 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I usually do not respond when someone speaks to me as you did, however if you wish to hold a nasty discussion I will gladly use private messages where nasty belongs.
If you look at my original post on this thread I was only answering Jessica's question that she posted. I never claimed to support any of the reasons I stated, rather just point to some reasons to answer her question. I do believe the South has reasons to be bitter.
Care to source your idea that Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant for Judge Taney?
After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where the imprisonment should be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him. (source: Ward Hill Lamon who was Lincoln's bodyguard and U.S. Marshall for the District of Columbia during Lincoln's administration. A 1880 manuscript on the Ex Parte Merryman and is in the Huntington Library.) The warrant was never served for reason Lamon never cited.
Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days." (source: http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm)
Grant only had one slave and that was through inheritance. He freed him of his own free will and without compensation, even at a time he needed the money.
One of Grant’s slave’s name was William Jones. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer near St. Louis, Missouri, Ulysses S. Grant bought the slave, William Jones, from his brother-in-law. Grant's ... became the owner of record of his wife’s inheritance of four slaves, but as was the case at the time, women could not actually own slaves, so they were under the control of Grant. No record has been found of these slaves having been freed prior to emancipation in Missouri in 1865. (source:http://www.lycos.com/info/lee-grant--civil-war.html)
The 13th Amendment was created DURING the Lincoln administration. It was proposed in January of 1865, but didn't go in effect until AFTER Lincoln's death, having had to wait to get the required number of states to ratify it.
My point is. as you well state, that Lincoln never freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. It took this amendment that did not go into effect until he was dead. Lincoln never freed the slaves as Northern history tells the proclamation did.
What does Congress not being in session have to do with Lincoln suspending the Habeas Corpus since as Marshall's ruling clear states he had no power to do it. By an ex post facto action this does not make what Lincoln did legal making it a very relevant point. He also denied Maryland, for the duration of the war its' rightfully elected govenment.
John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law.
OK,
1. Congress was not in session when war broke out. Should Lincoln have waited for Congress to meet and see Washington fall apart in the mean time?
2. When Congress finally did meet, they backed up Lincoln on his use of Habeas corpus, so the point became moot.
This shows that Lincoln was racist and did not care if the slaves were free in his lifetime and that he want to have the Negro out of the U.S. Lincoln did not care about the slave only saving the Union. Read his letter to Horace Greeley. (source: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm) The fact is that Lincoln never knew the slaves were free from their masters, which did not mean they had or enjoyed freedom.
The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. He proposed three 13th amendments to the Constitution; Lincoln's Three Proposed Constitutional Amendments of 1862
1. Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2. Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3. Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of the United States of free blacks by their own consent.
This shows what, exactly? And on who's watch did the 13th Amendment that we know today actually be formed under?
Lee had freed his slaves in 1862.
The ones that he was legally required to.
I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender. (source: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm) As to the ones he was given in a will he was bound legally by the terms of the will. He did not free his slaves in 1862, but his father-in-laws, as your article shows.
You still sound like a typical Lost Causer.
I am neither typical or a "Lost Causer", I am a free thinker who does not just believe what he has been taught without researching it.
Northerners like to say Lincoln stated that the South never secede, but was in rebellion, then why this statement: "This is the difficult: we want to keep all that we have of the border states, those that have not seceded and the portions of those which we have occupied; and in order to do that, it is necessary to omit those areas I have mentioned from the effect of this proclamation." (source: Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Don E. and Virginia E. Fehrenbacher.,page 455) Lincoln was speaking on why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves. Seem to me he knew the South had seceded and were not in rebellion.
I hope I have done enough reseach to dispel your thinking, if not please let me know where I have not and I will try to correct the situation. I am well aware of what Lincoln said throughout his life and can point to many instances of his changing his statements to suit his agenda. A book of interest I have read is The Language of Liberty, The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln by Joseph R. Fornieri, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology. Another book by him is Abraham Lincoln's Political Faith. While I am not an expert on the War for Southern Independence or Lincoln I do know a little and am not what you subscribe that I am.
I don't know if you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose or are simply ignorant on this particular subject.
Respectfully
Shadowrebel (John)
Last edited on Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:16 am by Shadowrebel