The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 613

scaeagles · 09-13-2010, 10:22 AM

A rather disturbing Lincoln quote from one of the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858 - not quite the picture of Lincoln that everyone usually has....

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-- September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

JWBear · 09-13-2010, 11:33 AM

That was pretty much everyone's attitude back then. So? I think that it is remarkable that he was able to overcome these beliefs and freed the slaves and held the union together. Hmmm... Doing the right thing for the country despite your own internal prejudices; now that’s a thought. Too bad we don’t see much of that from republicans now-a-days.

scaeagles · 09-13-2010, 11:53 AM

Good lord. How do you even respond to that? We can play tit for tat ALL DAY about politicians on both sides of the aisle not doing what is best for the country for a whole host of reasons. At least I am not so delusional as to think it is only one side of the political spectrum.

I just posted what I thought was an interesting and largely unknown quote from Abe Lincoln. Wow.

But upon further review, he wasn't overcoming any of his personal prejudices. He thought slavery was wrong. Overcoming personal prejudices would have been to say that he didn't think "negroes" were worthy of true equality but granting them that anyway. Overcoming his personal prejudices would have been to say there should be no superior and inferior position.

Sheesh.

innerSpaceman · 09-13-2010, 01:31 PM

Um, Leo, isn't that exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was? I don't recall there being anything in there about less than full equality, or freedom for the "negroes" while support for Jim Crow laws and lynchings and no full civil rights for another century.

That may be what, in fact, happened - but I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't stipulate to that in furtherance of his purported personal belief that negroes deserved partial equality only, because they were an inferior race of darkies.

I haven't read the E.P. in quite some time. Maybe I'm forgetting something.

scaeagles · 09-13-2010, 01:55 PM

Well, I see you rolling your eyes, but you certainly have missed quite a bit.

First of all, it only ended slavery in states that seceded from the union. Loyal southern border states were exempted, as were portions of the confederacy that were under northen control. It did not even come close to fully ending slavery, nor was it designed to.

It was also a tool used to strengthen the north in the war by allowing some 200,000 black soldiers to join the Northern army and navy.

That said, it was a good thing, but didn't even come close to full equality.

Alex · 09-13-2010, 02:09 PM

The Emancipation Proclamation said nothing about the equality of blacks as a question of government or non-government realms. It simply said that from X-day forward, as the Union army reclaimed territory from the South, any slaves in those areas would be freed.

It didn't actually even make slavery illegal as technically someone in an area where slaves had been freed could simply import new slaves from areas where they were not yet free.

In fact, there were areas already under Union control before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect that were exempt from the EP and so those slaves were not immediately freed). At the time, the EP was ridiculed by many for only freeing slaves over which Lincoln had no control and refusing to free those over which he did control. It actually took longer to free the slaves in Delaware (a Union state) than in Mississippi (a Confederate) because Delaware was excempt from the EP and slavery remained legal until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

As for equality I have no doubt that Lincoln didn't view blacks as equal. Hardly any of the hardcore abolitionists thought of blacks as equal. I do'nt recall what his position on what eventually became the 14th Amendment was (which is when blacks were given equality at least in terms of government treatment).

Gemini Cricket · 09-13-2010, 02:51 PM

From South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut:

Chef: Haven't you heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
General: I don't listen to Hip-Hop.

Gemini Cricket · 09-14-2010, 01:52 PM

Sometimes I forget how small this island I live on is. I sent an email to a candidate for House rep in my district telling him I voted for him. 5 minutes later, I got a personal response from him (or his intern). Small island.

scaeagles · 09-15-2010, 10:17 AM

Should this scare me?

It seems to me that a Supreme Court Justice of the US (Breyer) is saying that doing things that have been protected as free speech under the First Amendment should not be protected if they make people angry.

If burning a Quran leads radical Islamics to kill people, then burning the Quran should not be allowed. He is likening it to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

I dare say if that what he is saying is what I think he is saying, then there is no free speech any longer, because it gives the power to the psychotic who kill or threaten violence when offended by a word or an action.

Am I reading too much into this?

09-13-2010, 10:20 AM	#6121
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	,,,
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 10:22 AM	#6122
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	A rather disturbing Lincoln quote from one of the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858 - not quite the picture of Lincoln that everyone usually has.... "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." -- September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 11:33 AM	#6123
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	That was pretty much everyone's attitude back then. So? I think that it is remarkable that he was able to overcome these beliefs and freed the slaves and held the union together. Hmmm... Doing the right thing for the country despite your own internal prejudices; now that’s a thought. Too bad we don’t see much of that from republicans now-a-days. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 11:53 AM	#6124
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Good lord. How do you even respond to that? We can play tit for tat ALL DAY about politicians on both sides of the aisle not doing what is best for the country for a whole host of reasons. At least I am not so delusional as to think it is only one side of the political spectrum. I just posted what I thought was an interesting and largely unknown quote from Abe Lincoln. Wow. But upon further review, he wasn't overcoming any of his personal prejudices. He thought slavery was wrong. Overcoming personal prejudices would have been to say that he didn't think "negroes" were worthy of true equality but granting them that anyway. Overcoming his personal prejudices would have been to say there should be no superior and inferior position. Sheesh.
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 01:31 PM	#6125
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Um, Leo, isn't that exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation was? I don't recall there being anything in there about less than full equality, or freedom for the "negroes" while support for Jim Crow laws and lynchings and no full civil rights for another century. That may be what, in fact, happened - but I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't stipulate to that in furtherance of his purported personal belief that negroes deserved partial equality only, because they were an inferior race of darkies. I haven't read the E.P. in quite some time. Maybe I'm forgetting something.
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 01:55 PM	#6126
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well, I see you rolling your eyes, but you certainly have missed quite a bit. First of all, it only ended slavery in states that seceded from the union. Loyal southern border states were exempted, as were portions of the confederacy that were under northen control. It did not even come close to fully ending slavery, nor was it designed to. It was also a tool used to strengthen the north in the war by allowing some 200,000 black soldiers to join the Northern army and navy. That said, it was a good thing, but didn't even come close to full equality.
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 02:09 PM	#6127
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The Emancipation Proclamation said nothing about the equality of blacks as a question of government or non-government realms. It simply said that from X-day forward, as the Union army reclaimed territory from the South, any slaves in those areas would be freed. It didn't actually even make slavery illegal as technically someone in an area where slaves had been freed could simply import new slaves from areas where they were not yet free. In fact, there were areas already under Union control before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect that were exempt from the EP and so those slaves were not immediately freed). At the time, the EP was ridiculed by many for only freeing slaves over which Lincoln had no control and refusing to free those over which he did control. It actually took longer to free the slaves in Delaware (a Union state) than in Mississippi (a Confederate) because Delaware was excempt from the EP and slavery remained legal until the passage of the 13th Amendment. As for equality I have no doubt that Lincoln didn't view blacks as equal. Hardly any of the hardcore abolitionists thought of blacks as equal. I do'nt recall what his position on what eventually became the 14th Amendment was (which is when blacks were given equality at least in terms of government treatment).
	Submit to Quotes

09-13-2010, 02:51 PM	#6128
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	From South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut: Chef: Haven't you heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? General: I don't listen to Hip-Hop.
	Submit to Quotes

09-14-2010, 01:52 PM	#6129
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Sometimes I forget how small this island I live on is. I sent an email to a candidate for House rep in my district telling him I voted for him. 5 minutes later, I got a personal response from him (or his intern). Small island.
	Submit to Quotes

09-15-2010, 10:17 AM	#6130
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Should this scare me? It seems to me that a Supreme Court Justice of the US (Breyer) is saying that doing things that have been protected as free speech under the First Amendment should not be protected if they make people angry. If burning a Quran leads radical Islamics to kill people, then burning the Quran should not be allowed. He is likening it to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. I dare say if that what he is saying is what I think he is saying, then there is no free speech any longer, because it gives the power to the psychotic who kill or threaten violence when offended by a word or an action. Am I reading too much into this?
	Submit to Quotes