Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Will the real Lincoln – Douglass Debate please stand up

Well it would have been easy for me to talk about Wisconsin and Hawaii, and or to pontificate on the first week of March with the Upcoming Texas and Ohio primaries. Just as undemanding, would have been to talk about John McCain’s direct comments toward Barak Obama, or how Obama, is now pulling more voters from women, from whites and from the non college educated folks that Hillary Clinton, which once upon a time ago was suggested to me, was her base.

Instead I am going to take another stab at revising history. I’m certain my folk Badtux will chime in on this. It is well documented historically that Abraham Lincoln had seven debates across the state of Illinois in 1858. In fact the historical record has labeled these the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates.”

The debates were between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. They were battling for one of Illinois' two United States Senate seats. History also tells us that Lincoln lost these debates since he lost the election.

Douglas, a Democrat, was the incumbent Senator was a strong advocate of Popular Sovereignty, and was responsible for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Popular sovereignty suggested that settlers of federal territorial lands could decide the status under which they would join the Union – either free or slave.

Strange thing was that although he lost the Senate race to Douglas, he beat the same man for the 1860 race for the US Presidency. Although these debates framed the issue and difficulty of having a productive union in which some states were slave states, and others were free states, the real debate from my purview was not with the Senator from Illinois, but from another Douglass – Frederick Douglass.

Frederick Douglass was probably the biggest critic of President Lincoln. It was he who got Lincoln to practice what he preaches to move beyond his rhetoric on morality and freedom. Although most would think that these two men were on the same page politically and ideological, they were not. Lincoln believed the primary directive of the North was to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. Douglass was the first to suggest and urge Lincoln to use of black troops to fight the Confederacy. He positioned that by establishing colored regiments in the Union army. Dougless wrote “ every slave who escapes from the Rebel States is a loss to the Rebellion and a gain to the Loyal Cause I need not stop to argue…The negro is the stomach of the rebellion." He urged President Lincoln to urge equal pay for black soldiers.

Lincoln even said on the record that "If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union."

Truth be told, the policy of the Lincoln administration was one of pro-slavery. Douglass unlike Lincoln, incessantly focused on the face of the war and stated "the mission of the war was the liberation of the slaves as well as the salvation of the Union. I reproached the North that they fought with one hand, while they might fight more effectively with two; that they fought with the soft white hand, while they kept the black iron hand chained and helpless behind them; that they fought the effect, while they protected the cause; and said that the Union cause would never prosper until the war assumed an anti-slavery attitude and the Negro was enlisted on the side of the Union."
Douglass was instrumental in getting Lincoln to see that the civil war was a struggle between freedom and slavery. For Lincoln was troubled by the view in the North that it was seen as a war for abolition of slavery singularly. This upset Douglass and in his meetings and dialogue with Lincln made sure he understood that could have never been designed, with its talk of forming “a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,” could not have been made and at the same time promote and maintain “a system of rapine and murder like slavery, especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief.”

He had advised President Lincoln in 1862 to free the slaves in Washington, D.C., and understood that this fight was really versus a economic system directly in contradiction to the principles on which the country had been founded.

Now I know this doesn't make much sense, but all this week I have read and heard a lot regarding the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of President Lincoln. In all of this, I have only heard Fred Douglass name mentioned briefly once, but the repeating mantra of the Lincoln-Douglass debates are batted around like the were the real debate of his time. No, the real debate was between he and Douglass, for it was Douglass, in his interaction and dialogue withe Linclon, that had the greatest impact in the long run. rdB


Dagny said...

Frederick Douglass was always present in my house when I was growing up. Thank you for this reminder. At that time my parents had a poster made of one of his quotes. My dad's copy still hangs in his office today.

"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose."

s. douglas said...

I always thought the North wanted slavery abolished in the South, so they could establish a capitalist form of slavery at home.

It just wasn't fair the South had all of the cheap/free labor.

I'm not much of a romantic when it comes to American History. Part of my ancestry is extinct because of it.

Sic Semper Tyrannus!!

PrettyBlack said...

Loved it...I've always been wary of anyone who didn't read the facts and automatically took it upon themselves to believe that Abe Lincoln was our great white hope...For sure he wasn't.

When taught his story it's never to cast a brother as more eloquent or more sophisticated as any white man during that era...come on now.

Lincoln couldn't match up with Douglass on any given day for the simple fact that he was delusional and mentally unstable.

I suppose you can say he and bush are kindred spirits since neither one of them knew or knows what their fuckin' wars are about...

Anonymous said...

You are so right. This is my issue with black history and how we view slavery in the US. Historians have sugar coated the true turmoil of the country and boiled it down to a kindergarten coloring assignment that says "Lincoln freed the slaves" and "Martin Luther King with Rosa Parks got our Civil Liberties" and while in an infantile look at the past those are true statements, but it fails to give a realistic look at the politics and the true extent of racism in the US. Thank you for this post, it reminds us all that when politics and the rights of an undervalued people are involved no act is purely altruistic.

Dee said...

I never heard al this before
I think that your post emphasizes an important principle that few people remember--that racism is lucrative for a lot of people. A lot of conflict simply comes down to the availability of resources and the greed in the human heart. People will turn on their own kind for money--why wouldn't they turn on "the other". The hate is not necessarily because someone looks different but because that different someone has a claim to what someone else wants to keep all to himself.

The Love Collective said...

Frederick Douglass never got the credit he deserved. We've got a few high schools named for him, but the essence of the man we still don't know. Thanx for the post. Love.

Christopher said...


Thanks for giving me a new found perspective on another interesting and often overlooked American: Frederick Douglass.

We live in Rochester, NY. This happens to be the location of where Douglass spent most of his public career. We have a splendid National historical site dedicated to preserving his legacy.

It seems to me, in this nation, far too often the only time the accomplishments of African American are held up and celebrated is in February.

What kind of message does this send to young people? Especially, young, black Americans?

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Dagny - I used to read about him and GW Carver all the time, i thought they were brave and smart when i was younger and even think greater of them both now

Fairlane - there were slaves up north too, so dont sleep

PrettyBlack - I must admit Lincoln was a lot more astute that the Current Bush

Ingrid - you are welcome hon, its my last offical post on history for this month, i think

GC - so true, and of another thing, that people dont think and dont read and accept what folks tell us, especially if they are white that it is gospel. Not that many of us write history books. For example, check these pieces i wrote for the World encyclopedia of slavery about 10 yrs ago. Church Schisms over Slavery and punishment of slaves I select to define my own history based on the fact as i read them

Love collective - so true and thanbk you

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Christopher - u are lucky, i am very well aware of his speec on the forth of July. I wrote abouut it to a while back and thanks man. Looks like its 10 in a row for your boy.

Jaded said...

I have always found it interesting that when discussing the civil war, most people believe the whole thing was about slavery. When I try to explain that it BECAME about freeing slaves, but it didn't START that way, most people look at me like I have two heads. Inevitably people point out that Lincoln freed the slaves, and always respond "Sure he did. Begrudgingly." Again, I'm looked at like I have 2 heads because that's not exactly how it's taught in school. God forbid that people pick up a book that wasn't assigned and actually read it because they want to know more.

That whole period in our nation's history has been a particular fascination of mine. I even went to college in Winchester, VA, where 3 battles were fought. I've been to more battle fields and cemetaries than I can even count. My fascination has primarily stemmed from the fact that although it is such a defining moment in our history as a nation, I have no connection to it other than the fact that I am part of the nation. On my mother's side, my grandparents were the first in their respective families to be born here. On my father's side, he and his sister were the first generation to be born here. All of my ancestors came to this country after 1900. Immigrants became part of the focus of discrimination at that time as well. I know the hardships my family faced, and that's where my gut emotions are based.

But when I look back at the time of the Civil War, I am always astonished at just how romanticized that history has become. It sounds so altruistic of Lincoln to be so dedicated to the liberty and justice for all people that he'd go to war to ensure it would happen, but the fact is, as you have so eloquently pointed out, that wasn't his intention at all. It was a means to an end, not part of the original plan. While I give him credit for actually following through with it, I don't think he should be romanticized for it. Yes, the end result is that slavery was abolished and thank God for that. He may have been part of it, but he certainly wasn't responsible for it. I think it's unbelievably irresponsible to have a selective memory where history is concerned. Doing so means that history will be rewritten, and even though what happened may be ugly, we need to know the truth, not some technicolor version of it.

Anonymous said...

So many people have forgotten how important Douglas' role was in giving slaves their freedom. The history of blacks is not taught in school in it's entirety. I mean sure this month, many schools are giving black history SOME credit, but it is just hard for them to admit that so many blacks have reshaped history and give wholehearted credit to those responsible.

Great post brotha!


Anonymous said...

you are allowed to say what you feel. you're just not allowed to spam us.

Blu Jewel said...

I can always count on you to get the real story out there and deem HIStory inacurate.

Thanks for the knowledge.


Samii Styles said...

Imagine if our kids (all kids) were taught these sort of truths in school instead of a lot of the BS thats being fed to them especially during this month of February.

Thanks for the lesson!

A.u.n.t. Jackie said...

If conversations like this hadn't been a main stay at the dinner table in my household I too might be confused, however with a mother who closed down her college campus until they had a black studies department this and many other obscured truths were pounded into my brain.

In a country still run by the oppressor and still running over the oppressed men like Frederick Douglas with forever be marginalized within the context of "American" History, because let's face Slavery was the best thing this country had going for least for about 400 years!

Curious said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Curious said...

Most of us choose to live our lives in a Disneyland type of world. Where we define our beliefs by the cookie cutter formulas that have been designed for us by mass media, corporations and sometimes the government.

This post helps show that there are often more ways than 1 to look at a subject and that you don't have to cherry pick the facts in order to find the truth.

Yes it was Mr Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Act, but it was other people and other circumstances that helped or made him get to that point.

I don't want to paraphrase your girl Hillary's African quotation but, it sometimes takes a village to create a movement.

Great post!

BadTux said...

Fairlane, the North wasn't fighting a war to abolish slavery, they were fighting a war to keep the United States united. The notion was that if the Confederacy left over one issue, other areas of the country would leave over other issues and then you'd end up with the nation breaking up and the European superpowers coming in and snapping up the pieces. The war was about slavery to the South -- to the point where the Confederates put slavery ahead of states' rights in their own Constitution -- but for the North, eliminating slavery was just one way to punish the South for seceding.

I mean, c'mon. You go to Google Images and type in "lynching". Fourth from the right, that's Duluth Minnesota in 1920. Do you *really* think those guys and gals posing so happily around the dangling bodies of three lynched black men would have gone to war to end slavery? Yeah right, pull the other flipper why doncha... and that was the attitude towards blacks in most of the North at the time. They didn't like blacks, didn't want blacks in their own states (see e.g. the Illinois black codes which basically made it illegal to be a black man in Illinois in the pre-Civil-war days), and opposed slavery only insofar as it made U.S. relations with trading partners who'd already banned slavery difficult, or, at best, as a moral issue that was worthy of making speeches about -- not worthy of making war about.

I think we just gotta take Abraham Lincoln at his word here. For the North, the Civil War was about preserving the Union, period. That's what ole' Honest Abe said, and I think we ought to believe him. Freeing the slaves... well, that was just a way to win the war, in the end. Frederick Douglass was one slick cat to make that argument to Lincoln, but that doesn't change the reality that the average Northerner simply didn't have a problem with black people being enslaved -- as long as said black people were a long ways away from their own homes.

- Badtux the History Penguin

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Jaded - like Badtux would tell ya, mos folks don red and acept without question. History, like math is an analytical subject, and as for as the romanticization, thats what we do in the west to sooth he soul.

Marcus - i question if schools teach at all, seems like they just train and inculcate

GD - good look

BluJewel - u are so welcome

Samii - chk out my post on jim crow, i think u will like it

Aunt Jackie - would have loved to sit around your table, as well as Jaded and Badtux. I would have let the time roll as my food digested

Curious - do u need your meds? LOL, you know thats an old african saying

Badtux - my folk. True keeping the union was the main focus. I think that was what he was trying to get acros in his debates with the senator from Ill.

Your point on the influence of Europe is also well stated, I figured thats why the money was coming in and coming from, nd each state would have its own national Bank (eg national Bank of Miss, National Bank of Georgia). And truth be told, with all the banks having their own currency, I think many saw this as a problem, even Sam P. Chase. We will talk about greenback later.

Curious said...

Yeah T, I know it's an African proverb, but Hillary is the one that collects royalties for it. I think she wrote a childrens book with that title.

Hmm, would it be wrong for me to say that Africans are still being exploited?

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Curious - dang, she making loot on it, naw man, u in wrong dang

Mizrepresent said...

Speak on it T...i always learn so much here and appreciate it too!

msladyDeborah said...

Frederick Douglass gave the Civil War its moral foundation. His push to free the slaves and to make them a force against wouthern oppression made sense. This is when the war took on a new meaning.

Angel said...

our campus is all abuzz because of the clinton/obama debates that will be hosted on campus thursday. interesting thing is:
-they aren't selling tickets
-mostly public officials are invited
-students had to enter several different "lotteries" to even try to win tickets (which weren't even always guaranteed)
-to attend the official debate watching party costs $50

mp1 said...

Thanks for the knowledge. I was aware of the Lincoln-Douglass debates, and aware that F. Douglass had a fair amount of influence during that time. But he gets no shine today. I'm thinking about writing about the triumvirate of black leaders at the end of the nineteenth century; Douglass, DuBois and Washington. Methinks it'll be too long, but I still might roll with it.

Awkward Silence said...

Very informative post, I'm embarrassingly ignorant about this stuff. I do know that Douglass always seems to be a historical figure that is praised but never really discussed in history classes.

Also, I'd be happy to be on your blog roll!

christina said...

While growing up I remember being taught one thing at home about the civil war and being taught another at school. I remember a teacher trying to convince me that the civil war was about economics and had nothing to do with slavery. Uhem..... insert jeopardy theme here:+)

Fredrick Douglas had been such a huge part of history in our household when I was young, I appreciate the his history more now as I am older.

This very history (that you mention) can be so easily stolen from our children. This is why my family and I make the sacrifice to home school our kids. HS is not for everyone but I knew that this may be the only chance for my son and daughter to be educated about the truth and keep an open mind.
Thanks for this sweetie:+)

Blah Blah Blah said...

...Harlem is so contradictory..but I like walking a straight line across MLK Jr. (125th St.) and hitting Frederick Douglass Blvd, Adam Clayton Powell Blvd, Malcolm X Blvd...
Altho...Harriet Tubman's statue is facing south...but I just figured that was because she was headed back south to get more of her ppl.

I know...this isn't on topic... but I am feeling very black today (lol)...militant even...RIP Malcolm 2/21/1965

dc_speaks said...

hey now what T, it is absolutely remarkable to come over here and be a student of history.

I appreciate all that you do to share information with the masses via your blog. you have a brother in the struggle to educate and free minds from the bondage that is media and pop culture.

excellent post!

stop on by and tell me what you think.


All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

DC - thanks folk. i hope i am getting at least one or two folks to see history, especially during our month, that it is analyrical, and more than remembering dates, names and mundane facts

Blah - i aint mad a ya, just dont let me see u on the national news tonight ms militant. God look with Malcom

Christina - keep on home schooling

Awakward - you will be rolled today. Thanks and do come back

MP - i think you ca do it in 6 paragraphs, u just have to be analytical and concise, and put for pustulates based on a central hesis like math, history is like math to me

Fallen angel - i wonder who made them arangements, 50 bills, dang go and represent if you can wish u could ask a question like. Mr Clinton, you had to write a 5million dollar chk for your campaign and u hd way more loot than obama, should I take this as how you would manage the country, when Obama has not run out and managed his money well, nd how do you think u got all the votes in harlem pricints and Obma none?

Mslady - true and i would even add Fred D. defined the war

Miz - u make me blush, thanks. How are the book sales and good luck in da Lou

Joy Akut said...

so what if i'm a bit lost here and would have jumped head on into a discuss on mccain vs obama(somehow i've eliminated hilary from the race)

hard core american history is lost on me, u sound so passionate about Frederick Douglass, going to read up on him and get a groove of what he was about.

Noushy Syah said...

Hi Torrance,
Actually you have a gr8 blog,lot's of info and well written.I'll blogroll you yea.

Thanks for your generous comment in my award blog thus kindly accept these friendship awards from me:

Feel free to visit another blog of mine too ok?

Hope you don't mind grabbing the awards.Take care and have a good day!

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you wrote this, considering that I live here in Springfield, IL where Lincoln is treated like a God. I'm going to spotlight this on my site. Great work!!

enigma4ever said...

thanks for blogging this, I love your of my favorite pieces of History, this debate.....just a quick messege....I did go see Michelle Obama today- and yes indeedy she is indeed his Corretta- she rocked it...she is amazing....She will be a GREAT First Lady....all class.
( and yes I am liveblogging The Debate tonight over at Watergate Summer).....

( I will be back over to re-read this post tonight....)

DeadMule said...

Nice post. Filled with truth.
Best, Helen Losse

Anonymous said...

I've been giving props to Lincoln all this time, and you're telling me it was just a political move, he really didn't care about 3/5ths. J/K

BadTux said...

Mrs. Grapevine, you gotta at least give Lincoln props for being a powerful white guy who listened to a black guy, even if his original motivations had nothing to do with freeing slaves and everything to do with preserving the Union. You do know how rare that is, right? I can count the number of powerful white politicians who've given more than lip service to listening to black people on the tips of my flippers.

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Fantasy queen - do that. It will be worth your time. truth is a lot of folks dont like history the way my folk Badtux and I do.

Noushy Syah - y thank you hon, i will post them asap

NewsFriction - thank u and i will chk it out

enigma4ever - thank u hon, and have fun, im debated out. Stopped after first 14

Mrsgrapevine - He did care, but it was not his focus or intention. Like Badtux said, he WAS rare, a white man, a white president, giving a forum to a Black man, shows how objective he really was

Badtux - great point as usual, im thinking about doing a post on the greenback now, and the transformation from Bills to notes, what says u, and can i blog roll ya

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Deadmule - Thanks hon, hope all is well with u

Garth Sullivan said...

to anyone who is interested in this period, i would highly recommend gore vidal's novel Lincoln. it pretty much paints the unvarnished truth about Lincoln's views on slavery.

the fact is, he only cared about the union, and, if he had to accept slavery to do it, he was more than willing.

in fact, vidal makes the point that Lincoln personally preferred repatriation of slaves back to africa.

You and I are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other races. Whether it be right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

Abraham Lincoln
Statement to the Deputation of Free Negroes, 14 August 1862

Garth Sullivan said...

i should say he cared primarily about the union, because, as others here have noted his views shifted somewhat due in part to people like Frederick Douglass.

there is some beautiful rhetoric in the Declaration of Emancipation some of it i'd like to believe heartfelt expressions of an attempt to realize a higher ideal.

All-Mi-T [Thought Crime] Rawdawgbuffalo said...

Garth - You know, I picked it up one day in a book store and put it down, instead i got a book on the holy roman empire. I should have. And you right an hd I agree, he did prefer the approach taken by the american colnization society re repatriation of slaves back to africa.

Unknown said...

When i was young I made a paper mosaic that won many awards of Frederick Douglass.

I was in the 4th Grade. My favorite teacher to this day taught me about Freddy at a tender age.

Great post Bruh, you never cease to amaze!

DeadMule said...

Hi Torrance, Most white people don't even understand what racism really is. They think it's just prejudice. They don't seem to understand that lynching is too close to be joked about, not that it ever should. Thanks for your level-headed posts. We shall overcome (but we don't seem to be in a hurry to do it). Helen

Stephen A. Bess said...

Great post! was never about the millions of enslaved Africans in America.

KELSO'S NUTS said...

Very,very good post. Just thinking about Fredrick Douglass is part of what scalds my nuts about Obama.

Yes, it was a war to preserve the Union, not to free anybody.

Yes, if there's no Douglass or John Brown or Nat Turner there's not Lincoln Monument.

Most of all, if what would become the CSA had agreed collectively to a 25% tariff on agricultural products, the slaves would have freed themselves sometime not too long after October 1917, very much I'd guess, against the wishes of Wilson, TR and maybe even the young FDR!

Oh baby, what a mess that would have been!

Babz Rawls Ivy said...

You did an amazing job of framing this out in a historical context and sublimely framing the way in which we are follwing the current debates--atleast in my mind. Although you do not mention the current state of affairs, in my mind I can't help but wonder about the not so obvious nuances of those debates and todays debates. Who could stand in the Frederick Douglass role today? Who could layout the moral imperitives that were clearly layered over the ressons for war. If America was to truly live up to her high ideas then slavery most certainly could not go. But Lincoln was not concerned with slavery in as much as he was concerned about The Union and how to hold this fledging country together. Mr. Frederick Douglas was amazing and it is we who must tell of his importance and not leave it to somebody else to tell our American history.

You have swagger. Well done.

KELSO'S NUTS said...


Please don't paint us all with one broad brush. You don't know anything about me and I don't know anything about you. I just discovered this site through my friend Fairlane who listed RDB along with my blog on his post today. I'm already addicted because Torrance seems to share so many of my interests and writes so well.

Let me introduce myself properly, then. I have White skin. I live in Panama but was born and raised in NYC in an ethnically-mixed neighborhood. I learned to speak Spanish as a child because about 1/3 of my childhood friends were children of Puerto Rican immigrants. I come from a Russian immigrant family and my father and grandfather's stories are the stuff of the mid 20th-century version of the most baroque rap lyrics of today.

I was lucky enough to attend prep school, college and grad school. I have done very well for myself in the worlds of finance and gambling.

I became as "disposible" because of stuff that the Bush Administration did in an effort to shore up its "base" for 2006.

So, please not only do I remember where I come from, I am a student of history and have been on a mission to tell "Whites" (this color thing is really weird for me now living in Panama where it's all such a mix nobody pays it any mind) EXACTLY what "lynching" was and what it was not. In short, I have explained over and over again that it was not some kind of vigiliantism, but rather a culturally-ingrained form of sadistic entertainment for Whites with rules, etiquette, etc. I drew the comparison of the word "lynch" for an African-American with the word "oven" for a Jewish-American.

I suppose being effectively a "foreigner" who now speaks more Spanish than English, you could find better examples of "Whites who understand" than me, but I guess I'll have to do for now!


Anonymous said...

(DIS)honest Abe certainly was no John Brown, or abolitionist, and he really had no desire whatsoever to "free" enslaved Africans, unless it was just for poliTRICKal reasons only. Lincoln stated many times that Whites were in the "superior" position, and that Blacks were in the "inferior" position, and that he had no intention whatsoever to realize Black peoples' humanity. That was stated in a letter to a Horace Greeley. Also according to Lerone Bennett, Jr. in, Vol.2, Issue 1, Feb.'99, he states:

Abraham Lincoln was not in
the fullest sense of the
word, either a man or
mortal. In his interests
and associations, in his
habits and thoughts and
prejudices, he was a
white man; he was
pre-eminently the white
man's president.

I think we really need to be careful who we choose as liberators and heros, and stop going along with what someone else picks for us as our leaders and heros.

gator42 said...

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." - AL

"The institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy"
- AL, Illinois General Assembly Member in a formal protest to the defeat of an anti-slavery bill in the 1830s.

It was defeated 77-6, with Lincoln being one of the six and joined by another collegue as the only two to file a formal protest.

"he (Douglass) of the most meritorious men in America" - AL

Anonymous said...

The Lincoln-Douglas Debate was between Stephen A. Douglas and Lincoln, not Fredrick Douglas and Lincoln.

Aside from that slavery, a horrible crime, was not the cause of the war or the secession of the South from the Union. If it had been, as most Lincoln Cultist would have us believe, then Lincoln would have never tried so hard to make a deal with the South supporting a Constitutional Amendment forever protecting slavery in the South if the South agreed to remain in the Union. If slavery had been the main issue behind the secession of the South, then it would have been far easier for the South to have agreed to Lincoln's little "deal" then to have gone to war and had the South destroyed.

Lincoln just wanted to be able to continue collecting the heavy tariffs the Northern controlled Congress imposed on the Southern States, he cared nothing about the slaves and said so. He was a racist hypocrite of the lowest caliber.

Another interesting history is that of the Reconstruction and the damage it did not only the the freed slaves, but to all of the South; we are all still paying the price for that Militaristic policy.

It is time to read about the real history behind the one that has been so highly polished and varnished that it doesn't relate to the real facts of the period or the aftermath that has affected both Blacks and Whites in this country, even to this day.

Anonymous said...

Very good post Torrance! I've always known that Abraham Lincoln was not the "liberator" that historians would like us to believe he is. And I think this is a reminder that in order to get things done in America we as people have to be critical of the people we elect in office otherwise we'll be in the mess we're currently with no end in sight of how bad it truly will get.

I found an interesting article yesterday on about how Black History month should not be celebrated anymore since Obama is in office. That by keeping the holiday only keeps the notion of separation between American history and Black history. I found it laughable because the black history we are taught is only partial truth (if at all) and if we really dug deep to see how things really were back then people would have a greater appreciation of the sacrifices that were made in order to attain their freedom.

People need to put down the remote and pick up a wonder kids today are so lost...!

Unknown said...


Alger said...

Really effective info, lots of thanks for the article.
sex offenders in Texas | map of earth | Nicaragua food