View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Tue Jul 25th, 2006 02:45 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy,

Thank you for your reply. If you are going quote me please use the entire quote:

Here is a web site providing an overview of the annealing of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation and freedom. It's full of contemporary 'sound bites' and historical analysis: http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/content_inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3


Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.

My response to the website was as follows: I am not sure of your use of "annealing", however this site falls into your category of "oversights, omissions and errors" where is the facts showing Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist mentioned. “If all earthly power were given me. I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,--to their own native land” (Fornieri 158).  “Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not” (Fornieri 159). “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social quality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been—arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which where it already exists we must of necessity, manage as we best can” (Fornieri 169). These are from a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854.

.“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality, an inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say in this connection, that I do not perceive, however, that man is to have the superior position, that it requires the negro should be denied everything. I do not perceive because I do not court a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just leave her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and certainly never have had a black woman either for a slave or wife, so that it seems to me that it is quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men” (Fornieri 369). This is from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, the Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston on September 18, 1858. All of this is found in  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 at the pages mentioned.

Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.


Shows that he was racist? I don't even know where to begin with discussing this. There's so many different directions to go here, that I'm not even going to bother.

Apparently you do not think Lincoln was a racist? See the above quotes from him.

Which brings me to this:
I'm so glad you have cleared that up. I guess we'll all have to avoid any book, website, or any other media outlet that might be biased. That leaves out such accomplished writers as McPherson, Foote, and even Ed Bearss.

I suppose that would include such books as those by the Kennedy Brothers, Charles Adams, and Thomas DiLorenzo. We'll also have to ignore the websites of Lew Rockwell and the 37th Texas Cavalry as these are all anti-Lincoln and/or pro-south. We'll pretty much have to ignore everyone since everyone is biased one way or another.

We should also probably ignore what the most important African-American of the era had to say about Lincoln in a speech he gave after Lincoln's death, because, well, he's biased towards Lincoln:

I was not the one who said you should not use sources that contain "oversights, omissions and errors". I was merely pointing out that the site I was given as overview of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation, and freedom was full of oversights, omissions, and errors.

As for "spliting hairs" no I said Lincoln did not free the slaves, any slaves. He freed the slaves in Southern held areas which he had no control over, he might as well have freed the slaves in the Brazil and the West Indes. In areas he had control of he did nothing to free the slaves.

March 29 1859: Despite the financial troubles of the Grant family, there is one remedy Grant refuses to consider. He sets free his slave, William Jones, who had come to him through his wife's family.

I never disputed this, what I said is he owned slaves after Lee. This is even in Julia Dent Grant's autobiography.

Evidently you're overrating this ruling from 1803 as I've not seen it mentioned as the end all be all of whether or not the President can't suspend Habeas.

I do not overrate this ruling since it shows that "the end all be all" of suspension of Habeas, is the Constitution, which clearly allows only Congress to suspend, not the President.

One criticism is that Lamon is an unreliable source, remembered for lending his name to a ghost-written 1872 biography of Lincoln by Chauncey Black. The biography was received unfavorably by Robert Todd Lincoln, the president's son, and was denounced for a lack of discretion. On the other hand, the habeas corpus manuscript was written in the mid 1880's around the time Lamon was working on his second book, Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, incomplete when he died (Lamon's daughter edited the completed portions of it for posthumous publication). This second book is highly regarded among Lincoln scholars and is the main source for many well-known Lincoln anecdotes and quotes. Another criticism is that no copy of the warrant or other documentation has been found to support Lamon's story. Some critics have also questioned the likelihood of placing such an important task in Lamon's hands, though Lincoln often sent Lamon on important political tasks including a famous 1865 mission to Virginia that resulted in his absence as a bodyguard on the night of Lincoln's assassination.

Lamon as unreliable souce is a stretch at best. Clearly anything written that shows Lincoln in an unfavorable light would be recieved unfavorably by his son and having a lack of discretion does not make one an unreliable souce. As you show his second book, written at the time of the manuscript, is highly regarded. Since the warrent was never served it being destroyed is the logical reason it can not be found. What task is more important than bodyguard to President Lincoln? If he was deemed to be that trusted with his life by Lincoln why not arresting Taney? What critics and how many?

We should also probably ignore what the most important African-American of the era had to say about Lincoln in a speech he gave after Lincoln's death, because, well, he's biased towards Lincoln:

 

Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict.
"bringing them safely through that conflict" Safely at the cost of over 600,000 lives. Not what I would call safely.

We'll pretty much have to ignore everyone since everyone is biased one way or another.


I believe I said something along those lines,  "All Civil War souces, IMHO, both North and South are bias" in my post of Fri Jul 21st, 2006 10:01 pm.

Regards

Shadowrebel (John)

Last edited on Tue Jul 25th, 2006 02:54 am by Shadowrebel

 Close Window