Lincoln quote 1848: Too Bad He did not live up to it

[Cabin4]

This is an ironic quote from Lincoln that he made in 1848. It proves that even he beleived in sesession. Obviuosly he was motivated by other issues than his claims of keeping the union together when it came to war with the south. It's pretty easy to conclude that this war of aggression was about money and power.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

-- Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

[wganz]

Just shows to go you that a politician will say just about anything to win an election. 

[SouthernByGrace]

He also used excerpts from that speech as late as 1852, when he addressed delegates from Hungary;


"Be it resolved, that it is the RIGHT of ANY PEOPLE, sufficiently numerous for national independence, TO THROW OFF, to REVOLUTIONIZE, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead AS THEY MAY CHOOSE."

---Abraham Lincoln, in a speech on behalf of Hungarian freedom, January 9, 1852 (only 9 years before the war)


He believed in the right of secession as long as it involved other countries. Ohhh, the height of hypocrisy...   

SBG

[ironfoot]

You are taking, out of context, a small part of a speech Lincoln made against the war with Mexico, and trying to claim he supported secession. Here is the whole speech:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=949

By electing an anti-slavery northerner, the south feared that the people of the US were going to
"... right to rise up and shake off the existing government...." and end slavery, so to stop that, the south seceded.

[southernutah]

It is ironic that politicians are for revolution in foreign countries but fight it at home. Job security panic......

[Cabin4]

You are taking, out of context, a small part of a speech Lincoln made against the war with Mexico, and trying to claim he supported secession. Here is the whole speech:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=949

By electing an anti-slavery northerner, the south feared that the people of the US were going to
"... right to rise up and shake off the existing government...." and end slavery, so to stop that, the south seceded.

How do you believe this is out of context? Lincoln used the words "any people, anywhere".  So I see no contextual issue on this point that Lincoln used as a principal statement.

What was he referring to if you believe this is out of context?

[SouthernByGrace]

Cabin4, you know as well as I do that ironfoot knows no other stance besides slavery. You're 100% right, there is NO way this quote can be taken out of context. Lincoln was speaking of SECESSION, ironfoot. He was speaking in FAVOR of it, ironfoot. PERIOD!
I can't wait for the explanation from you as to just precisely HOW this was taken out of context... It's funny how, when faced with an Absolute Fact, of any kind, Lincolnites suddenly Clam Up.

Lincoln made the Exact Same statement in a speech IN FAVOR OF SECESSION of the Hungarian people, on January 9, 1852, as I've posted Several times here on GBO (the one you referred to was in 1848). Lincoln admits his belief in secession for every country on earth. ironfoot, maybe YOU need to read the speech for yourself... The RIGHT of ANY PEOPLE, SUFFICIENTLY numerous for national independence. How is that out of context? Hmmm?
As I said then, I'll say again, I guess that ANY PEOPLE didn't include Southerners... not to mention the Northern states that seriously contemplated secession BEFORE the South ever Actually DID it. Why is it the country thought Nothing of those states leaving? The Government didn't Invade THOSE states to prevent them from leaving, they decided against it for their own reasons, and Nobody thought ill of Them for considering it, and the government Never told them it Couldn't be done.  And THEY were going to secede because of the election of an unpopular President in that region... now, where have I heard that before?

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[shortround]

You ever notice how the left/liberal world NEVER take anything Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and now Obama say for their literal meaning.

We're supposed to take any speech given by a conservative president/politician that shows him in a non favorable light for the negative meaning the left tells us it is, but those same negative words spoken by one of these gods to the left are to be interpreted by those who are more enlightened, educated and smarter than those of us who fall under the class designated the "poor unwashed masses."

Is it just me or does one get the sense the left in general, the leftist media in particular want to establish a religion based on these men?

If we refuse to follow their path, will we be excommunicated from this cult of personality or will we be sent to a re-education camp, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Of course he called his camp a GULAG.

[Cabin4]

Liberals, socialists, communists, etc all must lie to advance their agenda.

[Gary G]

Either Lincoln was a politician seeking money and power (support of the tariff) or he was not a politician seeking improved standards for a minority that could not vote.
 
Now what does common sense tell us?

Warning: leftists may have trouble with this!

[Bob Riebe]

Liberals, socialists, communists, etc all must lie to advance their agenda.

As must segragationists.

[subdjoe]

Liberals, socialists, communists, etc all must lie to advance their agenda.

As must segragationists.

Care to expand on that some so we know what you mean?  To me the segregationists are the ones who are constantly trying to divide us into more and more hyphenated Americans and pushing for special treatment for each little group.  Is that what you mean by 'segregationists?'

[Bob Riebe]

Liberals, socialists, communists, etc all must lie to advance their agenda.

As must segregationists.

Care to expand on that some so we know what you mean?  To me the segregationists are the ones who are constantlly trying to divide us into more and more hyphenated Americans and pushing for special treatment for each little group.  Is that what you mean by 'segregationists?'

THAT is what the Democrats survive by; the only difference between segregationists now and those forty some years ago, is the laws make it illega, so they
(Sorry Bob but I've just deleated this part of your post that I find not only offensive in language but also the spirit of what we try to have around here) THAT is not what I was speaking of, but in reality it is far more heinous than what once was.

Sorry but I mean segregationist in the way it was used in the sixties; plus, any one who thinks slavery would have gone away without federal laws to force it, has smoked way to may joints. Tha" thought ranks with Lennon's "Give peach a chance" bs.

[shortround]

Isn't it funny how public high schools in Boston were not desegregated until 1977.

Some 20 years AFTER they were desegregated in the South.

Ain't that a thang?

[subdjoe]

Yeah, DE didn't abolish it until the 13th was ratified.  Of course, Oregon and IL still kept their laws forbidding blacks settleing there. 

Slavery was almost dead in the upper south, it was becoming uneconomical.  It would have eventually died in the lower south too.  It might have taken to the turn of the century, but with mechanisation, it would have become unecomonical.  And a lot of the bigotry that is ascribed only to the south comes from ideas that came down from the north AND because a culture and economy was destroyed at bayonet point to speed up the process.  So, yes, slavery would have lasted maybe 30 or 40 years more, but likely race relations would be a whole lot better. 

Funny how every other nation managed to abolish it without a war, isn't it? 

Read through the Slave Narratives.  Yes, there are some horror stories there.  But there are also a lot of stories saying that they had a pretty decent life and that they were treated like family. 

[SouthernByGrace]

Yeah, joe. Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, "West" Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and every other Northern State.... but we who "believe slavery would have gone away without federal laws to force it" just kinda think that way...

You're absolutely right about the slave narratives! I'll bet ole Bob has never even heard of them. He probably wouldn't believe what he reads, if he did read them. A fascinating FACT about the narratives is that only about 6% of them (there were more than 4,000 total) had ANYTHING remotely negative to say about their lives as a slave. More than 94% actually stated several times in their interviews how much better off they were BEFORE Yankee induced freedom! Bet ole Bob won't believe That either...

Just a few that come to mind are:

Sarah Gudger

Isam Mosely, who said THREE times during his interview how well all the people on the plantation were treated, saying they had "some mighty good white folks, mighty good. You know they had to be good people because after surrender, more people moved there. Didn't nobody leave, more came to live there."

Fountain Hughes, whose grandfather belonged to Thomas Jefferson, and who was 101 years old at the time of his interview, told the World how he knew of NO cases where ANY slave on the plantation where he lived had been mistreated, whipped, or severely punished. He did speak of how slaves could be put up on the auction block and sold like livestock (which is EXACTLY how 99% of EVERY white person in America, South AND NORTH, at that time saw blacks). But that is not what you'll hear from his RECORDED interview in the media. Documentaries such as the Ken Burns' PBS Special, The Civil War, only payed a 13 second clip from Mr. Hughes' 21 minute interview. In that 13 seconds, Mr. Hughes said, "If I ever thought... that I would ever... go back to being a... slave, I'd get a gun... and I'd end it all, right there. Because, you're nothing but a dog. You're Nothing but a dog."  OF COURSE HE WOULD! WHO WOULDN'T? To say that quote was taken out of context would be a GROSS Understatement! Ten seconds later, he told of how well he, as well as every slave on "his" plantation was treated.
 
Yeah, Bob, I don't think you'll find a single Southern State that had any anti-black laws to prevent blacks from living, or even Visiting that state. I can count NINE Northern states, without having to even think about them! Yeah, buddy, we were some serious segregationists...

But WE are full of BS, according to ole BOB! He is No different from any number of Yankees who won't research it for themselves, but simply rely on what they are taught in school.

Yes, joe. The Bob's of this world will never understand how, if EVERY other country on Earth could end slavery without ever firing a shot, America could have done the SAME thing!

Bob, I invite you to visit our sources on the Ex-Slave Narratives, The United States Library of Congress. Oh, you don't have to physically go there, you can go to www.loc.gov and search for "Ex-Slave Narratives." While there, you can read every interview done, or you can LISTEN to the recordings of the actual former slaves, themselves. There are about 4 1/2 hours of recordings. If their words are not good enough for you, Nothing will be... If you have trouble finding them, PM me and I will be happy to guide you step by step. I'm not being facetious, I'm being serious. 

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[subdjoe]

SBG, I just added to the sticky of good resources a direct link to The Slave Narratives.  Should have done that in my first post there.  Here it is again: Slave Narratives

I think your statement: " A fascinating FACT about the narratives is that only about 6% of them (there were more than 4,000 total) had ANYTHING remotely negative to say about their lives as a slave. " may be suspect. Where did you come up with that?  The reading I have done in that source suggests to me that it closer to a third have negative comments about slavery.  And about a third say they were treated about like family.

You also wrote: "He did speak of how slaves could be put up on the auction block and sold like livestock (which is EXACTLY how 99% of EVERY white person in America, South AND NORTH, at that time saw blacks). "  Again, I think your number is suspect. I'll not deny that a great many did think that way, but in much of the south blacks and whites interacted on the streets every day, greeted each other, asked after families, etc.  Free blacks, from what I have been able to dig up, seem tohave been just regular members of the community.  Ran their farms or shops, some were able to won slaves, some bought benches in their churches after the custom of the day.  Maybe after digging into their attitudes, and knowing in the backs of their minds that blacks COULD be bought and sold they would say that, but I doubt that it was thought about much in daily life by most whites.

[SouthernByGrace]

This is the link to the Recordings - the voices of the actual former slaves, in their OWN words.

Some of the best ones are Isom Moseley, Charlie Smith, and Fountain Hughes. There are many more, if you take the time to research them. These are extremely rare, and a few are inaudible. They are all worth listening to because you might catch a few seconds or minutes that Are audible.

http://frontiers.loc.gov/ammem/collections/voices/vfssp.html

My figures on the 6% come from Ronald and Donald Kennedy's The South Was Right. Most of the negatives are included on the LOC website. Unfortunately, they do not include all of the narratives on the page you linked, or the one above, either. I have been to the LOC and seen and heard them in person. I agree with the Kennedys' personal research, because I have verified for myself.

The figure I used on the "livestock" comment refers to slaves on the auction block, at the time of sale, and not the relationships that existed between whites and blacks in their everyday associations with each other. No matter what those relationships were, blacks were considered property, much the same as livestock, even if the owners were black themselves. The dilemma came from the realization that they were also human beings. That, along with more economical mechanization, is ultimately what would have led to their eventual freedom (without war). The closeness and feelings of family were beginning to erode the idea of property. But at the same time, if they remained property, they were protected by Constitutional Law, AS PROPERTY.

My family's archives from those days clearly show records of slave purchases, sales, births, deaths, even illnesses, medical treatments, and marriages, were all kept in the livestock records. Their value was updated as their situation changed, i.e., grew up, or got old, etc., just like livestock. This was common practice. The difference was, when a cow or horse got sick, they were usually treated in the barn, while slaves that became ill were usually brought to the main house so their care could be more closely monitored.

You're right, free, property-owning blacks had much the same respect and admiration as whites. In fact, free blacks were much better off than poor whites. My great grandmother mentions several times in her personal journals that when they would go to town, they often ran in to certain "servants" from neighboring plantations, and having such delightful conversations with them, asking of their family's well being and such. These were slaves that were allowed to handle business matters for their masters, or simply allowed to go into town to make personal purchases.

I have mentioned this here on GBO before, but after the war, my great grandfather's slaves CHOSE to remain on the plantation. He gave them parcels of that land,as payment for their service. Their descendants still live there to this day. He helped them get the kind of fresh start most blacks were never afforded due to impoverishment of their former masters.

One day in high school (1980's), I was talking with a black guy and a friend came up and asked why the black guy had the same last name as me. Without hesitation, he replied, "Because his family used to own mine." He was not ashamed of his heritage. His family is one of the most highly respected families in this area. They will go out of their way to help any member of my family if they need it. They know the complete story of our two families, because after I completed my research, I made copies for them. Their ancestral records were preserved right there alongside my own. They saw for themselves how they were treated. They are proud to have my family's last name. They understand their ancestors were considered to be property, but at the same time, they see that they were treated with dignity and respect.    

SBG

[subdjoe]

One day in high school (1980's), I was talking with a black guy and a friend came up and asked why the black guy had the same last name as me. Without hesitation, he replied, "Because his family used to own mine." He was not ashamed of his heritage. His family is one of the most highly respected families in this area.

That is a GREAT story, thank you.  I would have loved to see that guys face. 
I've seen people heaping abuse on blacks who have the audacity to reenact as Confederates.  They can't quite get it through there heads that, yes, blacks, both free and slave did willingly fight for the South. 
I've heard the "Yeah, but they would have been shot or hung if they didn't go!"  Well, yeah, same for able bodied whites. 

[Ga.windbreak]

One day in high school (1980's), I was talking with a black guy and a friend came up and asked why the black guy had the same last name as me. Without hesitation, he replied, "Because his family used to own mine." He was not ashamed of his heritage. His family is one of the most highly respected families in this area.

That is a GREAT story, thank you.  I would have loved to see that guys face. 
I've seen people heaping abuse on blacks who have the audacity to reenact as Confederates.  They can't quite get it through there heads that, yes, blacks, both free and slave did willingly fight for the South. 
I've heard the "Yeah, but they would have been shot or hung if they didn't go!"   Well, yeah, same for able bodied whites. 

I had a black friend tell me that once when we were talking about Stonewall's 3000 or so black solders. I, in return, ask him if he thought that 3000 well armed black men could be made to do anything that they didn't want to do esp. kill other men. His comment to that was "Well I never thought of it that way."

[Gary G]

Posted on LRC this morning:

Lincoln Was a Traitor . . .
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on November 8, 2009 08:16 AM

. . . and would have been justifiably hanged for treason (and for war crimes) had the Republican Party lost its war on the South.  I have argued elsewhere that this is probably why they “had” to wage total war on the civilian population of their own country, killing some 50,000 Southern civilians in the process:  They knew they were war criminals, and could not risk even a stalemate.

For the record, here’s Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution on the subject of treason:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”  (emphasis added).

As with all the founding documents, “United States” is in the plural, signifying that the free and independent states are united in forming a compact with each other.  Treason means levying war against the free and independent states, as the Lincoln regime did, not against the government in Washington, D.C.  The Republican Party was born of treason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree!

(Dr. DiLorenzo is not a southerner, just knowledgeable.)