Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg/PBS re-writing history?

Labeeman · Sep 13, 2014

I'm sitting in the airport in Chicago waiting for my flight to get me one step closer to BR and decide to watch a documentary about Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg. As I'm watching the production it starts to become apparent that the whole show is geared to how the civil war was fought to end slavery and secondly to keep the union intack. I think they even said that in the show. One guy went so far as to say that the wording "four score and seven years ago our fathers brought fourth from this continent a new nation" was Lincoln going back to 1776 when the nation was created instead of going back to the date the constitution was written because the constitution endorses slavery. Is their any true historians on Bayou Shooters that can show me where the constitution endorses slavery? I think this is a blatant attemp at rewriting history for the new dumbed down generation. I don't doubt Lincoln wanted to end slavery but this was not why this war was fought. To preserve the nation as one was his number one priority all the other crap came second. I've been to Gettysburg and it's an amazing place. You can feel the history in this place. It will bring chills to you as you walk the battlefields.

Hattrick 22 · Sep 13, 2014

I forget off hand but some Google search will show you Lincoln told someone if he could have won the war without freeing the slaves he would have. I'll try to link the source when I have a second to look it up.

Metryshooter · Sep 13, 2014

Take a look at the Emancipation Proclamation and note where it specifically freed slaves.

RStewart · Sep 13, 2014

Hattrick 22 said:
I forget off hand but some Google search will show you Lincoln told someone if he could have won the war without freeing the slaves he would have. I'll try to link the source when I have a second to look it up.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Hattrick 22 · Sep 13, 2014

RStewart said:
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

yup close enough this rang a bell too it has been awhile since i read some of this stuff.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

radney · Sep 13, 2014

How convenient that they forgot to mention Lincoln was a colonizationalist. He was most interested in moving blacks back to Africa, especially Liberia. Killing Lincoln in '65 was the worst thing that could've happened to the South.

PPBart · Sep 14, 2014

Labeeman said:
... Is their any true historians on Bayou Shooters that can show me where the constitution endorses slavery? ...

Article I, Section 2: ..."Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..." (explicit recognition of slavery)

Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person"... (authorized continued importation of slaves for another 20 years)

Labeeman · Sep 14, 2014

Not to split hairs, but to me this is a recognition of slavery and not an endorsement of slavery. So if we where to believe what they said in this show we would have to believe that they changed there minds about slavery from 1776 to when the constitution was written. They thought the same about slavery in 1776 as they did when they wrote the constitution. Some were for it and some were against it I'm guessing. This is just another attack on the constitution from the uber liberals in the country. Why would people want to tear down the constitution that gives them the freedom to say the things they are saying?

Leonidas · Sep 14, 2014

I'm still trying to figure out how 1787 to 1808 was 50 years. Have things changed that much since I was in school?

RStewart · Sep 14, 2014

PPBart said:
Article I, Section 2: ..."Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..." (explicit recognition of slavery)

Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person"... (authorized continued importation of slaves for another 50 years)

It all became moot with the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1864, which abolished slavery. So, whatever may have been in the Articles is superseded by the amendment.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=40

The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Remember that they passed an amendment, 18th, to prohibit alcohol sales in 1920 and then abolished it, 21st Amendment in 1933.

Many argue the Constitution is a "living" document that evolves over time. The 2nd Amendment argument about the forefathers did not foresee machine guns comes to mind.
As I have read it, that is not so. The Constitution is pretty straight forward. If there is something in it that needs to be changed, there is a formula laid out for doing it. No legislation from the bench, or choosing to go your own way because you disagree (current administration). Those are all Progressive notions that started with Woodrow Wilson.

JMHO

PPBart · Sep 14, 2014

Leonidas said:
I'm still trying to figure out how 1787 to 1808 was 50 years. Have things changed that much since I was in school?

Oops.. fixed it.

RStewart · Sep 14, 2014

Leonidas said:
I'm still trying to figure out how 1787 to 1808 was 50 years. Have things changed that much since I was in school?

Common Core math.

Leonidas · Sep 14, 2014

Thanks. For a while, there, I was afraid that I was 139 years old. 'Course, that would explain some things.

radney · Sep 14, 2014

Slavery was a heated topic from day one in US history,even before the US itself. However, nowhere does the Constitution "endorse" it, but merely sets forth the laws regarding it (sort of). Ironically, the most severe debate was about how much slaves counted towards the voting of elected officials (even though they couldn't vote). In grad school we also used to snicker constantly at how many educated people really believe the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. Sad but painfully true.

LACamper · Sep 15, 2014

^right. Now if Lincoln had made it an executive order then the slaves would have been instantly freed and there would have been no need for the Civil War.

I did hear a report on the radio the other day that Obama didn't like theater. As much as he likens himself to Lincoln its probably wise for him to stay out of theaters!

Emperor · Sep 15, 2014

As much as many of the Colonialists were scumbags for allowing slavery to exist here, many of them knew it was going cause problems for the future. Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was no way that "Freed Slaves" would ever be able to coexist peacefully among their formers enslavers. And he was adamant about helping them establish there own colony in Western Africa.

And speed up to today; there is endless bitterness galore and everything is the fault of slavery.

Leonidas · Sep 15, 2014

Are there freed slaves, still?

:squint:

Emperor · Sep 15, 2014

Leonidas said:
Are there freed slaves, still?

Apparently just the bitterness in the bloodlines.

Leonidas · Sep 15, 2014

Its been 152 years. That's 10 generations. Time to get over it.

Emperor · Sep 15, 2014

Leonidas said:
Its been 152 years. That's 10 generations. Time to get over it.

What is sad is in today's America, if a black American were to educate himself beyond a GED, write, speak, and articulate the English language properly; have no issues with drugs or alcohol; dress neatly, with no visible tattoos showing; he would have more opportunity than a white American with the same credentials. Big companies go out of their way to hire with politically correct diversification.

Unfortunately, the purveyors of grievance don't want that type of logic to catch on. It's bad for their business!

Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg/PBS re-writing history?

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not Easily Impressed

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

Not Easily Impressed

Well-Known Member

Not Easily Impressed

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

oldbie

Seriously Misunderstood!

*Banned*

Seriously Misunderstood!

*Banned*

Seriously Misunderstood!

Log in

Forum statistics

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned