Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 1/25/2009 4:29:57 AM EDT
Sure, the war of northern aggression was about slavery.


President Obama was sworn into office placing his hand on Abraham Lincoln's Bible. That is the last Bible I would use to be sworn into office. You say, "Why? Didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free your ancestors?" It all depends where they were living. Let's examine the document's text to see why.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, which reads, "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free …" The key phrase is "in rebellion against the United States" because slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion.

The Proclamation is specific about the states where slaves were freed, to wit: "Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

Slaves in the excepted Louisiana parishes were not freed because those parishes were not in rebellion. Neither were slaves in West Virginia. By the way, West Virginia's June 1863 admission as a state, formerly a part of Virginia, was a clear violation of the Constitution's Article IV, Section 3, that reads in part "but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." But what the heck, Lincoln had much of the Constitution under siege by then.

The hypocrisy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. His Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." The New York World wrote, "He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous." The London Spectator mocked, "The principle (of the Proclamation) is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." Lincoln admitted in a letter to his Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase that his proclamation had no legal justification. Lincoln's motivation for proclamation was the war was going badly for the Union and there was the possibility that England and other European powers, who had recently abolished slavery, might give the Confederacy economic and political aid, but would not do so if the war was seen as a war against slavery. An excellent reference for this period is "The Real Lincoln" by Loyola College of Maryland's economics Professor Thomas DiLorenzo.

President Obama can be forgiven for celebrating the hypocrisy of Abraham Lincoln because the victors of wars write their history and glorify the winners. The recognition that slavery is a despicable institution does not require hero worship of a president who made the largest contribution to the unraveling of our Constitution. After all when it is settled by brute force that states cannot secede, as they thought they had the right to in 1787, then the federal government can ride roughshod over states and their people's right –– in a word make meaningless the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/01/21/a_minority_view
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:00:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Good read. Thanks for posting.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:02:33 AM EDT
[#2]
I'll always hold that Walter Williams is one of the greatest Americans ever, and Abraham Lincoln (may he burn in HELL ) is one of the worst.  
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:02:34 AM EDT
[#3]
I always enjoy reading W. William's columns.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:13:12 AM EDT
[#4]
FUCK Abraham Lincoln!!!!
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:26:38 AM EDT
[#5]
I'll always be grateful that Lincoln acted to preserve the union, but the Emancipation Proclamation has to be among the most cynical documents in the history of American government.


Jane
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:38:00 AM EDT
[#6]
Walter Williams is a smart man.  Thanx for posting.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 5:48:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Following is a little known fact from Lincoln's first inaguration speech.

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.

To read the complete speech here is the link.

Lincolns first Inaguration Speech

Even the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the North. There were still slaves in the North at the completion of the war.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 6:35:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Walter Williams is one of smartest Americans  we have.  Unfortunately he is too smart to run for pres.

Edit  to change dumbass spelling.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 6:50:10 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Walter Williams is won of smartest Americans  we have.  Unfortunately he is too smart to run for pres.


lol
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 7:03:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Spot on again Mr. Williams.
The MSM fears you.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 7:51:12 AM EDT
[#11]
I met WW in an interview I shot for a documentary film maker.


Great guy. He has a photo of some of his ancestors who were BLACK Confederate Soldiers above his dek.


And he continues to smoke on his GMU office, even though it is a "non-smoking" area.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 8:07:05 AM EDT
[#12]
Well, I wonder how long it will take for the "Unionists" to stop by to proclaim that the main reason for the war was to free the slaves, and that Walter is just some old Uncle Tom bitterly clinging to his chains and shackles...
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 8:17:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Walter Williams is a smart man.  Thanx for posting.




Yes he is, he fills in for Rush sometimes. I think I might like him more than Rush.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 8:27:58 AM EDT
[#14]
I asked Dr. Williams a question on a talk radio show anumber of years ago.
The question I asked him was " Would you ever consider running for POTUS?"
His answer?

"No, I would not. I refuse to surrender my principles."
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 8:44:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 9:06:27 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
FUCK Abraham Lincoln!!!!


Beat me to it.

Walter Williams is a Dubya I would be PROUD to vote for.  Sadly, he'll never run.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 11:09:35 AM EDT
[#17]
Williams is great. A conservative libertarian with his head screwed on straight. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Obama doesn't have one drop of slave blood in him. What the fuck does it have to do with his inauguration?
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 3:31:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 3:39:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Obama doesn't have one drop of slave blood in him. What the fuck does it have to do with his inauguration?



He's a slave descendant by proxy.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 3:56:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Walter forgets that Lincoln came out in support of the 13th Amendment. Taken from his speech to Congress in December of 1864...


   At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes, any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now, for the first time, heard upon the question. In a great national crisis, like ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable — almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable, unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union; and, among the means to secure that end, such will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.21


http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=56&subjectID=3

The United States Supreme Court sided with West Virgina in Virgina v. West Virgina. The court recognized that the succession from Virgina by West Virgina was okay.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:03:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Walter forgets that Lincoln came out in support of the 13th Amendment. Taken from his speech to Congress in December of 1864...


   At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes, any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now, for the first time, heard upon the question. In a great national crisis, like ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable — almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable, unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union; and, among the means to secure that end, such will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.21


http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=56&subjectID=3

The United States Supreme Court sided with West Virgina in Virgina v. West Virgina. The court recognized that the succession from Virgina from West Virgina was okay.


I used to think Walter was a good man. Maybe he is just getting senile or afflicted with Alzheimer's.

Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:07:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Walter forgets that Lincoln came out in support of the 13th Amendment. Taken from his speech to Congress in December of 1864...


   At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States, passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstract question is not changed; but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes, any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now, for the first time, heard upon the question. In a great national crisis, like ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable — almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable, unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union; and, among the means to secure that end, such will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment.21


http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=56&subjectID=3

The United States Supreme Court sided with West Virgina in Virgina v. West Virgina. The court recognized that the succession from Virgina from West Virgina was okay.


I used to think Walter was a good man. Maybe he is just getting senile or afflicted with Alzheimer's.



Walter Williams with 1/8th of his faculties is still smarter than the average GD poster.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:13:58 PM EDT
[#24]
MR Williams is, as He usually is, correct.  I wish we had more like Him.

I also think He'd agree with Lysander Spooner when He wrote THIS following the conclusion of the civil war.....

[Spooner (An abolitionist to the bone) in 1867]

"Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last ninety years, that our government rests on consent, and that that was the rightful basis on which any government could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force ––- as much so as any government that ever existed.

The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us ––- as for all governments ––- simply to say: Our power is our right.

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the North [*6] exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!"


Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:20:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Well said Walter!
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:45:49 PM EDT
[#26]
I would much rather listen to Walter Williams than Rush.
Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:47:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obama doesn't have one drop of slave blood in him. What the fuck does it have to do with his inauguration?



He's a slave descendant by proxy.


lol

Link Posted: 1/25/2009 4:49:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
I would much rather listen to Walter Williams than Rush.


Sometimes, yes.  
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top