Federal Constitution. Constitutions are silent on lots of things. Even the most brilliant writer could not predict the future. That's what civil governance is for.

[torchbearer]

Giving a slave any proportion of a vote makes no sense whatsoever. The act of doing so smacks of the tacit admission that slavery is wrong and that by so granting proportional voting rights, slavery is somehow given the appearance of respectability and moral legitimacy.

What a load of crap.

Besides, even so granted, I read nothing therein that obliges the slave owner to grant access of his slaves to the polling places at the assigned times. Nor is there any talk of a slave's ballot being secret. This implies the ability of the owners to deny voting access and even where granted, there is nothing to prevent the owner from monitoring the slave's vote. Because of the nature of slavery, what then is to stop the owner from, say, beating his slave to death in the event said slave votes in opposition to the owner's expressed wishes?

In the face of slavery, the tacit values implicit in the concept of voting become a sad joke to justify endless face-palming.
. facepalm the U.S. constitution:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Old_South) and Northern states (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Northeastern_United_States) reached during the Philadelphia convention (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Philadelphia_convention) of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Slavery) would be counted for representation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/United_States_Census) purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Apportionment_(politics)) of the members of the United States House of Representatives (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives). It was proposed by delegates James Wilson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/James_Wilson) and Roger Sherman (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Roger_Sherman).
Delegates opposed to slavery (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States) generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and the Electoral College (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)). The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Indentured_servant#America), and excluding Indians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States) not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[heavenlyboy34]

facepalm the U.S. constitution: :D +rep

[klamath]

facepalm the U.S. constitution: They wanted to use the non humans as population count to give each white man in the slave holding states 1 man= 1.5 or 2 votes compared the non slave holding men. What and evil Fing system.

[torchbearer]

They wanted to use the non humans as population count to give each white man in the slave holding states 1 man= 1.5 or 2 votes compared the non slave holding men. What and evil Fing system. do you know the history of sociological thought in human society?
when the first explorers met humans that looked different than they did, they assumed they were a different "race", and being that they were savage, they were considered subhuman. Not because of bigotry, but because of ignorance. It seems ridiculous from our perspective because we have the knowledge to realize we are all the same "race". but to force our perspective on the lenses of history is to distort the understanding of society of each time period.

[klamath]

do you know the history of sociological thought in human society?
when the first explorers met humans that looked different than they did, they assumed they were a different "race", and being that they were savage, they were considered subhuman. Not because of bigotry, but because of ignorance. It seems ridiculous from our perspective because we have the knowledge to realize we are all the same "race". but to force our perspective on the lenses of history is to distort the understanding of society of each time period.
Honestly, Bullshit. They knew at the time but for their own power hungry lazy ways they made up excuses . Jefferson sure as hell knew it.

[torchbearer]

Honestly, Bullshit. They knew at the time but for their own power hungry lazy ways they made up excuses . Jefferson sure as hell knew it. actually, you are full of shit. This is my field of study. One place where you tread, and you are so wrong.

[klamath]

actually, you are full of shit. This is my field of study. One place where you tread, and you are so wrong.
Nah, You are and it has been proved.

[torchbearer]

Nah, You are and it has been proved. funny, when i fill out forms, still today... it ask my what my race is... where did that start and why?
because any athropologist will tell you, there is only one race, the human race. now answer the question, where did the ideas of race come from, and why are we still peddling these ideas today? where did those ideas originate and why?
I'm about to make you look like a fool.

[klamath]

funny, when i fill out forms, still today... it ask my what my race is... where did that start and why?
because any athropologist will tell you, there is only one race, the human race. now answer the question, where did the ideas of race come from, and why are we still peddling these ideas today? where did those ideas originate and why?
I'm about to make you look like a fool.
No you are about to prove yourself as a hypocrite.

[torchbearer]

Historical race concepts have varied across cultures and over time, and have been controversial for social, political and scientific reasons. Until the 19th century, race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)) was thought by many to constitute an immutable and distinct type or species (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Species) which shared particular racial characteristics, such as body constitution, temperament and mental capacities.

One concept, that of Christian Europe, conceived of the races as constituting a hierarchical chain of life known as the Great Chain of Being (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being), which was believed to have been created by God, in which the people thought the Christian European races were closest to God in perfection.


The word "race", interpreted to mean common descent (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Common_descent), was introduced into English (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/English_language) in about 1580, from the Old French rasse (1512), from Italian razza, which may have been derived from the Arabic Word "ras" "رأس" meaning the head of someone or something. In this context, "ras" points to the root or the head of selected species. The etymology can be further traced back to Latin gens or Arabic "genat" "جينات" meaning clan, stock or people and genus meaning birth, descent, origin, race, stock, or family, and cognate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Cognate) with Greek genos (γένος) "race, kind," and gonos "birth, offspring, stock [...]." This late origin for the English and French terms is consistent with the thesis that the concept of "race" as defining a small number of groups of human beings based on lineage dates from the time of Christopher Columbus (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Christopher_Columbus). Older concepts, which were also based at least partly on common descent, such as nation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nation) and tribe (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Tribe) entail a much larger number of groupings.

During the Age of Enlightenment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), Europeans tried to define race as a biological concept, in keeping with their scientific ideas. In the centuries that followed, scholars made attempts to classify and define racial types, and to determine racial origins and correlates. As forensic anthropologists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Forensic_anthropology), biomedical researchers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Biomedical_research), and other scholars have collected and analyzed data on individuals and populations, some maintain that race denotes scientifically practical distinctions.

Earliest views on ethnic differences
In many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances became full members of a society (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Society) by growing up within that society or by adopting that society's cultural (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Culture) norms (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Norm_(sociology)). (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990).
When the lighter ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the darker group "the evil race of Ish". When the darker ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the lighter group "the pale, degraded race of Arvad". These differences also related to different cultural groups who competed for power. For example, the Ancient Egyptian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) sacred text called Book of Gates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Book_of_Gates) identifies four ethnic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnicity) categories that are now conventionally labeled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians" (see Ancient Egypt and race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Egypt_and_race)), but such distinctions tended to conflate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Conflation) differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with tribal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Tribe) and national (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nation) identity.
Classical civilizations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Classical_civilization) from Rome (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Rome) to China (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_China) tended to invest the most importance in familial (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Family) or tribal affiliation than an individual's physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Societies still tended to equate physical characteristics, such as hair and eye colour, with psychological and moral qualities, usually assigning the highest qualities to their own people and lower qualities to the "Other", either lower classes or outsiders to their society. For example, an historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Han_Dynasty) in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Barbarians) of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended."[2] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Gossett-2) (Gossett, pp. 4).
Dominant in ancient Greek and Roman conceptions of human diversity was the thesis that physical differences between different populations could be attributed to environmental factors. Though ancient peoples likely had no knowledge of evolutionary theory or genetic variability, their concepts of race could be described as malleable. Chief among environmental causes for physical difference in the ancient period were climate and geography. Though thinkers in ancient civilizations recognized differences in physical characteristics between different populations, the general consensus was that all non-Greeks were barbarians. This barbarian status, however, was not thought to be fixed; rather, one could shed the ‘barbarian’ status simply by adopting Greek culture. (Graves 2001)
Ancient Greek theorieshttp://www.ronpaulforums.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Hippocrates_rubens.jpg/170px-Hippocrates_rubens.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Hippocrates_rubens.jpg) http://www.ronpaulforums.com//bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf6/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Hippocrates_rubens.jpg)
Hippocrates of Cos (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hippocrates_of_Cos).


Hippocrates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hippocrates) believed, as many thinkers throughout early history did, that factors such as geography and climate played a significant role in the physical appearance of different peoples. He writes that, “the forms and dispositions of mankind correspond with the nature of the country.” He attributed physical and temperamental differences among different peoples to environmental factors such as climate, water sources, elevation and terrain. He noted that temperate climates created peoples who were “sluggish” and “not apt for labor”, while extreme climates led to peoples who were “sharp”, “industrious” and vigilant”. He also noted that peoples of “mountainous, rugged, elevated, and well-watered” countries displayed “enterprising” and “warlike” characteristics, while peoples of “level, windy, and well-watered” countries were “unmanly” and “gentle”.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Aristotle) believed that climate played the most crucial factor in determining differences in physical characteristics, most notably the mixture of heat and cold. He is widely credited with devising the concept of the great chain of being, in De partibus animalium, in which animals of the earth exist on a fixed and unchanging ladder of perfection depending on the mixture of fundamental elements within the animal (Graves 2001). Though Aristotle did not explicitly delineate the variety of the human species on this scale, later scientists would re-invent the scale, using explicit divisions of human races.
Ancient Roman theoriesJulian the Apostate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate), a Roman emperor in the 4th century, stereotyped characteristics of various ethnic groups, which he attributed to Divine Providence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Divine_Providence):

"Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn? For if there is anyone who does not discern a reason for these differences among the nations, but rather declaims that all this so befell spontaneously, how, I ask, can he still believe that the universe is administered by a providence?"[4] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-4)
Medieval theoriesEuropean medieval (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Medieval) models of race generally mixed Classical (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Graeco-Roman) ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Shem), Ham (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ham_(son_of_Noah)) and Japheth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Japheth), the three sons of Noah (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sons_of_Noah), producing distinct Semitic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Semitic) (Asiatic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Asia)), Hamitic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hamitic) (African (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Africa)), and Japhetic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Japhetic) (Indo-European (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Indo-European_languages)) peoples. This theory dates back to the Judeo-Christian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Judeo-Christian) tradition, as described in the Babylonian Talmud (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Talmud), which states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Black_people), and depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."
In the 9th century, Al-Jahiz (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Al-Jahiz), an Afro-Arab (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Afro-Arab) Islamic philosopher (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy) attempted to explain the origins of different human skin colors (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_skin_color), particularly black skin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Black_people), which he believed to be the result of the environment. He cited a stony region of black basalt (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Basalt) in the northern Najd (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Najd) as evidence for his theory:[5] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-5)
In the 14th century, the Islamic sociologist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/w/index.php?title=Sociology_in_medieval_Islam&action=edit&redlink=1) Ibn Khaldun (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun), a proponent dispelled the Judeo-Christian account of peoples and their characteristics as a myth. He wrote that black skin was due to the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) and not due to the descendants of Ham being cursed.[6] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-6) Such Arabic writings were generally not accessible to many Europeans at this time.
Later, during the European colonial (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Colonialism) era, Ibn Khaldun's work was translated into French, especially for use in Algeria, but in the process, the work was transformed from local knowledge to colonial categories of knowledge.[7] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Hannoum-7) The historian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Historian) William Desborough Cooley's [I]The Negro Land of the Arabs Examined and Explained (1841) has excerpts of translations of Khaldun's work that were not affected by French colonial ideas.[8] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Cooley-8) For example, Cooley quotes Khaldun's describing the great African civilization of Ghana (in Cooley's translation):
"When the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghánah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghánah, which, according to the author of the 'Book of Roger' (El Idrisi), and the author of the 'Book of Roads and Realms' (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world.The people of Ghánah had for neighbours, on the east, a nation, which, according to historians, was called Súsú; after which came another named Máli; and after that another known by the name of Kaǘkaǘ; although some people prefer a different orthography, and write this name Kághó. The last-named nation was followed by a people called Tekrúr. The people of Ghánah declined in course of time, being overwhelmed or absorbed by the Molaththemún (or muffled people; that is, the Morabites), who, adjoining them on the north towards the Berber (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Berber_people) country, attacked them, and, taking possession of their territory, compelled them to embrace the Mohammedan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mohammedan) religion. The people of Ghánah, being invaded at a later period by the Súsú, a nation of Blacks in their neighbourhood, were exterminated, or mixed with other Black nations." [8] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Cooley-8)Ibn Khaldun suggests a link between the rise of the Almoravids and the decline of Ghana. But, historians have found virtually no evidence for an Almoravid conquest of Ghana.[9] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-9)[10] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-10)
Early Modern periodThe word "race," along with many of the ideas now associated with the term were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Age_of_exploration). (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups, which marked the early stages of the development of science. Scientists who were interested in natural history, including biological and geological scientists, were known as “naturalists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Naturalists)”. They would collect, examine, describe, and arrange data from their explorations into categories according to certain criteria. People who were particularly skilled at organizing specific sets of data in a logically and comprehensive fashion were known as classifiers and systematists. This process was a new trend in science that served to help answer fundamental questions by collecting and organizing materials for systematic study, also known as taxonomy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Taxonomy).[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)
As the study of natural history grew, so did society’s effort to classify human groups. Some zoologists and scientists wondered what made humans different than animals in the primate family. Furthermore, they contemplated whether **** sapiens should be classified as one species with multiple varieties or separate species.
In the 16th and 17th century, scientists attempted to classify **** sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color, others simply on geographic location, shape, stature, food habits, and other distinguishing characteristics. Occasionally the term “race” was used but most of the early taxonomist used classificatory terms such as “peoples,” “nations,” “types,” “varieties,” and “species.”
Giordano Bruno and Jean BodinItalian scientist Giordano Bruno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) (1548–1600) and Jean Bodin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Jean_Bodin) (1530–1596), French scientist, attempted a rudimentary geographic arrangement of known human populations based on skin color. Bodin’s color classifications were purely descriptive, including neutral terms such as “duskish colour, like roasted quinze,” “black,” “chestnut,” and “farish white.” [11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)
Bernhard Varen and John RayGerman and English scientists, Bernhard Varen (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Bernhard_Varen) (1622–1650) and John Ray (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/John_Ray) (1627–1705) classified human populations into categories according to stature, shape, food habits, and skin color, along with any other distinguishing characteristics.[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)
Ray was also the first person to produce a biological definition of species (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Species).
François BernierFrançois Bernier (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Bernier) (1625–1688) is believed to have developed the first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races which was published in a French journal article in 1684, Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitant, New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it. (Gossett, 1997:32-33). Bernier advocated using the “four quarters” of the globe as the basis for providing labels for human differences.[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11) The four subgroups that Bernier used were Europeans, Far Easterners, Negroes (blacks), and Lapps.[12] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-C._Loring.2C_Brace_2005-12)
Age of EnlightenmentAs noted earlier, scientists attempted to classify **** sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color, others simply on geographic location, shape, stature, food habits, and other distinguishing characteristics. In the 18th century, scientists began to include behavioral or psychological traits in their reported observations- which often had derogatory or demeaning implications – and often assumed that those behavioral or psychological traits were related to their race, and therefore, innate and unchangeable. Other areas of interest were to determine the exact number of races, categorize and name them, and examine the primary and secondary causes of variation between groups.

The Great Chain of Being (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being), a medieval idea that there was a hierarchical structure of life from the most fundamental elements to the most perfect, began to encroach upon the idea of race. As taxonomy grew, scientists began to assume that the human species could be divided into distinct subgroups. One’s “race” necessarily implied that one group had certain character qualities and physical dispositions that differentiated it from other human populations. Society gave different values to those differentiations, which essentially created a gap between races by deeming one race superior or inferior to another race, thus a hierarchy of races. In this way, science was used as justification for unfair treatment of different human populations.

The systematization of race concepts during the Enlightenment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) period brought with it the conflict between monogenism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Monogenism) (a single origin for all human races) and polygenism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Polygenism) (the hypothesis that races had separate origins). This debate was originally cast in creationist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Creationist) terms as a question of one versus many creations of humanity, but continued after evolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Evolution) was widely accepted, at which point the question was given in terms of whether humans had split from their ancestral species one or many times.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbachhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach.jpg/125px-Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach.jpg) http://www.ronpaulforums.com//bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf6/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach.jpg)
Johan Friedrich Blumenbach


http://www.ronpaulforums.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Blumenbach%27s_five_races.JPG/220px-Blumenbach%27s_five_races.JPG (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Blumenbach%27s_five_races.JPG) http://www.ronpaulforums.com//bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf6/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Blumenbach%27s_five_races.JPG)
Blumenbach's five races (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)).


Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach) divided the human species (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Species) into five races (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)) in 1779, later founded on crania research (description of human skulls), and called them (1793/1795):

the Caucasian race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Caucasian_race) or white race
the Mongolian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mongoloid_race) or yellow race
the Malayan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Malay_race) or brown race
the Negroid race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Negroid_race), or black race
the American (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas) or red race.
(See also color terminology for race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race).)
These five groupings together with two other additional groupings called the Australoid race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Australoid_race) (1940s) and the Capoid race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Capoid_race) (early 1960s), making a total of seven groupings in all, are today known as the traditional racial classifications or the historical definition of race. These groupings are still used today in historical anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anthropology) that describes human migration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_migration) and in forensics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Forensics).
His classification of the Mongolian race included all East Asians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/East_Asian) and some Central Asians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Central_Asian). Blumenbach excluded peoples of Southeast Asian islands and Pacific Islanders from his definition in 1779, as he considered them to be part of the Malay race. He considered American Indians to be part of the American (Indigenous peoples) race. He did not think they were inferior to the Caucasian race, and were potentially good members of society. He included the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa in the Negro or black race.
Blumenbach argued that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., were depended on geography and nutrition and custom.
Blumenbach's work included his description of sixty human crania (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_cranium) (skulls) published originally in fascicules as Decas craniorum (Göttingen, 1790–1828). This was a founding work for other scientists in the field of craniometry (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Craniometry).
Further anatomical study led him to the conclusion that 'individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other individual Africans as Europeans differ from Europeans'. Furthermore he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind 'concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities'.[13] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-13)

"Finally, I am of opinion that after all these numerous instances I have brought together of negroes of capacity, it would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy; and on the other hand, there is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro."[14] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-14)

[torchbearer]

No you are about to prove yourself as a hypocrite. read and educate yourself. fool.

[torchbearer]

Racial anthropology (1850-1930)Main article: racial anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Racial_anthropology)
Further information: biological anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Biological_anthropology)
Among the 19th century naturalists who defined the field were Georges Cuvier (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Georges_Cuvier), James Cowles Pritchard (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/James_Cowles_Pritchard), Louis Agassiz (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Louis_Agassiz), Charles Pickering (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Charles_Pickering_NMI) (Races of Man and Their Geographical Distribution, 1848). Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz twelve, and Pickering eleven.
The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept. For example, using anthropometrics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anthropometrics), invented by Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Alphonse_Bertillon), they measured the shapes and sizes of skulls and related the results to group differences in intelligence or other attributes (Lieberman 2001).
These scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as forms of activity and interpersonal relations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations) and culture, and by extension the relative material success (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Materialism) of cultures), thus biologizing the notion of "race", as Foucault demonstrated in his historical analysis; third, that race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior. Races were distinguished by skin color (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_skin_color), facial type (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/w/index.php?title=Facial_type&action=edit&redlink=1), cranial (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_cranium) profile and size, texture and color of hair. Moreover, races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)).
The eugenics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Eugenics) movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by Arthur Gobineau (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Arthur_Gobineau)'s An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Inequality_of_the_Human_Races) (1853–1855) and Vacher de Lapouge (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Vacher_de_Lapouge)'s "anthroposociology", asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by culture as well as by physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and genocide (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Genocide) were often motivated by supposed racial differences (Horowitz 2001).

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the tension between the social conservatives (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Social_conservatives), who believed in hierarchy and innate superiority, and the social liberals (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Social_liberals), who believed in social change and human equality, was at a paramount. The social conservatives continued to exacerbate the belief that certain races were innately inferior by examining their shortcomings, namely by examining and testing intelligence between groups. Some scientists claimed that there was a biological (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Biological) determinant of race by evaluating one’s genes (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Genes) and DNA (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/DNA). Different methods of eugenics, the study and practice of human selective breeding often with a race as a primary concentration, was still widely accepted in Britain, Germany, and the United States.

On the other hand, many scientists understood race as a social construct (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Social_construct). They believed that the phenotypical (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Phenotypical) expression of an individual were determined by one’s genes that are inherited through reproduction but there were certain social constructs, such as culture (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Culture), environment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)), and language (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Language) that were primary in shaping behavioral characteristics. Some advocated that race ‘should centre not on what race explains about society, but rather on the questions of who, why and with what effect social significance is attached to racial attributes that are constructed in particular political and socio-economic contexts,’ and thus, addressing the “folk” or “mythological representations” of race.

Although there was a strong notion of race as cultural instead of biological, there were still scientists such as Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Egon_Freiherr_von_Eickstedt), Stanley Marion Garn (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Stanley_Marion_Garn), and Jan Czekanowski (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Jan_Czekanowski) who continued in their taxonomic endeavor to count the number of races and to name them.
Louis Agassiz's racial definitionsAfter Louis Agassiz (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Louis_Agassiz) came to the United States he became a prolific writer in what has been later termed the genre of scientific racism. Agassiz was specifically a believer and advocate in polygenism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Polygenism), that races came from separate origins (specifically separate creations), were endowed with unequal attributes, and could be classified into specific climatic zones, in the same way he felt other animals and plants could be classified.
These included Western American Temperate (the indigenous peoples west of the Rockies); Eastern American Temperate (east of the Rockies); Tropical Asiatic (south of the Himalayas); Temperate Asiatic (east of the Urals and north of the Himalayas); South American Temperate (South America); New Holland (Australia); Arctic (Alaska and Arctic Canada); Cape of Good Hope (South Africa); and American Tropical (Central America and the West Indies).
Agassiz denied that species originated in single pairs, whether at a single location or at many. He argued instead multiple individuals in each species were created at the same time and then distributed throughout the continents where God meant for them to dwell. His lectures on polygenism were popular among the slaveholders in the South, for many this opinion legitimized the belief in a lower standard of the Negro.
Interestingly, his stance in this case was considered to be quite radical in its time, because it went against the more orthodox and standard reading of the Bible in his time which implied all human stock descended from a single couple (Adam and Eve), and in his defense Agassiz often used what now sounds like a very "modern" argument about the need for independence between science and religion; though Agassiz, unlike many polygeneticists, maintained his religious beliefs and was not anti-Biblical in general.

In the context of ethnology and anthropology of the mid-19th century, Agassiz's polygenetic views became explicitly seen as opposing Darwin's views on race, which sought to show the common origin of all human races and the superficiality of racial differences. Darwin's second book on evolution, The Descent of Man, features extensive argumentation addressing the single origin of the races, at times explicitly opposing Agassiz's theories.
Joseph Arthur Comte de GobineauArthur de Gobineau (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) was a successful diplomat for the French Second Empire (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/French_Second_Empire). Initially he was posted to Persia, before working in Brazil and other countries. He came to believe that race created culture, arguing that distinctions between the three "black", "white", and "yellow" races were natural barriers, and that "race-mixing" breaks those barriers and leads to chaos. He classified the Middle East, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, North Africa, and southern France as racially mixed.
Gobineau believed the white race was superior to the others. He thought it corresponded to the ancient Indo-European culture, also known as "Aryan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Aryan)". Gobineau originally wrote that white race miscegenation was inevitable. He attributed much of the economic turmoils in France to pollution of races. Later on in his life, he altered his opinion to believe that the white race could be saved.

To Gobineau, the development of empires was ultimately destructive to the "superior races" that created them, since they led to the mixing of distinct races. This he saw as a degenerative process.

According to his definitions, the people of Spain, most of France, most of Germany, southern and western Iran as well as Switzerland, Austria, northern Italy, and a large part of Britain, consisted of a degenerative race arising from miscegenation. Also according to him, the whole of north India consisted of a yellow race.
Thomas Huxley's racial definitionshttp://www.ronpaulforums.com//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Huxley_races.png/300px-Huxley_races.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Huxley_races.png) http://www.ronpaulforums.com//bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.21wmf6/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/File:Huxley_races.png)
Huxley (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley)'s map of racial categories from On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870). 1: Bushmen (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Capoid)
2: Africoid (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Africoid)
3: Negritoes (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Negrito)
4: Melanochroi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mediterranean_race)
5: Australoids (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Australoid)
6: Xanthochroi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/White_people)
7: Polynesians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Pacific_Islander)
8: Mongoloids A (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mongoloid)
8: Mongoloids B (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mongoloid)
8: Mongoloids C (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)
9: Esquimaux (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Eskimo)
Huxley states: 'It is to the Xanthochroi and Melanochroi, taken together, that the absurd denomination of "Caucasian" is usually applied'.[17] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-17)


Thomas Huxley (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Huxley) wrote one paper, "On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind" (1870), in which he proposed a distinction within the human species, 'races', and their distribution across the earth.
Huxley's paper was rejected by the Royal Society (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Royal_Society) and this became one of the many theories to be advanced and dropped by the early exponents of evolution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Evolution).
Despite rejection by Huxley and the science community, the paper is sometimes cited in support of racialism.[18] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-18) Along with Darwin, Huxley was a monogenist, the belief that all humans are part of the same species, with morphological variations emerging out of an initial uniforminity. (Stepan, p. 44). This view contrasts polygenism, the theory that each race is actually a separate species with separate sites of origin.

Despite Huxley's monogenism and his abolitionism on ethical grounds, Huxley assumed a hierarchy of innate abilities, a stance evinced in papers such as "Emancipation Black and White" and his most famous paper, "Evolution and Ethics."

In the former, he writes that the "highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Stepan, p. 79-80).

In Giuseppe Sergi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Giuseppe_Sergi)'s book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that the Mediterranean race had in fact originated in Africa, probably in the Sahara (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sahara) region, and that it also included a number of dark-skinned peoples from the Horn of Africa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Horn_of_Africa), such as Ethiopians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethiopians) and Somalis (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Somalis). Sergi added that the Mediterranean race "in its external characters is a brown human variety, neither white nor negroid (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Negroid), but pure in its elements, that is to say not a product of the mixture of Whites with Negroes or negroid peoples." Sergi also hypothesized that the Mediterranean, the African and the Nordic races all originated from an original Eurafrican species. He explained his taxonomy as inspired by an understanding of "the morphology of the skull as revealing those internal physical characters of human stocks which remain constant through long ages and at far remote spots[...] As a zoologist can recognize the character of an animal species or variety belonging to any region of the globe or any period of time, so also should an anthropologist if he follows the same method of investigating the morphological characters of the skull[...] This method has guided me in my investigations into the present problem and has given me unexpected results which were often afterwards confirmed by archaeology or history."
According to Sergi, the Mediterranean race was the greatest race of the world and was singularly responsible for the most accomplished civilizations of ancient times, including those of Mesopotamia (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mesopotamia), Persia (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Persia), Egypt (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Egypt), India (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_India), Carthage (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Carthage), Greece (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Greece) and Ancient Rome (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Rome). Ancient Egyptians were considered by Sergi as a subgroup of the Hamites (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hamitic), themselves constituting a Mediterranean variety and one situated close to the cradle of the stock. To Sergi, the Semites (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Semitic) were a branch of the Eurafricans who were closely related to the Mediterraneans.
Charles Darwin and RaceThough Charles Darwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Charles_Darwin)’s evolutionary theory was set forth in 1859 upon publication of On the Origin of Species, this work was largely absent of explicit reference to Darwin’s theory applied to man. This application by Darwin would not become explicit until the publication of his second great book on evolution, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_S ex), in 1871.
Darwin’s publication of this book occurred within the heated debates between advocates of monogeny, who held that all races came from a common ancestor, and advocates of polygeny, who held that the races were separately created. Darwin, who had come from a family with strong abolitionist ties, had experienced and was disturbed by cultures of slavery during his voyage on the Beagle years earlier. Noted Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Adrian_Desmond) and James Moore (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/James_Moore_(biographer)) argue that Darwin’s writings on evolution were not only influenced by his abolitionist tendencies, but also his belief that non-white races were equal in regard to their intellectual capacity as white races, a belief which had been strongly disputed by scientists such as Morton, Agassiz and Broca, all noted polygenists.
By the late 1860s, however, Darwin’s theory of evolution had been thought to be compatible with the polygenist thesis (Stepan 1982). Darwin thus used Descent of Man to disprove the polygenist thesis and end the debate between polygeny and monogeny once and for all. Darwin also used it to disprove other hypotheses about racial difference that had persisted since the time of ancient Greece, for example, that differences in skin color and body constitution occurred because of differences of geography and climate.
Darwin concluded, for example, that the biological similarities between the different races were “too great” for the polygenist thesis to be plausible. He also used the idea of races to argue for the continuity between humans and animals, noting that it would be highly implausible that man should, by mere accident acquire characteristics shared by many apes.
Darwin sought to demonstrate that the physical characteristics that were being used to define race for centuries (i.e. skin color and facial features) were superficial and had no utility for survival. Because, according to Darwin, any characteristic that did not have survival value could not have been naturally selected, he devised another hypothesis for the development and persistence of these characteristics. The mechanism Darwin developed is known as sexual selection (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sexual_selection).
Though the idea of sexual selection had appeared in earlier works by Darwin, it was not until the late 1860s when it received full consideration (Stepan 1982). Furthermore, it was not until 1914 that sexual selection received serious consideration as a racial theory by naturalist thinkers.
Darwin defined sexual selection as the “struggle between individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex”. Sexual selection consisted of two types for Darwin: 1.) The physical struggle for a mate, and 2.) The preference for some color or another, typically by females of a given species. Darwin asserted that the differing human races (insofar as race was conceived phenotypically) had arbitrary standards of ideal beauty, and that these standards reflected important physical characteristics sought in mates.
Broadly speaking, Darwin’s attitudes of what race was and how it developed in the human species are attributable to two assertions, 1.)That all human beings, regardless of race share a single, common ancestor and 2.) Phenotypic racial differences are superficially selected, and have no survival value. Given these two beliefs, some believe Darwin to have established monogenism as the dominant paradigm for racial ancestry, and to have defeated the scientific racism practiced by Morton, Knott, Agassiz et. Al, as well as notions that there existed a natural racial hierarchy that reflected inborn differences and measures of value between the different human races. Nevertheless he stated: : “The various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other - as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotion, but partly in their intellectual faculties” (The Descent of Man, chapter VII).
In The Descent of Man, Darwin noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were:
Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

Decline of racial studies after 1930Several social and political developments that occurred at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century led to the transformation in the discourse of race. Three movements that historians have considered are: the coming of mass democracy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Democracy), the age of imperialist expansion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Imperialism), and the impact of Nazism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nazism).[19] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Malik.2C_Kenan_1996-19) More than any other, the violence of Nazi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nazi) rule, the Holocaust (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Holocaust), and World War II (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/World_War_II) transformed the whole discussion of race. Nazism made an argument for racial superiority based on a biological basis. This led to the idea that people could be divided into discrete groups and based on the divisions, there would be severe, tortuous, and often fatal consequence. The exposition of racial theory beginning in the Third Reich (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Third_Reich), up to the Final Solution (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Final_Solution), created a popular moral revolution against racism.[19] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Malik.2C_Kenan_1996-19) In 1950, and as a response to the genocide of Nazism, UNESCO was formed and released a statement saying that there was no biological determinant or basis for race.
Consequently, studies of human variation focused more on actual patterns of variation and evolutionary patterns among populations and less about classification. Some scientists point to three discoveries. Firstly, African populations exhibit greater genetic diversity and less linkage disequilibrium because of their long history. Secondly, genetic similarity is directly correlated with geographic proximity. Lastly, some loci reflect selection in response to environmental gradients. Therefore, some argue, human racial groups do not appear to be distinct ethnic groups.[20] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-20)
Franz BoasFranz Boas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Franz_Boas) (1858–1942) was a German American anthropologist and has been called the “Father of American Anthropology.” Boas made significant contributions within anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anthropology), more specifically, physical anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Physical_anthropology), linguistics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Linguistics), archaeology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Archaeology), and cultural anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Cultural_anthropology). His work put an emphasis on cultural and environmental effects on people to explain their development into adulthood and evaluated them in concert with human biology and evolution. This led encouraged academics to break away from static taxonomical classifications of race. It is said that before Boas, anthropology was the study of race, and after Boas, anthropology was the study of culture.
Julian Huxley and A.C. HaddonSir Julian Sorell Huxley (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sir_Julian_Sorell_Huxley) (1887–1975) was an English evolutionary biologist, humanist and internationalist. After returning to England from a tour of the United States in 1924, Huxley wrote a series of articles for the Spectator which he expressed his belief in the drastic differences between “negros” and “whites.” [21] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Barkan.2C_Elazar_1992-21) He believed that the color of “blood” – percentage of ‘white’ and ‘black’ blood - that a person had would determine a person’s mental capacity, moral probity, and social behavior. “Blood” also determined how individuals should be treated by society. He was a proponent of racial inequality and segregation.[19] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Malik.2C_Kenan_1996-19)
By 1930, Huxley’s ideas on race and inherited intellectual capacity of human groups became more liberal. By the mid 1930s, Huxley was considered one of the leading antiracist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anti-racism) and committed much of his time and efforts into publicizing the fight against Nazism.[21] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Barkan.2C_Elazar_1992-21)
Alfred Cort Haddon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Alfred_Cort_Haddon) (1855–1940) was a British anthropologist and ethnologist.
In 1935, Huxley and A.C. Haddon wrote, We Europeans, which greatly popularized the struggle against racial science and attacked the Nazis’ abuse of science to promote their racial theories. Although they argued that ‘any biological arrangement of the types of European man is still largely a subjective process,’ they proposed that humankind could be divided up into “major” and “minor subspecies.” They believed that races were a classification based on hereditary (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hereditary) traits but should not by nature be used to condemn or deem inferior to another group. Like most of their peers, they continued to maintain a distinction between the social meaning of race and the scientific study of race. From a scientific stand point, they were willing to accept that concepts of superiority and inferiority did not exist, but from a social stand point, they continued to believe that racial differences were significant. For example, they argued that genetic differences between groups were functionally important for certain jobs or tasks.[19] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Malik.2C_Kenan_1996-19)
Ashley Montagu vs. Carleton CoonMontague Francis Ashley Montagu (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ashley_Montagu) (1905–1999) was a British-American anthropologist. In 1942, Montague made a strong effort to have the word “race” replaced with “ethnic group (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnic_group)” by publishing his book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. Montagu was also selected to draft the initial 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race.[15] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Sarich.2C_Vincent_2004-15)
Carleton Stevens Coon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Carleton_Stevens_Coon) (1904–1981) was an American physical anthropologist. One of Coon’s most important books is The Origin of Races, which was published in 1962, and was highly controversial. In it, Coon offered a definitive statement of the polygenist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Polygenist) view. He also argued that human fossils could be assigned a date, a race, and an evolutionary grade. Coon divided humanity into five races and believed that each race had ascended the ladder of human evolution at different rates.[15] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Sarich.2C_Vincent_2004-15)
UNESCOMain article: The Race Question (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/The_Race_Question)
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/UNESCO)) was established November 16, 1945, in the wake of the genocide of Nazism.[22] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-22) The UNESCO 1945 constitution declared that, “The great and terrible war which now has ended was made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races.” [23] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-23) Between 1950 and 1978 the UNESCO issued five statements on the issue of race.
The first of the UNESCO statements on race was titled "The Race Question (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/The_Race_Question)" and was issued on July 18, 1950. The statement included both a rejection of a scientific basis for theories of racial hierarchies and a moral condemnation of racism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anti-racism). Its first statement suggested in particular to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnic_groups)", which proved to be controversial.[24] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-24) The 1950 statement was most concerned with dispelling the notion of race as species, and it did not reject the idea of a biological basis to racial categories.[25] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-25) Instead it defined the concept of race in terms as a population defined by certain anatomical and physiological characteristics as being divergent from other populations, it gives the examples of the Caucasian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Caucasian_race), Negroid (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Negroid_race) and Mongoloid race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Mongoloid_race). The statements maintain that there are no "pure races" and that biological variability was as great within any race as between races. It argued that there is no scientific basis for believing that there are any innate differences in intellectual, psychological or emotional potential among races.
The statement was drafted by Ashley Montagu (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ashley_Montagu) and endorsed by some of the leading researchers of the time, in the fields of psychology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Psychology), biology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Biology), cultural anthropology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Cultural_anthropology) and ethnology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnology). The statement was endorsed by Ernest Beaglehole (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ernest_Beaglehole), Juan Comas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Juan_Comas), L. A. Costa Pinto, Franklin Frazier (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Franklin_Frazier), sociologist specialised in race relations studies, Morris Ginsberg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Morris_Ginsberg), founding chairperson of the British Sociological Association (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/British_Sociological_Association), Humayun Kabir (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Humayun_Kabir), writer, philosopher and Education Minister of India twice, Claude Lévi-Strauss (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss), one of the founders of ethnology (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnology) and leading theorist of cultural relativism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Cultural_relativism), and Ashley Montagu (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ashley_Montagu), anthropologist and author of The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Joseph_Merrick), who was the rapporteur (http://www.ronpaulforums.com//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapporteur).
As a result of a lack of representation of physical anthropologists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Physical_anthropology) in the drafing committee the 1950 publication was criticized by biologicists and physical anthropologists for confusing the biological and social senses of race, and for going beyond the scientific facts, although there was a general agreement about the statements conclusions.[26] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-26) UNESCO assembled a new committee with better representation of the physical sciences and drafted a new statement released in 1951. The 1951 statement, published as "The Race Concept (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/w/index.php?title=The_Race_Concept&action=edit&redlink=1)", focused on race as a biological heuristic that could serve as the basis for evolutionary studies of human populations. It considered the existing races to be the result of such evolutionary processes throughout human history. It also maintained that "equality of opportunity and equality in law in no way depend, as ethical principles, upon the assertion that human beings are in fact equal in endowment."
As the 1950 and 1951 statements generated considerable attention and in 1964 a new commission was formed to draft a third statement titled "Proposals on the Biological Aspects of Race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/w/index.php?title=Proposals_on_the_Biological_Aspect s_of_Race&action=edit&redlink=1)". According to Michael Banton (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Michael_Banton) (2008), this statement broke more clearly with the notion of race-as-species than the previous two statements, declaring that almost any genetically differentiated population could be defined as a race.[27] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Banton._Michael_2008_1096-27) The statement stated that "Different classifications of mankind into major stocks, and of those into more restricted categories (races, which are groups of populations, or single populations) have been proposed on the basis of hereditary physical traits. Nearly all classifications recognise at least three major stocks." and "There is no national, religious, geographic, linguistic or cultural group which constitutes a race ipso facto; the concept of race is purely biological." It concluded by: "The biological data given above stand in open contradiction to the tenets of racism. Racist theories can in no way pretend to have any scientific foundation."
The 1950, '51 and '64 statements focused on the dispelling the scientific foundations for racism, but didn't consider other factors contributing to racism. For this reason in 1967 a new committee was assembled, including representatives of the social sciences (sociologists, lawyers, ethnographers and geneticists), to draft a statement "covering the social, ethical and philosophical aspects of the problem". This statement was the first to provide a definition of racism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Racism): "antisocial beliefs and acts which are based upon the fallacy that discriminatory intergroup relations are justifiable on biological grounds". The statement continued to denounce the many negative social affects of racism.[27] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Banton._Michael_2008_1096-27)
In 1978 the general assembly of the UNESCO considered the four previous statements and published a collective "[[Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice]]".[28] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-28) This declaration included Apartheid (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Apartheid) as one of the examples of racism, an inclusion which caused South Africa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/South_Africa) to step out of the assembly. It declared that a number of public policies and laws needed to be implemented. It stated that:

"All human beings belong to a single species."
"All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic, cultural and political development."
"The differences between the achievements of the different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors."
"Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that somewould be entitled to dominate and eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity."
Genetics and medicineSee also: Race and health (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Race_and_health)
In the medical sciences (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Medical_sciences), where response to pharmaceuticals (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Pharmaceutical) and other treatment can vary dramatically based on ethnicity,[29] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Pei-29)[30] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-30) there is great debate as to whether racial categorizations as broad as Caucasian are medically valid.[31] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-31)[32] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-32) Several journals (e.g. Nature Genetics, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, and the British Medical Journal) have issued guidelines stating that researchers should carefully define their populations and avoid broad-based social constructions, because these categories are more likely to be measuring differences in socioeconomic class and access to medical treatment that disproportionately affect minority groups, rather than racial differences.[33] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-33) Nevertheless, there are journals (e.g. the Journal of Gastroentorology and Hepatology and Kidney International (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Kidney_International)) that continue to use racial categories such as Caucasian.[29] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Pei-29)[34] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-34)
Criticism of racial studies (1930s-1980s)



This section may stray from the topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on _topic) of the article. Please help improve this section (http://www.ronpaulforums.com//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_race_concepts&action=edit) or discuss this issue on the talk page (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Talk:Historical_race_concepts). (March 2011)




Criticism of race often accompanied the development of racial theories. In Society Must Be Defended (1978–79), Michel Foucault (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Michel_Foucault) argued that, from a historical and political discourse of "race struggle (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Michel_Foucault.27s_analyze_ of_the_historical_and_political_discourse)", the notion of "race" was discussed in scientific terms in the 19th century by racist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Racist) biologists and eugenicists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Eugenicists). Psychoanalysis (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Psychoanalysis), he argues, was instrumental in opposing this dangerous form of essentialism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Essentialism), which would lead eventually to the Nazi (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nazism) "state racism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/State_racism)".
Many significant criticisms also came from the school of Franz Boas (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Franz_Boas) beginning in the 1920s. During the mid-1930s, with the rise of Nazi Germany (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nazi_Germany) and its prominent espousing of racist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Racist) ideologies, there was an outpouring of popular works by scientists criticizing the use of race to justify the politics of "superiority" and "inferiority".
An influential work in this regard was the publication of" We Europeans: A Survey of "Racial" Problems by Julian Huxley (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Julian_Huxley) and A. C. Haddon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/A._C._Haddon) in 1935, which sought to show that population genetics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Population_genetics) allowed for only a highly limited definition of race at best. Another popular work during this period, "The Races of Mankind" by Ruth Benedict (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ruth_Benedict) and Gene Weltfish, argued that though there were some extreme racial differences, they were primarily superficial, and in any case did not justify political action.
Claude Lévi-Strauss (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss)' Race and History (UNESCO (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/UNESCO), 1952) was another critique of the biological "race" notion, arguing in favor of cultural relativism (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Cultural_relativism) through a metaphor of cultures as different trains crossing each other in various directions and speed, thus each one seeming to progress (http://www.ronpaulforums.com//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/progress) to himself while others supposedly kept immobile. This, in his view, clearly showed that "race" was no longer a useful indicator of cultural superiority.
In his 1984 article in Essence magazine, "On Being ‘White’…and Other Lies,"[35] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-35) James Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/James_Baldwin) reads the history of racialization (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Racialization) in America as both figuratively and literally violent, remarking that "race" only exists as a social construction within a network of force relations: "America became white—the people who, as they claim, "settled" the country became white—because of the necessity of denying the Black presence, and justifying the Black subjugation. No community can be based on such a principle—or, in other words, no community can be established on so genocidal a lie. White men from Norway, for example, where they were Norwegians—became white: by slaughtering the cattle, poisoning the well, torching the houses, massacring Native Americans, raping Black women. . . Because they are white, they cannot allow themselves to be tormented by the suspicion that all men are brothers."
Apart from its function as a vernacular term, the term "race"—as Nancy Stepan notes in her 1982 book, The Idea of Race in Science, Great Britain 1800-1960—varied widely in its usage, even in science, from the 18th century through the 20th; the term referred "at one time or another" to "cultural, religious, national, linguistic, ethnic and geographical groups of human beings"—everything from "Celts" to "Spanish Americans" to "Hottentots" to "Europeans" (p. xvii).
In the 1979 preface to Blackness: Text and Pretext, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. describes the elusive element of "blackness" in Afro-American literature as lacking an "essence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Essentialism)," defined instead "by a network of relations that form a particular aesthetic unity" (p. 162). Continuing his poststructuralist-inflected negation of blackness as an essence, in his 1985 introduction to a special issue of the journal Critical Inquiry, Gates goes even further, calling race itself a "dangerous trope" (p. 5). He argues that "race has become a trope of the ultimate, irreducible difference between cultures, linguistic groups, or adherents of specific belief systems which — more often than not — also have fundamentally opposed economic interests" (p. 5).
Linda Gottfredson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Linda_Gottfredson), on the other hand, has argued[where? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)] that denying or trying to conceal real biological differences between groups on average IQ instead cause people to seek something to blame for the differing average group achievements, causing resentment and hostility. She argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Genocide) in the Twentieth Century had relatively high average levels of achievement."[36] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-G2005-36)

[klamath]

read and educate yourself. fool.Go back to your bayou boy.

[torchbearer]

The word "race," along with many of the ideas now associated with the term were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Age_of_exploration). (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups, which marked the early stages of the development of science. Scientists who were interested in natural history, including biological and geological scientists, were known as “naturalists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Naturalists)”. They would collect, examine, describe, and arrange data from their explorations into categories according to certain criteria. People who were particularly skilled at organizing specific sets of data in a logically and comprehensive fashion were known as classifiers and systematists. This process was a new trend in science that served to help answer fundamental questions by collecting and organizing materials for systematic study, also known as taxonomy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Taxonomy).[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)
//

[torchbearer]

Go back to your bayou boy. you don't know your ass on a platter when its handed to you?

[klamath]

you don't know your ass on a platter when its handed to you?
If I respected your opinion I might engage you but you proved what you were to me a long time ago and reinforced it several times there after. Why don't you post the entire mein Kampf while you are at it:rolleyes: We all love wallotext.:rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

If I respected your opinion I might engage you but you proved what you were to me a long time ago and reinforced it several times there after. Why don't you post the entire mein Kampf while you are at it:rolleyes: We all love wallotext.:rolleyes:

don't like to read? i can tell.
i did pull out some text for you. would you like for me to read it for you?

[torchbearer]

so the wall of words won't intimidate you, i'll give you small bites your brain can digest:

Until the 19th century, race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)) was thought by many to constitute an immutable and distinct type or species (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Species) which shared particular racial characteristics, such as body constitution, temperament and mental capacities.

[torchbearer]

next lil' spoon full for baby:


One concept, that of Christian Europe, conceived of the races as constituting a hierarchical chain of life known as the Great Chain of Being (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being), which was believed to have been created by God, in which the people thought the Christian European races were closest to God in perfection.

[torchbearer]

open wide:

When the lighter ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the darker group "the evil race of Ish". When the darker ancient Egyptians were in power, they called the lighter group "the pale, degraded race of Arvad". These differences also related to different cultural groups who competed for power. For example, the Ancient Egyptian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) sacred text called Book of Gates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Book_of_Gates) identifies four ethnic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ethnicity) categories that are now conventionally labeled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians" (see Ancient Egypt and race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Egypt_and_race)), but such distinctions tended to conflate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Conflation) differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with tribal (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Tribe) and national (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Nation) identity.

[torchbearer]

nnom, nom

Societies still tended to equate physical characteristics, such as hair and eye colour, with psychological and moral qualities, usually assigning the highest qualities to their own people and lower qualities to the "Other", either lower classes or outsiders to their society. For example, an historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Han_Dynasty) in the territory of present-day China describes barbarians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Barbarians) of blond hair and green eyes as resembling "the monkeys from which they are descended." (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Gossett-2)

[torchbearer]

this guy was obviously just a bigot

Hippocrates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hippocrates) believed, as many thinkers throughout early history did, that factors such as geography and climate played a significant role in the physical appearance of different peoples. He writes that, “the forms and dispositions of mankind correspond with the nature of the country.” He attributed physical and temperamental differences among different peoples to environmental factors such as climate, water sources, elevation and terrain. He noted that temperate climates created peoples who were “sluggish” and “not apt for labor”, while extreme climates led to peoples who were “sharp”, “industrious” and vigilant”. He also noted that peoples of “mountainous, rugged, elevated, and well-watered” countries displayed “enterprising” and “warlike” characteristics, while peoples of “level, windy, and well-watered” countries were “unmanly” and “gentle”.

[klamath]

so the wall of words won't intimidate you, i'll give you small bites your brain can digest:
For many of you in the 21th century you still believe it.

[torchbearer]

another spoonful of learning:

European medieval (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Medieval) models of race generally mixed Classical (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Graeco-Roman) ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Shem), Ham (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Ham_(son_of_Noah)) and Japheth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Japheth), the three sons of Noah (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Sons_of_Noah), producing distinct Semitic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Semitic) (Asiatic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Asia)), Hamitic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Hamitic) (African (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Africa)), and Japhetic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Japhetic) (Indo-European (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Indo-European_languages)) peoples. This theory dates back to the Judeo-Christian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Judeo-Christian) tradition, as described in the Babylonian Talmud (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Talmud), which states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Black_people), and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."

[torchbearer]

For many of you in the 21th century you still believe it. hold on, not done. got more small bites to give you.
your deflections are cute.

[torchbearer]

replay in order for chronological context of all the small bites:

The word "race," along with many of the ideas now associated with the term were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Age_of_exploration). (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups, which marked the early stages of the development of science. Scientists who were interested in natural history, including biological and geological scientists, were known as “naturalists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Naturalists)”. They would collect, examine, describe, and arrange data from their explorations into categories according to certain criteria. People who were particularly skilled at organizing specific sets of data in a logically and comprehensive fashion were known as classifiers and systematists. This process was a new trend in science that served to help answer fundamental questions by collecting and organizing materials for systematic study, also known as taxonomy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Taxonomy).[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)

[torchbearer]

//
In the 16th and 17th century, scientists attempted to classify **** sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color scientist who were just racist bigots. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

French scientist, attempted a rudimentary geographic arrangement of known human populations based on skin color. Bodin’s color classifications were purely descriptive, including neutral terms such as “duskish colour, like roasted quinze,” “black,” “chestnut,” and “farish white.” (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11)//

[torchbearer]

François Bernier (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/François_Bernier) (1625–1688) is believed to have developed the first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races which was published in a French journal article in 1684, Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitant, New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it. (Gossett, 1997:32-33). Bernier advocated using the “four quarters” of the globe as the basis for providing labels for human differences.[11] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-Smedley.2C_Audrey_1999-11) The four subgroups that Bernier used were Europeans, Far Easterners, Negroes (blacks), and Lapps.[12] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#cite_note-C._Loring.2C_Brace_2005-12)

[torchbearer]

As noted earlier, scientists attempted to classify **** sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color, others simply on geographic location, shape, stature, food habits, and other distinguishing characteristics. In the 18th century, scientists began to include behavioral or psychological traits in their reported observations- which often had derogatory or demeaning implications – and often assumed that those behavioral or psychological traits were related to their race, and therefore, innate and unchangeable.

[torchbearer]

it wasn't ignorance that led these people, just blind hatred. :rolleyes:


The Great Chain of Being (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being), a medieval idea that there was a hierarchical structure of life from the most fundamental elements to the most perfect, began to encroach upon the idea of race. As taxonomy grew, scientists began to assume that the human species could be divided into distinct subgroups. One’s “race” necessarily implied that one group had certain character qualities and physical dispositions that differentiated it from other human populations. Society gave different values to those differentiations, which essentially created a gap between races by deeming one race superior or inferior to another race, thus a hierarchy of races. In this way, science was used as justification for unfair treatment of different human populations.

[torchbearer]

Cuvier enumerated three races, Pritchard seven, Agassiz twelve, and Pickering eleven.
The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept. For example, using anthropometrics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Anthropometrics), invented by Francis Galton and Alphonse Bertillon (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Alphonse_Bertillon), they measured the shapes and sizes of skulls and related the results to group differences in intelligence or other attributes

[torchbearer]

These scientists made three claims about race: first, that races are objective, naturally occurring divisions of humanity; second, that there is a strong relationship between biological races and other human phenomena (such as forms of activity and interpersonal relations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relations) and culture, and by extension the relative material success (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Materialism) of cultures), thus biologizing the notion of "race", as Foucault demonstrated in his historical analysis; third, that race is therefore a valid scientific category that can be used to explain and predict individual and group behavior. Races were distinguished by skin color (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_skin_color), facial type (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/w/index.php?title=Facial_type&action=edit&redlink=1), cranial (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Human_cranium) profile and size, texture and color of hair. Moreover, races were almost universally considered to reflect group differences in moral character and intelligence (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)).

[torchbearer]

hell, even god is racist:

Agassiz denied that species originated in single pairs, whether at a single location or at many. He argued instead multiple individuals in each species were created at the same time and then distributed throughout the continents where God meant for them to dwell. His lectures on polygenism were popular among the slaveholders in the South, for many this opinion legitimized the belief in a lower standard of the Negro.
Interestingly, his stance in this case was considered to be quite radical in its time, because it went against the more orthodox and standard reading of the Bible in his time which implied all human stock descended from a single couple (Adam and Eve), and in his defense Agassiz often used what now sounds like a very "modern" argument about the need for independence between science and religion; though Agassiz, unlike many polygeneticists, maintained his religious beliefs and was not anti-Biblical in general.

[torchbearer]

recap:
I said:

do you know the history of sociological thought in human society?
when the first explorers met humans that looked different than they did, they assumed they were a different "race", and being that they were savage, they were considered subhuman. Not because of bigotry, but because of ignorance. It seems ridiculous from our perspective because we have the knowledge to realize we are all the same "race". but to force our perspective on the lenses of history is to distort the understanding of society of each time period.

and Klamath retort:

Honestly, Bullshit. They knew at the time but for their own power hungry lazy ways they made up excuses . Jefferson sure as hell knew it.

[torchbearer]

Darwin, the first guy to get it right in mid to late 19th century-

In the context of ethnology and anthropology of the mid-19th century, Agassiz's polygenetic views became explicitly seen as opposing Darwin's views on race, which sought to show the common origin of all human races and the superficiality of racial differences. Darwin's second book on evolution, The Descent of Man, features extensive argumentation addressing the single origin of the races, at times explicitly opposing Agassiz's theories.

human thought evolving on the ideas of race, but only among a few scientist.

[torchbearer]

more common for that period:

Arthur de Gobineau (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) was a successful diplomat for the French Second Empire (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/French_Second_Empire). Initially he was posted to Persia, before working in Brazil and other countries. He came to believe that race created culture, arguing that distinctions between the three "black", "white", and "yellow" races were natural barriers, and that "race-mixing" breaks those barriers and leads to chaos. He classified the Middle East, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, North Africa, and southern France as racially mixed.
Gobineau believed the white race was superior to the others. He thought it corresponded to the ancient Indo-European culture, also known as "Aryan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/wiki/Aryan)". Gobineau originally wrote that white race miscegenation was inevitable. He attributed much of the economic turmoils in France to pollution of races. Later on in his life, he altered his opinion to believe that the white race could be saved.

To Gobineau, the development of empires was ultimately destructive to the "superior races" that created them, since they led to the mixing of distinct races. This he saw as a degenerative process.

[torchbearer]

Despite Huxley's monogenism and his abolitionism on ethical grounds, Huxley assumed a hierarchy of innate abilities, a stance evinced in papers such as "Emancipation Black and White" and his most famous paper, "Evolution and Ethics."

In the former, he writes that the "highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest." (Stepan, p. 79-80).

[heavenlyboy34]

Torch, this is good stuff. It's like taking history of biology again except without the mind-numbingly boring German prof. :D

[torchbearer]

Torch, this is good stuff. It's like taking history of biology again except without the mind-numbingly boring German prof. :D

you had a similar course in biology?
i took this course in anthropology.