U.S. cities step up removal of Confederate statues, despite Virginia violence

[Hamartia Antidote]

Even if we remove the statues blacks and libertards will find something else to moan about.

I'm sure every person on US currency will be in the bullseye if they didn't lead the life of a chaste monk.

Putting them in museums will be a better and safer option dont you think?

Somewhat safer until the alt-left burns the whole museum down.

 

[Desert Fox]

Never understood the veneration for the Confederacy, especially in the South, given that they were not only traitors, but lost the Civil War. Proponents of the Confederacy claims it's about state rights. Yeah, state rights to support slavery!

It's good that these statues are removed from the public square and sent to the dustbin of history.

Some historical considerations which people fail (or don't want to make the effort) to look into:

1) Some of the largest plantation slave owners in the South were Black men. Native American Indians also owned allot of slaves. In fact Native American Indian tribes enslaved each other well before Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas (Aztec human sacrifices).

2). EDIT: Only 8% of the southern population owned slaves because they were expensive to maintain and most could not afford them. Slaves only made up 13% of the southern population.

3). Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed the slave he inherited from his family and was against slavery.

4). Union General Ulysses Grant bought a slave whom he eventually freed after owning the slave for a few years.

5). The war was never really only about slavery. Abe Lincoln only made the Emancipation Proclamation in the hopes that it would cause a slave uprising in the South and weaken Confederate resistance, NOT because he cared about Black slaves.

6). The southern states wanted to secede from the Union for the same reason that George Washington and the original thirteen colonies seceded from the English.

7). The south was well on its way to abolish slavery due to the introduction of much cheaper and more efficient technology just like the North had also abolished slavery after industrialization and NOT because the North was moral or somehow sympathized with the plight of slaves anymore than the South.

And Finally:

8). All nations and people's throughout history practiced slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity and all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and yes even Islam) permit and condone slavery. Only Europeans ever abolished the institution of slavery in the entire history of humanity. No other case of other peoples going out of their way to do such a thing. In fact Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery as recently as 1975 and Mauritania as recently as 2000.

In fact the east African Islamic slave trade far surpassed the triangle slave trade in terms of the scope of the people involved and was much older even by millennias.

Also the Barbary slave trade of North African pirates who raided coastal European villages and as many as 2 million White Europeans were enslaved by Muslim pirates from as far away as Iceland to Southern Italy and Greece. This was why castles with high walls were built around cities and this was also one of the reasons why the crusades were launched into the holy Land because Christian caravans were continuously raided and the travelers taken into slavery.

When the Arabs invaded Spain (Islamic colonization anyone? Or are only Europeans guilty of imperialism?) They enslaved all of the people's of the Visigothic kingdoms they conquered in that region. But notice Muslims celebrate that as a "golden" age of Islam.

The word slave comes from the word Slav because during the Crimean Khanate (Muslim Turkic states) Tatar Muslims would raid and enslave Slavs from neighboring Christian kingdoms and this became so rampant that the word Slav became synonymous with slavery so much so that the word itself originates from Slav.

Blacks don't have a monopoly on having suffered from slavery. In fact they have been one of its most widespread practitioners and that too on other Black people's who they also sold off to the Arabs, Jews, and finally Europeans when they became involved in the African slave trade, albeit very late compared to the former three groups. And neither do Europeans/Whites have monopoly over having been involved in slavery because clearly there are nations who have indulged in slavery for far more longer and still do so to this day.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4waq9n/the-slaves-of-dubai

Slave markets of Saudi Arabia in 1962, almost 100 years after the last Western country abolished slavery.

@Nilgiri @Hamartia Antidote @The Sandman @Vergennes @flamer84 @vostok

 

[gangsta_rap]

This wouldn't have happened without the Anti-Fa luring the white nationalists into exposing themselves.

Thankfully the left really knows how to play that 4D chess crap that donald humpers keep talking about

Even if we remove the statues blacks and libertards will find something else to moan about.

Get used to it white boy. More will happen soon so order up those anti depressants for yourself.

 

[GDan]

5). The war was never about slavery.

I take it you haven't read the Confederate states' declarations of secession or Alexander Stephens Cornerstone speech? The idea of the war not being about slavery is laughable.

Georgia
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Mississippi
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

South Carolina
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Texas
"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
"The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html

 

[Desert Fox]

I take it you haven't read the Confederate states' declarations of secession or Alexander Stephens Cornerstone speech?

Well you take it wrong.

I'm not disagreeing that slavery wasn't a component in the secession, but it wasn't the only one and the North didn't oppose slavery for moral reasons. I should have clarified my self better.

Georgia
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Mississippi
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

South Carolina
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Texas
"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
"The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html

There were states within the Union that practiced slavery well into the civil war.

"The slave states that stayed in the Union, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky (called, border states) were seated in the U.S. Congress. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863,Tennessee was already in Union control."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states


Therefore it is laughable to believe that Abe Lincoln and the Union opposed slavery on moral grounds, especially considering Lincoln's personal views on Slavery and Blacks. Also Ulysses S Grant, General of the Union Army owned slaves up until 1859, literally 2 years before the war.

Presidents Who Owned Slaves

 

[Zibago]

Somewhat safer until the alt-left burns the whole museum down.

Ok i read somewhere majority of confederate statues were built in the last century

 

[Desert Fox]

General Lee had a distinguished career in the US army prior to the civil war. He fought well in the America Mexico war. Lee's legacy goes beyond the civil war. Lee's statue should not be touched. Lee was a hero of the USA as well.

Like I said, the statue is just an excuse for blacks to test the waters. What they truly want to to lynch whites like what blacks do to whites in south Africa.

It's not just the Blacks, there are so many Blacks who have Confederate heritage and support Confederate monuments.

It's these neo-Bolshevik type ISIS wannabe Liberal and Leftist fanbois who want to destroy everything and creat chaos because they're a bunch of degenerates and morally depraved human beings. They envy any symbol of America's glory, which is precisely why they want to tear down monuments to George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln's statue.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Tell that to white South Africans fleeing South Africa in massive numbers. They are not lying. Without whites, South Africa will not be the most prosperous country in Africa. Blacks in south Africa sure didn't build these.

These men established America. The establishment of America meant dooming native Americans. Native Americans would have never assimilated English culture. They were therefore all genocided.

Make no mistake, blacks are coming for their statues in the future.



Robert Lee never mistreated anyone, not even slaves. He was a man with a good heart. He was a Virginian. Virginia was his home. It's true that the civil war was unfortunate with hundreds of thousands killed, but the civil war was not Lee's fault anymore than it was Grant's fought. Every man back then fought for his home state just like every man back in Washington's days used black slaves. Lee was not more evil than Washington.

LOL like as if the whites belong in South Africa in the first place? They raped and plundered the place during colonial reign and made it their own. I don't give a hoot about what the whites built over there. LOL at South Africa being prosperous. Don't make me laugh. They don't belong there. The whites stole land, belongings and opportunities from the native people, imprisoned Mandela and many like him just because he was black and didn't tow the white racist agenda. Besides, what good is prosperity when you don't have the freedom to enjoy it?

Same story for the 'Muricans. They didn't belong there. They exterminated the natives like dogs and pretend they bleed red, white and blue. Why do you expect others who have lived for centuries in their own place to assimilate to your thinking and beliefs? That too by force?

You are damn right about that. The blacks have every darn right to go after statues of racist caricatures. There is no need to romanticize racist and ugly slave owners. Anyone who does is sick in the head.

Lee was despicable because he embraced the ugliness of slavery. He had a chance to walk away, but like many white folks he believed in his God given biblical right to oppress people with a black complexion. He fought for this sickness and you clearly support his perverted ideas. Nothing that you say can justify this criminal mindset. Whether states were fighting for their own cause has no relevance with slavery in 'Murica.

The fact that a bunch of white Nazis are exclusively holding violent rallies to defend Lee's statue is more than telling. No other segment of the 'Murican society is standing next to white skinheads to defend the statues. You have to be a fool to ignore this given.

It's not just the Blacks, there are so many Blacks who have Confederate heritage and support Confederate monuments.

It's these neo-Bolshevik type ISIS wannabe Liberal and Leftist fanbois who want to destroy everything and creat chaos because they're a bunch of degenerates and morally depraved human beings. They envy any symbol of America's glory, which is precisely why they want to tear down monuments to George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln's statue.

View attachment 421594​

LMAO dude these white skinheads would skin your brown a$$ alive. Calm down with the cheerleading. The day you dare to walk with that brown a$$ of yours among white racist thugs I'll eat my words. Until then you are just a sick freeloader who thinks he belongs to the fold.

Did I thank you for cheerleading and supporting Trump? Man, you cheerleaders did a huge favor to the world. Enjoying how 'Murica is imploding? Another 4 years after this and the damage will be irreversible. Keep making 'Murica great again LOL

 

[flamer84]

LOL like as if the whites belong in South Africa in the first place? They raped and plundered the place during colonial reign and made it their own. I don't give a hoot about what the whites built over there. LOL at South Africa being prosperous. Don't make me laugh. They don't belong there. The whites stole land, belongings and opportunities from the native people, imprisoned Mandela and many like him just because he was black and didn't tow the white racist agenda. Besides, what good is prosperity when you don't have the freedom to enjoy it?

Same story for the 'Muricans. They didn't belong there. They exterminated the natives like dogs and pretend they bleed red, white and blue. Why do you expect others who have lived for centuries in their own place to assimilate to your thinking and beliefs? That too by force?

You are damn right about that. The blacks have every darn right to go after statues of racist caricatures. There is no need to romanticize racist and ugly slave owners. Anyone who does is sick in the head.

Lee was despicable because he embraced the ugliness of slavery. He had a chance to walk away, but like many white folks he believed in his God given biblical right to oppress people with a black complexion. He fought for this sickness and you clearly support his perverted ideas. Nothing that you say can justify this criminal mindset. Whether states were fighting for their own cause has no relevance with slavery in 'Murica.

The fact that a bunch of white Nazis are exclusively holding violent rallies to defend Lee's statue is more than telling. No other segment of the 'Murican society is standing next to white skinheads to defend the statues. You have to be a fool to ignore this given.



LMAO dude these white skinheads would skin your brown a$$ alive. Calm down with the cheerleading. The day you dare to walk with that brown a$$ of yours among white racist thugs I'll eat my words. Until then you are just a sick freeloader who thinks he belongs to the fold.

Did I thank you for cheerleading and supporting Trump? Man, you cheerleaders did a huge favor to the world. Enjoying how 'Murica is imploding? Another 4 years after this and the damage will be irreversible. Keep making 'Murica great again LOL

Why are you screaming like you're possessed. His post is not cheerleading but a logical one which shows factual history. If it weren't for the whites who you hate so much, other societies, including muslim ones, would probably have oficial slavery even today.

The whites don't belong in S Africa where they built that country from zero but muslims belong in Europe? Get lost you hypocrite...

 

[The Sandman]

But still total number of slaves in south was 47% of total pop and that's a lot bro anyway bringing down statues isn't a good thing imo if a large number of population consider those generals their heroes than their feelings should be respected.
and these stats tells a lot.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

Slavery is as old as humanity and all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and yes even Islam) permit and condone slavery.

I don't know about Judaism or Christianity bro but i do know what Islam and Allah tells us about slavery in Quran.
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_4/slavery_in_quran_(P1467).html
and those Muslim nations who after reading Quran indulged in slave trading did absolutely wrong it is condemnable and god will punish them for this on Judgement day.

 

[Desert Fox]

But still total number of slaves in south was 47% of total pop and that's a lot bro anyway bringing down statues isn't a good thing imo if a large number of population consider those generals their heroes than their feelings should be respected.
and these stats tells a lot.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

According to the link you posted the total percentage of slaves relative to the total southern population was 13%.

Also, check out this 1860 population census (one year before the civil war):

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

It also states that total slave population was 13% and only 8% of the southern White population owned slaves.

In some states, yes, the slave population did exceed upwards of 47% whereas in other states where more poor and rural White folks lived there were less slaves because slave ownership was mostly by wealthy families.

I don't know about Judaism or Christianity bro but i do know what Islam and Allah tells us about slavery in Quran.
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_4/slavery_in_quran_(P1467).html
and those Muslim nations who after reading Quran indulged in slave trading did absolutely wrong it is condemnable and god will punish them for this on Judgement day.

I think this comes down to different interpretations influenced by various factors.

Even if I can agree that Islam prohibits slavery, even though there is no explicit Ayat of the Quran that prohibits it, that still did not stop Muslims from practicing slavery for more than 1400 years under the reign of various great men like the Khulafa-e-Rashideen (rightly guided Caliphs), Salahudin, etc... Would it be right to assume they were bad Muslims because they did not ban slavery?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not singling out Muslims or Islam here because slavery was common all over the world at that time. Even in China where the great Wall was built by slave labor, slavery was big. And as I mentioned before, in the Americas native Americans enslaved each other way before European settlers came over and when Blacks were brought from Africa the Indian tribes began to purchase Black slaves.

It's just that people only single out Europeans for their part in slavery even though Europeans are the only people to abolish slavery as an institution in the history of mankind, and even though there are other nations and peoples who have practiced slavery on a much larger scale throughout history compared to the Europeans (and they still do to this day).

 

[The Sandman]

According to the link you posted the total percentage of slaves relative to the total southern population was 13%.

Also, check out this 1860 population census (one year before the civil war):

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

It also states that total slave population was 13% and only 8% of the southern White population owned slaves.

In some states, yes, the slave population did exceed upwards of 47% whereas in other states where more poor and rural White folks lived there were less slaves because slave ownership was mostly by wealthy families.


I think this comes down to different interpretations influenced by various factors.

Even if I can agree that Islam prohibits slavery, even though there is no explicit Ayat of the Quran that prohibits it, that still did not stop Muslims from practicing slavery for more than 1400 years under the reign of various great men like the Khulafa-e-Rashideen (rightly guided Caliphs), Salahudin, etc... Would it be right to assume they were bad Muslims because they did not ban slavery?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not singling out Muslims or Islam here because slavery was common all over the world at that time. Even in China where the great Wall was built by slave labor, slavery was big. And as I mentioned before, in the Americas native Americans enslaved each other way before European settlers came over and when Blacks were brought from Africa the Indian tribes began to purchase Black slaves.

It's just that people only single out Europeans for their part in slavery even though Europeans are the only people to abolish slavery as an institution in the history of mankind, and even though there are other nations and peoples who have practiced slavery on a much larger scale throughout history compared to the Europeans (and they still do to this day).

One word HUMANS... always finding ways to suppress, kill others... but than i think if there wasn't the idea of slaves than there wouldn't have been any pyramids, great wall and many other things...

 

[Desert Fox]

One word HUMANS... always finding ways to suppress, kill others... but than i think if there wasn't the idea of slaves than there wouldn't have been any pyramids, great wall and many other things...

True. And this is what I believe are one of the great benefits of modern technology that it has made human slave labor obsolete in developed countries. Though technology has also proven to be a double-edged sword in some cases.

 

[Gomig-21]

1) Some of the largest plantation slave owners in the South were Black men.

There is a bit of a discrepancy with regards to this issue because yes, there were some black slave owners, but the majority of the ones whom accumulated many slaves were once slaves themselves and were freed by their owners, then developed means to purchase other slaves to either free them and/or protect them from the harsh life of slavery under the white man. So it wasn't necessarily for economic reasons, but more so humanitarian.

5). The war was never really only about slavery. Abe Lincoln only made the Emancipation Proclamation in the hopes that it would cause a slave uprising in the South and weaken Confederate resistance, NOT because he cared about Black slaves.

Weeeelllll, I'm gonna have to take you up on this one, my friend. Lincoln's campaign was run under the platform of ending slavery. He strongly vowed to disallow it in the newly created states in the west, which consequently threatened the southern states.

What started the whole notion of Lincoln not really caring about slaves and only wanting the weakening of the confederacy by issuing the emancipation proclamation was because of the letter he wrote to the New York Tribune which published it and it famously made its rounds while with all the abolitionists making them very upset because it sounded like he didn't emphasize the importance of freeing the slaves as the primary cause, but rather to crush the rebellion and save the union. But his letter was pure genius because he took his knowledge of law and literature to make it look like saving the Union was a the priority and he would do it under any condition with regards to the slaves. He knew that even in the union there were staunch supporters of slavery but he needed to maintain their support of the union so he toned the cause of freeing the slaves for that purpose. The letter was basically misinterpreted as if he really didn't care about slaves. This was the published letter in 1862.

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all 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 the 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 view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

This gave many the impression of what you said, but notice that last line? They only took the basis of the entire quote as if his only care was saving the union no matter what happens to the slaves, but it was clear that he despised slavery and took a huge chance with not only the emancipation proclamation, but drafting the 13th amendment and pushing it through congress to officially abolish slavery.

This was another explanation to that letter which created the false notion that he didn't really care about slavery as a humanitarian cause, but rather as a tactic to save the union which really wasn't the case.

Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer wrote in this context about Lincoln's letter: "Unknown to Greeley, Lincoln composed this after he had already drafted a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he had determined to issue after the next Union military victory. Therefore, this letter, was in truth, an attempt to position the impending announcement in terms of saving the Union, not freeing slaves as a humanitarian gesture. It was one of Lincoln's most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator." Historian Richard Striner argues that "for years" Lincoln's letter has been misread as "Lincoln only wanted to save the Union." However, within the context of Lincoln's entire career and pronouncements on slavery this interpretation is wrong, according to Striner. Rather, Lincoln was softening the strong Northern white supremacist opposition to his imminent emancipation by tying it to the cause of the Union. This opposition would fight for the Union but not to end slavery, so Lincoln gave them the means and motivation to do both, at the same time. In his 2014 book, Lincoln's Gamble, journalist and historian Todd Brewster asserted that Lincoln's desire to reassert the saving of the Union as his sole war goal was in fact crucial to his claim of legal authority for emancipation. Since slavery was protected by the Constitution, the only way that he could free the slaves was as a tactic of war—not as the mission itself. But that carried the risk that when the war ended, so would the justification for freeing the slaves. Late in 1862, Lincoln asked his Attorney General, Edward Bates, for an opinion as to whether slaves freed through a war-related proclamation of emancipation could be re-enslaved once the war was over. Bates had to work through the language of the Dred Scott decision to arrive at an answer, but he finally concluded that they could indeed remain free. Still, a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment.

6). The southern states wanted to secede from the Union for the same reason that George Washington and the original thirteen colonies seceded from the English.

This same point you presented was one of the primary reasons for the argument used by the Confederates and their supporters as to the issue of treason or not by going to war against the Union. The same constitution that defines treason in a sentence of 24 words also protected the rights to ownership of slavery, hence secession was justified in the eyes of the Confederates, giving them Casus Beli.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

There is a bit of a discrepancy with regards to this issue because yes, there were some black slave owners, but the majority of the ones whom accumulated many slaves were once slaves themselves and were freed by their owners, then developed means to purchase other slaves to either free them and/or protect them from the harsh life of slavery under the white man. So it wasn't necessarily for economic reasons, but more so humanitarian.

Well I'd really have to think about the technicalities of this. First off a slave was expensive enough not to be casually bought ( ~$40,000 in today's money). Unless that freed person was somehow earning a very good income (in the discriminatory South) without being a plantation owner (well maybe a Northerner)...I don't think it would be likely.

I do think there were definitely abolitionist groups pooling money together to buy and free slaves. It's possible or even likely their chosen point man was some freed person to do the purchasing. However I seriously doubt they would be allowed at the slave auctions due to discrimination. More likely negotiations with plantation owners for a resell.

If there were slave plantations owned by freed black men they were probably so few as to be inconsequential.