Monument Avenue Statues In Richmond, VA

Joined
Jul 22, 2021
But John, every event you mention ion your post#534 above had to do with slavery as it's central theme, every one.

And what you believe Lincoln wrote was central to his duty as POTUS, you realize hew had already written the Emancipation Proclamation at the time of his letter to Greely and that it was mainly due to his efforts the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was passed in Congress shortly before his death.

Lincoln's primary duty was to preserve the Union, but without him, slavery would have survived into the future. And slavery's preservation, in mine and recorded history's view, was central to the Confederacy.

Unionblue
I'm sorry, I have to temper my comments already but I will say that you cannot possibly know that it would have survived.

Yes, he had written the proclamation but note that it wasn't delivered until after the battle of Antietam because he knew, politically, it had no teeth.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I'm sorry, I have to temper my comments already but I will say that you cannot possibly know that it would have survived.

Yes, he had written the proclamation but note that it wasn't delivered until after the battle of Antietam because he knew, politically, it had no teeth.
I feel the post-war South and it's treatment of former slaves with 'slavery lite' in the form of black codes, segregation, voting restrictions and the use of terror tactics to keep blacks "in their place," tends to lend itself to the idea on how slavery might have survived for a much longer period without the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.

As for Lincoln and the timing of the EP I believe it was his Secretary of State, Seward, who advised Lincoln to wait until a Union victory, Antietam, as you mention above, but the EP was coming sooner or later.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
I feel the post-war South and it's treatment of former slaves with 'slavery lite' in the form of black codes, segregation, voting restrictions and the use of terror tactics to keep blacks "in their place," tends to lend itself to the idea on how slavery might have survived for a much longer period without the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.

As for Lincoln and the timing of the EP I believe it was his Secretary of State, Seward, who advised Lincoln to wait until a Union victory, Antietam, as you mention above, but the EP was coming sooner or later.
C'mon, it wasn't just a southern thing. There were other countries that outlawed slavery well before the U.S. Spain outlawed it in 1811, then Sweden, Netherlands, France, Denmark, Portugal, and Britain followed suit, all in the early 1800s. The antislavery, abolitionist movement was far older and larger than the abolitionist movement that fomented in the U.S. So, it was in fact, a much larger world wide phenomenon heading toward its inevitable conclusion.

You most likely weren't around during the anti-integration riots in the northern states. I especially remember a particularly bad one in Boston with regard to busing and school integration. Let us not forget the military was not integrated until after WWII by order of President Truman, and black people were restricted in so many other institutions like professional baseball, the recording business, and Hollywood just to name a few. There were also places in the north where blacks were "discouraged" from voting much less holding a political office. I am old enough (regretfully on some days) to remember these things. I say we have come a long way since then.

As for the EP, Lincoln was a politician and lawyer after all and he too felt the EP was a matter of timing but again remember, it freed only the slaves in the states who were in rebellion NOT the border states. He wanted no more states going to the other side, especially Maryland which at the time was a smart move else DC would have been surrounded and his and the Unions position made tenuous at best. In addition, he knew what would happen in the southern states when word got out and that was what he hoped for; servile insurrection and escape. He also had to deal with the issue of the northern soldiers and their views. Most believed they were not fighting to free the black man but fighting for their country and put down the rebellion. Many letters home say that much. All slaves as you point out were not free until 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment but they weren't really there until 1868 with the ratification of the 14th.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
"am I the only one, willing to fight, for my love of the red and white.... and the blue, burning on the ground another statue coming down in a town near you"

- "Am I the only one" by Aaron
Its become increasingly apparent it has little to do with the Confederacy, other then its a slice of United States history, from viewing the rather rapid expansion to other slices of US history........there are even calls to replace US flag and US anthem.....the movement if anti anything is actually rather anti US.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
C'mon, it wasn't just a southern thing. There were other countries that outlawed slavery well before the U.S. Spain outlawed it in 1811, then Sweden, Netherlands, France, Denmark, Portugal, and Britain followed suit, all in the early 1800s. The antislavery, abolitionist movement was far older and larger than the abolitionist movement that fomented in the U.S. So, it was in fact, a much larger world wide phenomenon heading toward its inevitable conclusion.

You most likely weren't around during the anti-integration riots in the northern states. I especially remember a particularly bad one in Boston with regard to busing and school integration. Let us not forget the military was not integrated until after WWII by order of President Truman, and black people were restricted in so many other institutions like professional baseball, the recording business, and Hollywood just to name a few. There were also places in the north where blacks were "discouraged" from voting much less holding a political office. I am old enough (regretfully on some days) to remember these things. I say we have come a long way since then.

As for the EP, Lincoln was a politician and lawyer after all and he too felt the EP was a matter of timing but again remember, it freed only the slaves in the states who were in rebellion NOT the border states. He wanted no more states going to the other side, especially Maryland which at the time was a smart move else DC would have been surrounded and his and the Unions position made tenuous at best. In addition, he knew what would happen in the southern states when word got out and that was what he hoped for; servile insurrection and escape. He also had to deal with the issue of the northern soldiers and their views. Most believed they were not fighting to free the black man but fighting for their country and put down the rebellion. Many letters home say that much. All slaves as you point out were not free until 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment but they weren't really there until 1868 with the ratification of the 14th.

We have both been asked not to continue this discussion here on this thread topic, "Monument Avenue Statues in Richmond, VA."
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
"am I the only one, willing to fight, for my love of the red and white.... and the blue, burning on the ground another statue coming down in a town near you"

- "Am I the only one" by Aaron Lewis
I was in Concord, Mass., over the weekend, visiting the Old Manse and the Old North Bridge for the zillionth time. I was heartened to see that the two British flags still fly over the preserved graves of the British soldiers who died there. The ranger said (this was new information to me, unless I heard it before and forgot it), that the two who died at that battle that day (April 19, 1775) and are buried at the bridge, and one other British soldier who had been mortally wounded in the battle and was buried in the cemetery across the street, were given respectful, honorable Christian funerals and burials by the Colonials in the town, despite their being the enemy. I hope their graves and the "enemy" flags that fly over them, as well as the Minuteman statue nearby, survive the current "rethinking" of who and what from the past deserves to be honored and remembered with some kind of marker in the present. Who knows how long they'll be able to keep the Old Manse open for tours and talks, since I'm sure somebody somewhere might find Emerson (his grandfather lived there) and Hawthorne offensive on some level.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
At least Lee called it for what it was, that secession was nothing but rebellion.

And we still cannot skip over the reason Virginia and the rest of the Upper South joined the rebellion.

In support of their sister, slaveholding states, who wanted to ensure slavery's continued existence, even it's expansion, all at the expense of the results of a free and fair election by ordinary citizens.
As the Virginia Ordinance of Secession stated: "the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

Viriginia clearly identified itself with the other slaveholding states in its decision to secede. We do disservice to the historic record if we try to ignore or rewrite what Virginia clearly stated to the world.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
As the Virginia Ordinance of Secession stated: "the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

Viriginia clearly identified itself with the other slaveholding states in its decision to secede. We do disservice to the historic record if we try to ignore or rewrite what Virginia clearly stated to the world.
Put everything down. Slavery was not illegal at that time, Virginia would have stayed in the Union if Lincoln had not called for troops.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Put everything down. Slavery was not illegal at that time, Virginia would have stayed in the Union if Lincoln had not called for troops.
Not sure if my last response was filtered because we're straying from topic, so I'll keep this short. I think you're conflating the proverbial "straw the broke the camel's back" with the underlying cause. The approach of the moderates during the early days of Virginia's secession convention was to buy time for some form of compromise to be reached on allowing slavery at least in the southwestern territories. The early votes rejecting immediate secession were not because of antipathy with the views of the original Confederates, but because the mjority of delegates felt a compromise could still be reached. When the Peace Conference failed to produce a compromise, and then Lincoln's Inaugural made it clear he was not going to budge, moderate, unionist support began to waver. Absent resolution of the dispute about the future of slavery in the teritories, Virginia likely would have seceded.
 
Top