SpeakFreeForum Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
SpeakFreeForum > General Topics > History > Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky?

 Moderated by: Bilgerat Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky?  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2014 23:53
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2014 18:38
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Mike Mitrosky
Member


Joined: Fri May 2nd, 2008
Location: Libertardianland, Angus King County, Maine USA
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Offline
Leaping Lincoln!



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2014 23:32
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
Mike Mitrosky wrote:
Leaping Lincoln!

But is it true? Who wants to write a screen play using this as a plot line?:Hiya!::Yes Yes!:



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2014 13:46
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Mike Mitrosky
Member


Joined: Fri May 2nd, 2008
Location: Libertardianland, Angus King County, Maine USA
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: Mike Mitrosky wrote:
Leaping Lincoln!

But is it true? Who wants to write a screen play using this as a plot line?:Hiya!::Yes Yes!:

I really dont know.. Does it sound like it could be true? yes.. but we have no sources on that page to go by.. Sometimes esoteric historical snippets that predate the internet are near to impossible to find... I tried finding a similar one in regards to Ben Franklin and the story about him explaining colonial scrip to the members of British Parliament which gave them the cause to enact the currency acts.... Is it true? I couldnt find anything to verify it.. All I was able to track it down to was a secondary biography written by a 3rd party in the 1800s... but Ive never been able to get an actual copy of it... Ive gotten a book by peter cooper that has some circumstantial relatings to the topic but nothing that ive found is a smoking gun.... you could contact the owner of the website and ask them where they got this information from... These historical people are usually happy to share their sources.. and like I said, if theyre primary sources theres a real good chance theyre just not going to be online anywhere...




____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2014 13:10
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
GravyBoat
Captain of the Guard


Joined: Fri May 9th, 2008
Location: Mesopotamia
Posts: 8743
Status: 
Offline
none of us are free it's all just a grand illusion

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2014 03:31
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Mike Mitrosky
Member


Joined: Fri May 2nd, 2008
Location: Libertardianland, Angus King County, Maine USA
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Offline
Actually theres probably one person who would be an expert on this topic.. Thomas DiLorenzo... Maybe email him??



____________________
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2014 02:22
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
sarahgop
Member


Joined: Mon Apr 19th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 2978
Status: 
Offline
does anyone have additional info?



____________________
Free Mr Sunny!!
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 26th, 2017 14:05
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 26th, 2017 21:52
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...



How so? It was the South that opened fire on Sumpter.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat May 27th, 2017 03:34
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...



How so? It was the South that opened fire on Sumpter.


The North was trespassing on Carolina property and wouldn't leave. So, they were fired upon to get them to leave.

What would YOU do if someone was trespassing on YOUR property and wouldn't leave?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat May 27th, 2017 20:53
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...



How so? It was the South that opened fire on Sumpter.


The North was trespassing on Carolina property and wouldn't leave. So, they were fired upon to get them to leave.

What would YOU do if someone was trespassing on YOUR property and wouldn't leave?



It was the property of the Federal government under eminent domain authority. If they disagreed, they should have sued in a federal court, not used armed violence. They were the aggressors as such. Todays Democrats haven't changed tactics, it's STILL violence 1st.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 31st, 2017 00:40
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
MountainMan
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 9th, 2007
Location: The Land Of Headhunters
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate states, it did not free slaves in the Union states.
And yes, there were Union states that allowed and had slavery at that time.



____________________
I hung a Batman suit in my closet just to screw with myself when I get Alzheimer's.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed May 31st, 2017 18:04
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
GravyBoat
Captain of the Guard


Joined: Fri May 9th, 2008
Location: Mesopotamia
Posts: 8743
Status: 
Offline
The truth about Lincoln is that he was an absolute tyrant, he was a ruthless dictator and a corrupt lawyer, whereas Grant was absolutely beloved, both as a general and as president.

Whatever Lincoln had to do to keep the war going, he'd do it, so he prolly did "unfree" slaves.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jun 3rd, 2017 03:54
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...



How so? It was the South that opened fire on Sumpter.


The North was trespassing on Carolina property and wouldn't leave. So, they were fired upon to get them to leave.

What would YOU do if someone was trespassing on YOUR property and wouldn't leave?



It was the property of the Federal government under eminent domain authority. If they disagreed, they should have sued in a federal court, not used armed violence. They were the aggressors as such. Todays Democrats haven't changed tactics, it's STILL violence 1st.


The area in the Charleston Harbor for the Fort Sumter wasn't acquired by "eminent domain authority".

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jun 5th, 2017 00:18
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
indago wrote:
Neo wrote:
I've Googled myself to death trying to find just ONE corroborating ANYTHING on this and have found bumpkus. When I read it I said "no way, Jose"....thennnnnnnn I started thinking about the "nature" of a politiciian, AND Lincoln was MOST DEFINITELY a skilled and brilliant tactician.....

Thoughts?


Source: http://www.ushistory.org/us/34a.asp

Americans tend to think of the Civil War as being fought to end slavery. Even one full year into the Civil War, the elimination of slavery was not a key objective of the North. Despite a vocal Abolitionist movement in the North, many people and many soldiers, in particular, opposed slavery, but did not favor emancipation. They expected slavery to die on its own over time. In the BORDER STATES — Union states that still permitted slavery — the situation was full of problems. When a Union officer in Kentucky freed local slaves after a major victory, Union soldiers threw down their arms and disbanded. Lincoln intervened and "unfreed" those slaves. He did this to prevent a military backlash.[/]


Ah, yes, the "Civil" War: the War of Northern Aggression...



How so? It was the South that opened fire on Sumpter.


The North was trespassing on Carolina property and wouldn't leave. So, they were fired upon to get them to leave.

What would YOU do if someone was trespassing on YOUR property and wouldn't leave?



It was the property of the Federal government under eminent domain authority. If they disagreed, they should have sued in a federal court, not used armed violence. They were the aggressors as such. Todays Democrats haven't changed tactics, it's STILL violence 1st.


The area in the Charleston Harbor for the Fort Sumter wasn't acquired by "eminent domain authority".


Really? Think again.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 15th, 2017 09:49
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Does that cession of land by legislation look like an eminent domain appropriation to you?  And actually, there was no land there in the middle of the harbor.  It was built up by the national government into a fortress.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jun 15th, 2017 23:28
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Does that cession of land by legislation look like an eminent domain appropriation to you?  And actually, there was no land there in the middle of the harbor.  It was built up by the national government into a fortress.
Upon rereading that which I posted, I agree that the 3rd option of eminent domain wasn't necessary as it wasn't "privately owned" & since SC voluntarily ceded it. That said, it disproves your original statement that it was a war of northern aggression.
That was Federal property, built by the government.  THEY were the ones attacked, not the other way around.
The aggressors were the southerners. 



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jun 16th, 2017 19:44
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Does that cession of land by legislation look like an eminent domain appropriation to you?  And actually, there was no land there in the middle of the harbor.  It was built up by the national government into a fortress.
Upon rereading that which I posted, I agree that the 3rd option of eminent domain wasn't necessary as it wasn't "privately owned" & since SC voluntarily ceded it. That said, it disproves your original statement that it was a war of northern aggression.
That was Federal property, built by the government.  THEY were the ones attacked, not the other way around.
The aggressors were the southerners. 
And since the property was within the confines of the South Carolina borders, and South Carolina was no longer on good terms with the federal government, they wanted them off that property and duly notified them, and they refused to leave.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jun 17th, 2017 03:10
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Neo
Head Loon - Original M.A.I.M.


Joined: Thu Nov 8th, 2007
Location: Las Vegas Matrix, Nevada USA
Posts: 11450
Status: 
Offline
indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Does that cession of land by legislation look like an eminent domain appropriation to you?  And actually, there was no land there in the middle of the harbor.  It was built up by the national government into a fortress.
Upon rereading that which I posted, I agree that the 3rd option of eminent domain wasn't necessary as it wasn't "privately owned" & since SC voluntarily ceded it. That said, it disproves your original statement that it was a war of northern aggression.
That was Federal property, built by the government.  THEY were the ones attacked, not the other way around.
The aggressors were the southerners. 
And since the property was within the confines of the South Carolina borders, and South Carolina was no longer on good terms with the federal government, they wanted them off that property and duly notified them, and they refused to leave.

Ok, please identify exactly where it says in that posted document that SC retains the right to evict the lawful presence, and annul the lawful ownership, of that so called "nothing that had previously not existed in that harbor", because they had a political difference.
They had other paths to travel, but they wanted war. They thought the north was made of yellow bellies, they were proven wrong.



____________________
(Avatar created by OMNT.)

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churhill
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jun 17th, 2017 20:18
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
indago
Member


Joined: Fri Nov 18th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 445
Status: 
Offline
Neo wrote: indago wrote: Neo wrote: indago wrote: Does that cession of land by legislation look like an eminent domain appropriation to you?  And actually, there was no land there in the middle of the harbor.  It was built up by the national government into a fortress.
Upon rereading that which I posted, I agree that the 3rd option of eminent domain wasn't necessary as it wasn't "privately owned" & since SC voluntarily ceded it. That said, it disproves your original statement that it was a war of northern aggression.
That was Federal property, built by the government.  THEY were the ones attacked, not the other way around.
The aggressors were the southerners. 
And since the property was within the confines of the South Carolina borders, and South Carolina was no longer on good terms with the federal government, they wanted them off that property and duly notified them, and they refused to leave.

Ok, please identify exactly where it says in that posted document that SC retains the right to evict the lawful presence, and annul the lawful ownership, of that so called "nothing that had previously not existed in that harbor", because they had a political difference.
They had other paths to travel, but they wanted war. They thought the north was made of yellow bellies, they were proven wrong.
Nevertheless, there was a "Northern" presence within the borders of "Southern" property, and they were duly notified, regardless "legal" ownership.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 18:57 Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
SpeakFreeForum > General Topics > History > Lincoln "unfreed" Slaves.....in Kentucky? Top



Lead Theme By: Di @ UltraBB
UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2632 seconds (8% database + 92% PHP). 58 queries executed.