Why did slave holders in the South comply with the Emancipation?

[william42]

Ole, only you could make that up. Have you ever tried writing science fiction? That's how Kilgore Trout got his start. Your creative mind needs an outlet besides this board.

Terry

[JerseyBart]

I knew it. They're all around us...among us...feeding o.f.f. o.f. us. We must do something. Maybe if we get some o.f. those sunglasses like Rowdy Roddy Piper wore in the movie, They Live, we can see through them and tell the humans from the Orkians and Mossad agents. Yeah, that's it.

Bart

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

It proves people were using a false quote; knowingly or unknowingly.

Multiple uses of a quote, ie in different works, Wasburns bio, and Careys work, mean that the standard of proof to get into the OED has been met, for a quote. Since the quote is differnt in wording in each, there is of course no diffinative version, much the same as Caeser the die is cast, is not said by Caeser but by a Geek writing aboutCaeser, abd says in Greek, let the dice fly high. Which means the outcome is unknown untill the dice reveal the number, whereas the latin version is the die is cast, which means the outcome is fixed, as when a tap and die is cast to fit together.

Grants quote is no more bogus than any numbe of other quotes, its just people want it to mean more than it was, or in other cases less, because they dont want t to exist.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

According to the statistical record compiled in 1883 there were just 7 executions by sentence. .

1

2
[quote]
The CSA tapped the market from day one, they did non combat roles that freed up whites for them. and their masters were paid not the slaves. I doubt many were revelling in their slavery.. [quote]



1
Yes i know, i can read, but i undderstood you not to know the extent of executions, and pointed up rape executions as an example.


2 So the market was tapped then?.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

The Union could have given a spit about slavery pre EP. The South slaveowning politico elite was interested in the preservation of slavery.

Really?, just which books say that?.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Evil?, immoral?, those are theological questions, the answer to which is in Bible, there is no mention of slavery being immoral or evil.


Wrong to you, but not wrong acording to God, or Christ, who do not consider the colour of the sking to matter one whit, and instead God directly laid down the conditions of slavery, treating them like cattle is your version, Gods is somewhat different. Treating them as cattle was the CS version actually; not mine or my family.


Slavery was not wrong, because it was not unlawful, and it does not brake any of Gods laws, making it not immoral or evil. Under what rules was slavery abolished in England... please look to it and elaborate. It wasn't abolished because slavery was a wonderfully moral institution.

What does that have to do with conscription?, a conscripted soldier losses the fredom to chose. A conscripted soldier was paid, clothed, fed etc... English

Each point in order.

Actually YOUR word was cattle, to which i replied to the imporoper use of, now cite where the slaves were treated as cattle in any work you like.


Already provided the case law in UK, thats another part of what you missed, just like knowing why the UK ended slavery in the ULK but not its colonies.


Becasue the point, another one that escaped you, was conscripted negros were denied the choice to pay and not serve but forced to serve, since the point about being a slave was wrong because lack of choice, the newly forced conscripted slave was denied a choice to be a soildier, payed less than a white as well.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

Evil and immorality are not solely theological questions, nor is the Bible the sole arbiter of evil and morality.

Evil and morality are reflections of the rules a society or culture assumes for the obvious benefits of cooperation and amity. Slavery would have been condoned in such societies or cultures because it was not usually directed against their own. When it was, it was usually an act of charity -- taking in the pauper and getting some compensation for his shelter and food.

And attitudes on evil and morality change outside biblical influence. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than Biblically influenced (most cultures accept a form of a creator), yet many -- even the slaveholders among them -- were uncomfortable with slavery in a society declaring that all men are created equal. Lincoln himself barely qualified as a deist, yet declared "as I would not be a slave myself, I would not own one." That is not biblical, it's moral.

Ole

True, but again the Constition allows freedom of religion, if one version says slavery is aceptable and another not so, the constition protects the views of all.

Lincoln was not above sending a slave back to his owner in the only case he had dealling with slaves in private practice.

You cant legislate morailty and you cant force yours on another.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

If you already knew that, then my point must be crystal clear to you: you are basing your statement on a pamphlet that no one can locate a copy of, originally written as a primer for 1868 Democratic Party campaign rhetoric, issued under a pseudonym. As such, you should be more suspicious of the quality of a reference to it, since it would have been slanted if not biased, because the whole purpose of the pamphlet was to attack Grant/the Republicans in the 1868 election.

We can locate many references to quotes from Grant that seem at odds with what you seem to want this to mean. I am sure you know and acknowledge that. This simply gives you more reason to wonder if the quote is quite correct or if it is taken out of context.

In the case cited, it seems unlikely that the meaning expressed by the Democrats would have come from Grant. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was a highly partisan one, dominated by Radical Republicans. Washburne was Grant's sponsor, protector, and sole contact to Lincoln at this time. Washburne was also a strong anti-slavery man.

In 1862, the JCCotW was on a bit of a witch-hunt. Things were not going well for the Union. The Committee was out to purge generals who did not see things their way. This meant Democrats (like McClellan, Porter, Buell, Franklin, etc.) and generals who were soft on slavery or wanted to treat the South lightly. In that context, the statement attributed to Grant could only be seen as a challenge to the Committee and political suicide for his career -- if that is the entire meaning and content of his letter. It would also have caused a difficult moment in his relationship with Washburne -- unless Washburne had advised him on what to write for some reason (i.e., politics in Washington). The context of events and the timing of the letter (if indeed it says this) need to be examined before you come to a conclusion -- and the source given is one you should be skeptical of because of its' obvious political party affiliation.

Grant may have written it or something related to it. The general gist of the sentiment was a common one in 1862, that the soldiers of the North had not gone to war to free the slaves. You'll find a number of ascerbic quotes on that when the Emancipation Proclamation is issued from various Union soldiers, politicians, and citizens. But I think if we were able to see the entire letter we would get a very different impression than one based on a single sentence quoted, with no way to verify that the quote is even accurate.

Regards,
Tim

I think i fully agree, Washburn was Grants sponser and close friend, and could have been stacking the deck to press for ther mil need argument over other members.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Miss Markie the tactic of comparing soldiers to slaves is an old & common tactic of the Lost Cause and judgeing from the numbers of times I've seen it used... it must be in a playbook somewhere. It's a pretty despicable one IMHO that fits the agenda set forth by Early. It cheapens the sacrifices of soldiers and lessens the horrors of slavery. My experiance has been that those who defend slavery as a moral right would not be one of those who would find themselves under the yoke of slavery. And in the same vein my experiance w/ those who espouse slavery as somehow the equivelant of the life of a soldier... haven't done that either.

except of course i used it in conection to negro soldiers forcable conscripted into the Union army, which helped cause teh dislocation of negro familys as the Union armies pushed into slave holding regions. A point your missd perhaps?.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Hanny,
As to your post 152. It's a little too French post modern deconstructionalist for me. It seems to boil down to "quotes are as valid as the observer's desire for them to be valid." While that may work for Jacques Derrida, it dodges the question: Did Grant say this--the answer seems to be: No.