Confederacy made it ILLEGAL to ban slavery

Most racists these days are Democrats.

 

Did Abraham Lincoln plan to send ex-slaves to Central America after the Civil War?


"Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over," the Internet posts say. "Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the U.S. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination."

We wondered whether mainstream historians believe that Lincoln was "making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the (Civil War) was over" and that "the only thing that kept this from happening was his assassination."

The short answer is that Lincoln had long favored the "colonization" option, though as a voluntary option rather than a mandated removal. Moreover, his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, rendered even that voluntary option effectively dead -- and since that was more than two years before the end of the war on April 9, 1865, his assassination didn’t stop it from happening. Lincoln never spoke publicly of colonization after issuing the proclamation, and apparently did little behind the scenes to advance the idea after that date, focusing instead on creating a post-war society that included both blacks and whites.

"The post is preposterous," said Michael Burlingame, a historian who holds a distinguished chair in Lincoln studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The notion of re-colonizing slaves in Africa had a long history. The main group supporting the idea, the American Colonization Society, was founded in 1817. "The goal was the charitable and restorative ideal of un-kidnapping people from their homeland in Africa by offering to use private funds to transport them back voluntarily, for any who so wished," said James M. Cornelius, curator of the Lincoln collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Ill.

Monrovia, Liberia, was founded in the 1820s by former American slaves, and by the early 1850s, Lincoln and like-minded politicians were supportive of that approach....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...raham-lincoln-plan-send-ex-slaves-central-am/

 

It's the only way they can keep the little power they have ..i wonder if the democrats would stop being so racist and segregated..would that be a good thing or bad?

 

That's why they elect blacks to positions of power.

 

What politifact? Seriously? And a blog..

I am doing research on here what high school did you go to ?

 

So it's interesting to see the democratic party has not really varied it's ideology bout supremacy over all these years and have actually expanded on the belief to include white republicans farmers, miners, religious/religions and pretty much anyone that lives in the heartland, rustbelt and bible belt! Clearly the one thing stable about the democratic party is they are true to their roots

 

Well Jake has a fair point, if you consider one of PF's more popular poster contributions on the this point!

Do with as you see fit I guess, but I personally found it to be enlightening and quite accurate!

 

double

 

I read his link. It specifically states its limits on congress you are the one misleading the forum. The confederate Constitution was almost a verbatim copy of the U.S. Constitution with only minor changes. Article 1 of our own Constitution specifically applies to the congress not the states.

Stop it!

P.S. Even in the US Constitution didn't' apply to the states until the SCOTUS introduced incorporation though the 14th amendment in 1897 in BQR v. Chicago. So please stop it. Your legal analysis is painful to read its so damn bad!

 

you can't judge people from hundreds of years ago with the morality of today.

 

do you think that white people in the north wouldn't have liked to have a slave or two?

they certainly had many, many indentured servants, so you think they would baulk at the idea of having a slave?

white folks in the north didn't like black people any more than white people in the south did. don't kid yourself and don't act holier than thou.

 

What makes you think slavery was illegal in the North? It was illegal in some northern states but not all northern states.

 

So what....white people didn't bring blacks over here to be slaves..Jews did...There were white slave owners,Jewish slave owners,black slave owners,Indian slave owners...Who was it that ended slavery in this world first? White people
If you go read the memoirs of former slaves...most didn't like abolition...Whites provided food,shelter,clothing,medicine,time of for church family,ect... Once free most blacks couldn't even build themselves a home...sort of like today...

 

I you think the North gave a rats ass about blacks ...maybe you should try some research ...the Jacobins(aka Radical Republicans) were running the show,and they just wanted to destroy white southerners...impose black tyranny on them,take their property,disenfranchise them..all the while blacks were not allowed to hold office in the North...

 

Practically no one in America today wants to bring back slavery for black people

So for liberals to keep harking back to 1860 when everyone believed whites were genetically superior to blacks is stupid and divisive

 

Jesus Christ you have to be kidding me.

The CSA constitution is written the same way the US constitution is. The US constitution and CSA constitution is written so as to limit the federal government, provide explicit rights to the people and to provide limitations on state governments. The responsibilities not listed EXPLICITLY for congress or provided to the people and not restricted explicitly for the states are given to the states to decide.

In other words Section 9 of the CSA includes TWO purposes. To limit CONGRESS and to provide explicit rights for the people but they are NOT some in the same. Section 10 provides the direct limitations on the states. Meaning, for instance:

9.5. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

That is clearly a limitation on congress. It's not a limit on the state because the state can clearly lay taxes upon its people regardless of population size. It's also clearly not a right of the people. It's a limitation upon congress.

9.13 A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is clearly a limit on congress AND the states because it is a direct right of the people. Their right to own firearms shall not be infringed regardless of who is doing the infringing.

10.No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

This is clearly a limitation on the State and NOT on congress.

However anything not directly limiting the state and not given as a congressional responsibility and not laid out as a specific right of the people to not be infringed upon becomes the purview of the state. Including slavery.

 

Come on man you don't even know what you're quoting. Jesus Christ.

Section 2 you reference simply says that if you're allowed to have slaves in your state and you are moving within the states then you have a right to take your slaves with you and not be infringed upon. That does NOT mean however that if you MOVE from one state to another and become a citizen of the new state which chose to ban slavery, that you can keep your slave. You would have to give it up to become a citizen of a new state that chose not to allow slavery.

Section 3 is simply saying that even though congress has power over the governing of incoming territories that it cannot ban slavery within those territories for those people. That would be a decision left up to the people of that new territory.

Like I said you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

I'll call your VP and raise you a president.

Lincoln, in 1858, remarked, “I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”


Lincoln said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”


When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”


Lincoln was not firmly insistent on freeing the slaves of the South, his following quote reveals that he personally did not want to: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”


While debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”


In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “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.”

Now I'll ask you the same thing I asked Ronstar before.

If the south was simply interested in preserving slavery they didn't need to go to war. All they needed to do was sign the Corwin amendment which would have enshrined slavery as a constitutional right. If they were simply trying to save slavery why go to war and risk everything when all they needed to do was sign a piece of paper to accomplish the EXACT same goal of preserving slavery while risking NOTHING?

 

Actually less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves and less than 6% of white southerners did so.

That doesn't change the fact it was a legal accepted practice for 200+ years.

 

No sir. Section 9 explicitly provides limitations on congress AND provides rights to the people. But they are not one in the same. The title of the section explicitly tells you that. And I did source my claim thank you very much.

 

An unconstitutional amendment.

 

I don't know no way why I was even trying to educate you on a subject you clearly don't want to understand when I could have just proven you wrong. I guess I'm just a nice guy.

Article 4 Section 2.1

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Now why would that be needed? If a state does not have the right to ban slavery within its territories for its citizens then this would not be necessary. The ONLY reason they would need to explicitly declare that a citizen of one state can travel to another state without his slaves being appropriated from him is if that citizen was coming from a state that allowed slavery into a state that did not.

And that can only be the case if the state he is visiting banned slavery within its territory for its citizens.

Checkmate.

 

Section 9 has no title in its original form. The source you provided added titles. Look at any other copy online and you'll see section 9 has no title.

 

Fine I haven't looked because I don't need to. Because that doesn't change the correct interpretation of the document.

As I just showed above, if the states didn't have a right to ban slavery within its territory for its citizen then why would Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 be needed to explicitly protect slaveowners when traveling interstate?

 

You can't win in this debate because you're wrong. The South wanted it to be exactly like it was before the north violated the constitution. They wanted each state to determine its destiny for themselves. That means allowing the states and the people who live in those states to decide the vast majority of their own responsibilities and limitations and rights. Including slavery.