DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The emancipation proclamation

Read this doccument carefully and you'll see that it didn't end slavery in the United States. What Lincoln did was free that slaves in the Confederate states who were at war against the union Though some in that war were fighting against slavery the main reason for the war was whether the Federal or State governement should have more say in a how a state government was run. It was the 13th ammendment that ended slavery two years after the end of the war.

If you'd like to see more of how our society isn't racist check out the Constitution sometime and see how it declares the black people in this country at the time as 3/5 human.

As for thanking your anscestors I thank anyone who fought for our freedom. I give special thanks to those who died doing so.

[color:"white"] see how it declares the black people in this country at the time as 3/5 human.
[/color]

that much? musta came from the romo genes. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The fact of the matter is,Lincoln did not want to fight the issue of slavery to begin with,but in the end,knew as long as slavery existed,there would always be strife and conflict over the issue.

And it's sickenning to hear people accuse our nation as being racist without giving credit for the fact that tens of thousands died to help insure their freedom.

Even you seem quick to accuse,but slow to give credit where credit is due on the other side of the coin. While it is true that whites owned slaves,it's also true tens of thousands of whites,died to help end slavery and white law makers are the ones who ended slavery as well.

I'm just sick of certain people who conveniantly wish to only tell part of the story. Unless you're telling me it was the black race who ended slavery in our nation? While the civil wars original goal was not to end slavery first,it ended up that way.

What actions as President reflect his overall sentiment towards slavery and Blacks?

All through his presidential campaign and into his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln insisted that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. He was, believe it or not, a staunch believer in states' rights himself. He promised both North and South that he would not menace slavery; he had no right as President to do so, and he used the Republican platform that supported the states' power to control their own domestic affairs (Oates, 1993). Further, he also publicly endorsed the then Thirteenth Amendment which, with the approval of Congress and former President Buchanan's signature, forbade the Federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the states. Of course, this amendment did not pass, not gaining support from the necessary ? of the states for ratification.

Does all of this fit with his words uttered in 1864: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong" (Loewen, 1995, p. 180)? Indeed it does, from Lincoln's point of view. Let me illustrate by providing probably the most often quoted statement made in 1862 in his letter to Horace Greeley's New York Tribune:


"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.... I have here stated my purpose according to my official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere could be free" (Loewen, 1995, p. 181).

This illustrates several fine points about Lincoln. First, he made no secret of his ultimate and primary objective (though not the sole objective) as President: preserve the Union. And the first three lines of his statement are consistent with his aim. Second, he remained absolutely true to his assertion that he would be willing to free some while leaving others behind in order to save the United States. He did this with his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 by declaring all persons held in bondage in states "currently in rebellion" free, while allowing the slaves in the four border states who remained loyal to the Union to remain subjugated. Thus, he was willing to free some--but not all--in the name of Union preservation. Of course, the Proclamation meant nothing unless the North won the war and a Constitutional amendment was passed outlawing slavery. But the political significance of his proclamation cannot be emphasized enough, and though, in reality, it freed not one individual, it was an action that supported his words and his true desire to see the slaves freed.

Finally, this quote shows how he was able and willing to separate personal wish from his public duty as President. To put this in better context, consider the current abortion debate. It is entirely possible--quite common, in fact--for an individual to abhor abortion as a procedure but stand firmly on the pro-choice platform. This is done by separating one's personal beliefs from their political ideology. That is, believing that the government does not necessarily have the right to invade the privacy of a woman by telling her what she can and cannot do with her body while, at the same time, attempting to make abortions as safe and rare as possible at the public level and having an abhorrence of them at a personal one. Lincoln approached slavery in the same way, expressing his personal distaste for the institution but remaining loyal to his duty as President to uphold the Constitutional rights of states to dictate their own affairs.

As Lincoln's term in office progressed, he became more and more open to the ideal of full equality of the Black man, thanks in no small part to the pure agitation that Frederick Douglass provided him. Loewen (1995) points out how Lincoln challenged his own racist tendencies and those of the federal government:


As president, Lincoln understood the importance of symbolic leadership in improving race relations. For the first time the United States exchanged diplomats with Haiti and Liberia. In 1863 Lincoln desegregated the federal government that lasted until Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln opened the White House to Black callers, notably Frederick Douglass. He also continued to wrestle with his own racism, asking aided to investigate the feasibility of deporting (euphemistically termed "colonizing") African Americans to Africa or Latin America (p. 180).

The evolution of Lincoln's thoughts on slavery reached its pinnacle when he delivered his Second Inaugural Address in 1865. During his first months in office and into the first years of the conflict, Lincoln had spoken fervently against this war being one fully against slavery, but rather for the preservation of the Union. After 1863, however, his approach began to change, realizing the war being made inevitable by the presence of slavery. A portion of his Second Inaugural Address:


"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe him? ...Fondly do we hope-fervently do we pray-that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous together'" (Loewen, 1995, p. 184,185).

Lincoln's concession that the blood and sweat of American slaves from generations gone is on all America's hands--that all of America was complicit in this vile institution--is a powerful one; one that stayed with Americans well after his assassination. The speech also illustrates profoundly how far Lincoln had come on this issue.

During his last days he openly challenged his own thoughts on race and the superiority of white men in American society. He openly questioned what he thought to be the true purpose of the war, union preservation. He was not afraid to grapple with these questions. As a human being, Abraham Lincoln made mistakes, lived contradictions, and asserted racist beliefs. But unlike so many Presidents before him, he was able, in many ways, to transcend his own failures, embracing in the end a more egalitarian notion, in terms of race relations, of what American society needed to become.

http://civilwartalk.com/cwt_alt/resources/articles/michael_swogger/10022000.htm

I have no problem hearing how guilty white men were of owning slaves,as long as credit is given that it was also white men who fought,died and caused an end to slavery as well. But it doesn't seem we hear much about that topic do we?

JMHO

The Civil War has been over for what 140 + years.? Time for the handholding to end IMO. Get off your butts and stop blaming long dead white men for your laziness and sloth . I have little patience with anyone of any race who do nothing but deride the same system they take advantage of for generations. Does racism exist ? Of course. Do I care ? Not one damn bit. Plenty of examples of who to emulate your life choices on ,great men who achieved great things in spite of a helluva lot worse conditions than what people of color face today.

Over 600,000 battle deaths was the tally on casualities for that war, not counting those that later died from wounds sustained in combat, or civilian casualties, I have no figures for those, however my great great grandfather died 13 years after the civial war from wounds sustained at Cold Harbor, apparently he did not lose any of the finer mechanics of nature.

Some Black freemen owned slaves, some Indians owned slaves, some Indians captured runaway slaves and made slaves of the slaves. Lets not forget the Blacks chiefs in Africa that sold their people to slave buyers and of course the Dutch who transported most of them over here and to the Carribean. It was the times. America should have outlawed slavery sooner than it did,but it didn't. Get over it. Something some idiot said in a Comedy Club should not create this much press.

So because people died for our freedom our country doesn't have an problems? Black men have fought and died for this country drom its inception too but they weren't allowed the same rights as white soliders until the Korean war but that wasn't due to racism? What was that then?

I think it's great that his comments generated such an interesting discussion. Though we will most likely never change each others minds we will can still learn a lot from and about each other and ourselves. Everything in life is an opportunity to learn I love that.

It's been a process over a period of time,no doubt aboiut it. But the thing is,it has been the white race as well that has helped change this for the better.

From civil war soldiers to the Kennedys have lost their life in trying to help being about such positive changes. But you know,we had nine pages of grumbling and pointing out the problem of racism and how it's perpetuated by the white race,while nobody ever mentioned anything,not one word,of how many whites have helped try to solve the problems.

Negativity and the constant "blame game" is so far off course from reality it's proposterous. For every George Wallace,you have a Kennedy. And it's aboiut time that people open their eyes to the fact that without powefull politicians and humanitarians of the white race,the black Americans wouldn't have the rights and freedoms they do today.

So pointing the finger is fine,but not giving credit the other way is not only short sighted,but very deceptive when looking at the big picture. Without the work over time of blacks and whites alike,the opperrtunities we see today simply wouldn't exist. So at least be impartial in that regard.

And I'm with GM,everybody wishes to concentrate on avery small minority of racist white people and use a damn broad brush when they do it. And that's pretty sad.

It's more than a small group of racists if it can seep into my subconscious when it's the furthest thought from my conscious mind. You brought up the emancipation proclamation as if it proved something and I merely pointed out that it was a political tool used by the leader of a country at war. It's not proof that this country has not had a problem with racism since it's colonization and still does.

I still don't understand how saying that we as a society have issues with race denies the efforts and sacrifices of those who fought and died for our freedom. If that's the case any of the current arguements about election reform and the current war are denying those same people. I really thought they fought and died for all our freedoms including the freedom to see problems and correct them. I thought that was what the principle our country was founded on.

It doesn't deny it,it dismisses it.
And yes,the emancipation proclimation does mean something. It was the very beginning of change.

I have no issue in understanding that there is still a problem,but that problem has gotten smaller and smaller from one generation to the next. And hopefully will continue to do so.

But I still believe you tend to minimize my point and feel it's not the very reason these great strides we have reached so far have come to fruition. We as a people have cereated this progress and it will be we as a people who make it better or worse as time goes by.

And I honestly think by not giving the people who helped bring about these grerat changes their proper due,it certainly gives no inspiration to others to help carry on with this tradition.

I'm deeply saddenned by this entire thing. No credit where credits due. Maybe if people were willing to look at the fact that it's taken both races and great personal sacrifice by both races to bring about the changes we've made so far,it gives hope to continue as a nation,instead of the constant friction between the two.

If a race of people who have went from slaves to where they are today have no sense of thanks for the people who helped bring about these changes,what's the point in the sacrifices? I've seen the white race be VERY instumental in trying to help bring about equality in our nation over my lifetime and all I ever hear is the white race take all the blame. Very sad.

All races have been spat upon at some point, the Italians, the Irish, the Jews, etc. Black people don't let it go is what's different - they clump all of the above as "white people." then want to be called African American. Here's the part black people (African American is the most racist term in the world, Dave Matthews and Charlize Theron were both born in South Africa - they are both white) tend to miss. I'm white, my grandparents came over from Italy in the early 1900s, they never owned slaves. All black people are not related to slaves. In fact, many slaves were taken as wives and many slaves were treated great. Not all were beaten, slave became the dirty word for worker (their pay was food and shelter, much like what we work for now - only we get money to buy the food and shelter). Were a lot mistreated? YES. No one is denying it, but here's a novel idea - LET IT GO! It happened WAY before you or any living person was born. Thousand upon thousands of white people died freeing the slaves, the white man is not the devil. The white man owes no one anything at all. Black people were enslaved, Christians were fed to lions, during the witch hunts thousands upon thousands of woman were burned alive at the stake, ever hear of the Holocaust?. Quit complaining, slavery was a cakewalk. It's over - no one living had a thing to do with slavery - it's the past - LET IT GO.

Actually the abolitionists started bringing about change in slavery long before the emancipation proclamation. The emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves in the border states it only freed them in the Confederate states where Lincoln was not recognized as the president. So as a stratedgy in advance the war it was useful but as for really doing anything to bring an end to slavery it was moot.

Racism has appeared to get smaller to those not efffected by it, because we have laws to place to protect people to a certain extent. But we all know that laws are not always adhered. Laws don't always change what happens between people.

I still don't see how saying that racism is alive in this country in 2006 takes credit away from people who fought for our freedom. We, blacks and whites have all fought for that freedom since the beginning of our nation. So how is anyone forgetting that or dishonoring it because there are still problems today?

Dave Matthews is most likely African because his ancestors conlonized that portion of Africa and put the native put the natives into tribal reserves.

People aren't saying there's racism because of what happened 100 of years ago. They're saying there's racism because it's still alive and well today.

It sure is. Just look at affirmative action.

As long as you use racism as a tool to discriminate against any race,racism is alive and well.

NAACP= Racism

UNCF= Racism

Affirmative action= Racism.

It's alive and well all-right and it's not restricted to the black race.

Affirmative action...it's a sticky issue with me, but as far as I can see it's still necessary, in certain cases - not all, which will continue to make it disputed...but the day I don't hear my bosses say 'Why do we have a black kid here?' or recieve a snicker when I ask if we're going to hire the black guy just interviewed...then I'll call it racist.

Colonized or not, they were born there and that's more than can be said for the majority of black people in the country. Jamaica isn't by African, so was Bob Marley African American or black? As for racism still existing - yep, against Jews, Musilims, blacks - all nationalities have people who don't like them. It's not just a black thing, so I say again - it needs to be let go. ESPN did a story on McNair and said that Tennessee was racist against blacks because they wouldn't let Mcnair workout with them when they were working a trade. I guess Butch Davis hates white people, he wouldn't let Couch workout with the Browns. Tom Jackson, a black man, is a racist - put Spike Lee in that category as well. People don't want to believe it, but racism works both ways.

A serious question for you.

What would happen if I decided to by a network and call it WET - White Entertainment Television. Do ou think I'd be chastised by the public?

I think the term 'African-American' is so stupid.

I think any term that goes '_____-American' is stupid.

If it were to be done with any sense in defining cultures, it would be 'Ohio-American', or 'Florida-American'.

I 100% agree - it's the most rasict term on the planet.

What would happen if I decided to by a network and call it WET - White Entertainment Television. Do ou think I'd be chastised by the public ?

Just to make a point about how reverse discrimination works, I think this is one of the cable packages I might have to subscribe to. The again, why should I pay for it when BET is FREE ???

[/quote]

I think the term 'African-American' is so stupid.

I think any term that goes '_____-American' is stupid.

If it were to be done with any sense in defining cultures, it would be 'Ohio-American', or 'Florida-American'. [/quote] I wanted to post this same thought earlier Phil. My grandparent's emigrated to this country over 120 year's ago from Czechoslovakia. My dear mother was born in Ohio 94 year's ago (soon to be 95) and I asked the same question about being Czech American. My mother stated that she has never been to Czechoslovakia, and as far as she is concerned she is an Ohio American.

Dawgy....I realize that this is a more sensitive subject for some than for others. Abolitionists were responsible for the eventual collapse of the tyranny called slavery and the actions of the Federal Gov't [i.e.Abe Lincoln] followed their lead. Nothing unusual in that as most all good ideas come from the citizenry rather than the political elites.

THE MAIN POINT for me is that Lincoln's main duty during his term in office was not to correct individual wrongs or collective failures but rather to "UPHOLD,PROTECT and DEFEND" the Constitution of the United States and it's UNION.

Thank God our nation had a Lincoln during that period to force us back together.

Give it a try they have a station for men and one for women too. I see stations in all different languages. On a white channel you'd have plenty of programing options.

Not sure why people trying to better themselves not at the expense of others would be considered racism. I thought what you wanted was for people to not use race as an excuse but to make every effort to better themselves. As far as I know that is the purpose of two of the groups you mentioned.

I think the thing we can agree on is that racism is not an excuse not to succeed. It's an obstacle to be overcome but it does exist. The thing we dont' agree on is I don't think it's right to tell them that we know more about what they're experiencing than they do.

Oh I have no doubt taht Lincoln was a brilliant man who was ahead of his time. I'm not saying that he was wrong he did what was necessary. Had he lived there's no telling what else he would have done.

Know more than they do?
No,but then,as has been mentioned already,at some point you must overcome it and not use it as a tool to dicriminate against others. To use it as an excuse to promote a double standard in free speech. That only adds to tensions,not relieve them.

That's my entire point. When you use programs,oppertunities and favoritism based on quota's,not qualifications,the end result is,others are discriminated against. You don't feel that adds to racial tensions more than relieves it?

How is it fair to set up scholarships that excludes people based on race? How is that not discriminatation agaianst the races excluded? I'm for no discrimination against any race. Including my own. While others promote my race being discriminated against at the advantage of another race. So racism and discrimination is a good thing as long as it's against white people?

You feel that affirmative action isn't discriminating against others? Sure,it may serve one purpuse in one direction,but it has an equal and opposite effect the other way.

Obviously you've figured out my stance on this topic - however your statement:



I used to feel that way, then I found out there is an order like this for every nationality - the blacks just advertise it a lot more - which is a smart move.

You avoided the question. You don't think Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee (who SUED Spike TV for "making a station off his name" that guy is pure scum of the earth) wouldn't flip out over White Entertainment Television?

NAAWP?
United White College Fund?
Miss "White" America?

Wheather people on the other side of this discussion would like to admit it or not,both Sharpton and Jackson would be marching in the streets over these types of things.

White isn't a nationality - there are Hungarian, Italian, Irish, etc. scholarships. That's what I meant. Trust me, I'm on your side. Sharpton, Jackson and Lee are 3 of the most worthless humans on the planet.

If you're born in America,that is your nationality. Unless these scholarships are for immigrants? Legal ones mind you,then they're not proper.

If you were born in America,American is your nationality IMO

To discriminate against any race claiming you're "not American" if you were born in America is nothing more than a program built on falsehoods to begin with.

I fully agree with you, I was just letting you know they are there for all nationalities. The biggest problem with this country is they wanted i to be a melting pot - everyone would melt into Americans. Instead, it's a bunch of lumpy crap fighting each other over their nationality. Personally, those Muslims in a America complaining about the middle east - they should be shipped there to correct it, call yourself African American - should be shipped back to Africa - etc.

That's the problem Soup.
They want to be Americans,only with a little something extra.I'm with you,if the Motherland is what you claim,go to it. Here,we are all Americans.

But your lumping people all into one group when you say "them" each person on earth is the same, yet different. Isn't placing ALL people in a group and judging them really racist?

Dawgy, I appreciate your measured responses even tho we may disagree on some issues here.Interested to hear your comments upon the following.

I have often wondered what a young black student thinks when other non black students encounter him or her on the campus. Does he wonder if they are thinking "did he get here because he is talented or simply because he is black?" It would seem to me that Affirmative Action often paints a sign on the back of Afro American students that some others might see as "does he belong here or not?"

Saying that if I had no hope of higher education I would certainly accept Affirmative Action help whenever it was offered.

I believe in the post above I said the point that we agree on is that it shouldn't be an excuse but an obstacle to overcome. Sometimes we all need help in overcoming our obstacles sometimes we don't. I appreciate the help I've gotten and try to do the same for others no matter what their obstacles. The first thing I do is recognize what they're facing and try to understand even if it's not something that I've ever had to deal with. I don't discount their experience because it's not my experience.


Oh I don't know my niece got a scholarship from the Italian American club and my nephew from the Irish American club was that unfair and racist too? Do those clubs exist because they're racist or because people are proud or their heritage and want to celebrate it and share it and even help out their own along the way? The myth of the melting pot needs to go we're not a melting pot and never were nor should we be. We're a tossed salad a unique country made of of many cultures to try to give up all that richness is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I would rather people keep theior ethnic traditions alive and share them so I can learn what makes them different and in doing so I learn how we're the same as well. That's the beauty of celebrating diversity by recognizing and celebrating our differences we are better able to share our humanity without all the fear.

[/quote]

If you'll notice I said two of the three organizations/programs you mentioned were designed so people could not use race as an excuse but overcome it. I didn't include Affirmative Action because that was entirely different. I believe the most qualified person for a job should get the job regardless of the color of their skin. Does that happen without it being forced? I would like to think it does but I'm not sure I believe it does. Is affirmative action the answer? I don't know I really don't.

Ralphie,
I don't know that I can answer that since I'm not a young Black man. I can tell you that from knowing some young Black men on a college campus that each one was a different unique individual with very differenct perspectives and experiences. I also know that most students on campus were grateful for any help we could get. CSU is an urban campus so most of the students worked full time jobs, many had families and were nontraditional (a nice way to say older) students. I'm not sure if that answered the question but I hope it did.

The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln's birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois's militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP's stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively

The NAACP established its national office in New York City and named a board of directors as well as a president, Moorfield Storey, a white constitutional lawyer and former president of the American Bar Association. The only African American among the organization's executives, Du Bois was made director of publications and research and in 1910 he established the official journal of the NAACP, The Crisis. With a strong emphasis on local organizing, by 1913 the NAACP had established branch offices in such cities as Boston, Massachusetts; Kansas City, Missouri; Washington, D.C.; Detroit, Michigan; and St. Louis, Missouri.

to read more go to link

So is it racist to want to stop violence against people and make sure their rights are protected? Or is econmic development and education for children what makes this organization racist? You don't want people to use race as an excuse but when a group tries to do just that and get out and do something to overcome racism you call it racist I don't understand.

If you wish to have a "club" to celibrate your herritage,that's fine. But when a "club" starts handing out scholarships based on race or herritage,you're discriminating against every other race because of their race or herritage.

And having a "herritage" is one thing,but you are now American and should be treated like any other American. Being proud of your herritage is far different than using it as a tools to discriminate against other races and nationalities.

If you're an American citizen,you're American. All Americans should have equal oppertunities to all scholarships. So in summary,yes,scholarships based on race or nationalty is wrong. You are American now. You only have a right to scholarships for "Americans",not a "insert nationality here scholarships". And I'm looking forward to a day very soon,where such drivel is no longer an excuse to discriminate against other races and nationalities.

There should be no "special" privilages and rights to education based on race. Celibrating your herritage is a far cry from using your herritage as a tool for special advantages and discrimination towards others. That's where our opinions seem to vary.

JMHO