CW Legends and Fantasies

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
617
Reaction score
251
Physician, heal thy own spouting first.
Good advice, whoever @physician is.

Meanwhile, for the thinkers, Lincoln was in fact a tremendous hero to enslaved blacks and for good reason. Whatever racist thoughts Lincoln held, however common to most white men in the Antebellum, he did not allow that to affect his actions as President.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
617
Reaction score
251
Cute retort, Dr. ed.
So you feel this @Dr. ed, whoever that is, is cute.

Ok, but apart from that little muse did you happen to notice the OP suggestion that Lincoln's being a friend and a savior to enslaved blacks is a myth?

Let's think about that. If freeing slaves from legal slavery and enabling their citizenship was not being a friend and savior to enslaved blacks then what, pray tell, would have been?

Would the truer and actual act of friendship and saving been to issue each enslaved black a pint of hooch?*

Being a friend and savior to enslaved blacks involved giving them something of actual value, as their true friend Lincoln did -- having to prevail over his own latent racism to do so, and at considerable risk after all. Lincoln was killed for acting on emancipation, and there's no myth in that whatsoever.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* that's about what was attempted with native Americans, that and a big shiny peace medal with an image of the great white chief on it. If you don't get it, being a friend to enslaved blacks actually involved giving something of actual value to them, as true friend Lincoln did, actually prevailing over his own latent racism to do so, and at some risk besides. He literally was killed for the move, no myth in it whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2,088
So you feel this @Dr. ed, whoever that is, is cute.

Ok, but did you notice the OP suggestion that it's a myth that Lincoln was a friend and a savior to enslaved blacks. So let's think about that.

If freeing slaves from legal slavery and enabling their citizenship was not being a friend to enslaved blacks then what, pray tell, would have been?

If freeing slaves from legal slavery and enabling their citizenship was not saving them then what, pray tell, would have done that?

Would the true act of friendship and saving been to issue each enslaved black a pint of hooch? To note that's about what was attempted with native Americans, that and a big shiny peace medal with an image of the great white chief on it. If you don't get it, being a friend to enslaved blacks actually involved giving something of actual value to them, as true friend Lincoln did, actually prevailing over his own latent racism to do so, and at some risk besides. He literally was killed for the move, no myth in it whatsoever.

As ever you misconstrue my meaning and appear to over think some shit, w/o one itty bit of a shread of humor. But, I do find you amusing at times. ;)
 
Last edited:

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
617
Reaction score
251
...you misconstrue my meaning...w/o one bitty bit shred of humor. But, I do find you amusing...
What's it going to be: "w/o humor" or "amusing?"

Or, nobody actually cares, let's just get back to the OP.
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2,088
Stop being a dried stick in the mud. I choose both humor and serious fact w/o being a pedantic...all the time.

If you have any further issues upon this subject or others, take it to our pm and I shall be glad to beat you up further there and not in open forum where you are...
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
617
Reaction score
251
...I choose both humor and serious fact w/o being a pedantic...
In the case where humor means ridicule, and serious fact means fact demanded, I think we'd prefer the pedantic.

Or, just go ahead and post something regarding the OP.
 
Last edited:

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
640
Reaction score
206
So you feel this @Dr. ed, whoever that is, is cute.

Ok, but apart from that little muse did you happen to notice the OP suggestion that Lincoln's being a friend and a savior to enslaved blacks is a myth?

Let's think about that. If freeing slaves from legal slavery and enabling their citizenship was not being a friend and savior to enslaved blacks then what, pray tell, would have been?

Would the truer and actual act of friendship and saving been to issue each enslaved black a pint of hooch?*

Being a friend and savior to enslaved blacks involved giving them something of actual value, as their true friend Lincoln did -- having to prevail over his own latent racism to do so, and at considerable risk after all. Lincoln was killed for acting on emancipation, and there's no myth in that whatsoever.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* that's about what was attempted with native Americans, that and a big shiny peace medal with an image of the great white chief on it. If you don't get it, being a friend to enslaved blacks actually involved giving something of actual value to them, as true friend Lincoln did, actually prevailing over his own latent racism to do so, and at some risk besides. He literally was killed for the move, no myth in it whatsoever.
So if he was so good to the Black folks of the time then why didn't the so called "emancipation" proclamation not apply to any slave states in the union like Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia ? Lincoln didn't make the 13th amendment happen congress did so in reality Lincoln didn't free anyone what it did do was say go on now your free but not to like the thousands in those states I named.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,646
Reaction score
2,065
The Emancipation Proclamation was a very important executive order by the president because it changed the strategy of the military objective from retaining the Union to retaining the Union and freedom for all. It added a strong moral right to the Union side, and set the course to the abolition of slavery in the United States. Maybe it didn't free many but it removed all doubt that the end result would be the end of slavery.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2,088
So if he was so good to the Black folks of the time then why didn't the so called "emancipation" proclamation not apply to any slave states in the union like Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia ? Lincoln didn't make the 13th amendment happen congress did so in reality Lincoln didn't free anyone what it did do was say go on now your free but not to like the thousands in those states I named.

You, my friend need to inquire far more deeply.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,210
Reaction score
3,041
o if he was so good to the Black folks of the time then why didn't the so called "emancipation" proclamation not apply to any slave states in the union like Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia ? Lincoln didn't make the 13th amendment happen congress did so in reality Lincoln didn't free anyone what it did do was say go on now your free but not to like the thousands in those states I named.
The 'Emancipation Proclamation' was a military order and did not apply where the US civilian government had authority, but where the military did. It was a military order applicable to where military law was in force. The rebelling States left the protection of the US Constitution behind. Slavery was formally protected by the Constitution until the 13th amendment so the loyal States had protection. As commander in chief, Lincoln could issue such orders, because in the world of the rebelling States, Slaves were property subject to confiscation. Once confiscated, the confiscating party had the right to dispose of the property as it saw fit. The Union chose to free the slaves depriving forever the rebelling States of that asset.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
640
Reaction score
206
The 'Emancipation Proclamation' was a military order and did not apply where the US civilian government had authority, but where the military did. It was a military order applicable to where military law was in force. The rebelling States left the protection of the US Constitution behind. Slavery was formally protected by the Constitution until the 13th amendment so the loyal States had protection. As commander in chief, Lincoln could issue such orders, because in the world of the rebelling States, Slaves were property subject to confiscation. Once confiscated, the confiscating party had the right to dispose of the property as it saw fit. The Union chose to free the slaves depriving forever the rebelling States of that asset.
If that last part is true the why didn't that take place long before it did ? And as far as military law I thought that would go for a conquered nation but Lincoln viewed it all as one nation divided so wouldn't the laws already in place still apply to those states.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,210
Reaction score
3,041
If that last part is true the why didn't that take place long before it did ? And as far as military law I thought that would go for a conquered nation but Lincoln viewed it all as one nation divided so wouldn't the laws already in place still apply to those states.
Next time don't sleep through history class or pass notes with the girls during the lecture.

The EP was evolutionary not something that happened all at once. First, the underlying legality of emancipation had to be worked out. For about eighty years the legal system said there was no way to legally free slaves under the US Constitution. The slave owners that confronted General Butler at Fort Monroe inadvertently provided the answer. They came asking for their property back. A light bulb went off and General Butler said that property used by an enemy is contraband subject to confiscation. Second Lincoln held out hope that the Rebels would return and swear allegiance to the Constitution once again, but freeing the slaves would prevent that. Lincoln gave them 6 months to think it over and the rebels said that that the property was more important than allegiance to the US Constitution which while it protected slavery currently, might not in the future due to demographic changes. Once the rebel made that clear Lincoln issued the proclamation.

Along the way, Lincoln had to get his political colation onboard. The sudden change was not popular and it took a year or more of rebels protecting their property killing Northern sons and fathers to piss off the Northern population so that the proclamation had sufficient political support. The majority of northern opinion came to be that freeing slaves not only was a good thing in and of itself but deprived the rebels of an important asset.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
640
Reaction score
206
Next time don't sleep through history class or pass notes with the girls during the lecture.

The EP was evolutionary not something that happened all at once. First, the underlying legality of emancipation had to be worked out. For about eighty years the legal system said there was no way to legally free slaves under the US Constitution. The slave owners that confronted General Butler at Fort Monroe inadvertently provided the answer. They came asking for their property back. A light bulb went off and General Butler said that property used by an enemy is contraband subject to confiscation. Second Lincoln held out hope that the Rebels would return and swear allegiance to the Constitution once again, but freeing the slaves would prevent that. Lincoln gave them 6 months to think it over and the rebels said that that the property was more important than allegiance to the US Constitution which while it protected slavery currently, might not in the future due to demographic changes. Once the rebel made that clear Lincoln issued the proclamation.

Along the way, Lincoln had to get his political colation onboard. The sudden change was not popular and it took a year or more of rebels protecting their property killing Northern sons and fathers to piss off the Northern population so that the proclamation had sufficient political support. The majority of northern opinion came to be that freeing slaves not only was a good thing in and of itself but deprived the rebels of an important asset.
Good joke but I take my classes very seriously and I don't get much girl attention. But It takes more than a few classes to debate and discuss things at this level and who do you think controls education, the government and there are many with the agenda of only giving info in history class that I don't sleep through that they want us to know. I've read more books than I can recall on this war. Overall Lincoln gets too much credit for the end of slavery which wasn't even a goal when the war broke out. Observe this here quote.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. Abraham Lincoln
 
Top