The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[JoeB131]

Huh?! Uh, yeah, I do think it was a bad thing for members of Congress to use phony evidence to try to frame a sitting president for the death of his predecessor. I think that is a serious crime. That kind of intrigue and plotting has brought down governments and ruined nations.

Gee, why am I not surprised that you're just fine with such lawlessness?

I'm for getting stuff done. The problem was we won the war, and Johnson, being a completely feckless idiot, lost the peace. As a result, we ended up with 100 years of Jim Crow and racial tensions that last until THIS VERY DAY.

Mind you, what you are calling "Radical" is that slavery should end, former slaves should have complete, unqualified equality, and the people who tried to destroy the Union should be held accountable. Wow, man, you are right, what crazy ideas those are.


Here's the important thing when you win a war. YOU MAKE DAMNED SURE THE OTHER SIDE KNOWS THEY LOST!!!

This is the mistake that was made after WWI. Germany really didn't think they lost. (And yes, the role of Jewish revolutionaries in overthrowing the Kaiser contributed to that feeling.) The Kaiser got to live in exile in Holland, and the people who ran his government all had nice political careers after the war. Ludendorff and Hindenburg should have been hanged as war criminals. Instead, they laid the path for Hitler.

On the other hand, when Germany lost WWII, they hanged all the surviving Nazi leaders they could find. They even hanged Julius Streicher for the 1930 equivalent of "mean tweets".

Uh-huh. You don't know enough about Andrew Johnson to offer any credible opinions on him. I'm sure that what little knowledge you have on him is based on what you've skimmed on Wikipedia and in a few other shallow anti-Johnson online articles.

Johnson was actually an outstanding president, an honest man, an ardent foe of slavery, and a friend to blacks. Unlike many Northerners, Johnson supported qualified black suffrage.

Yet historians CONSISTENTLY rank him among the worst.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Buchanan allowed the Civil War to start.
Lincoln won the Civil War
Johnson lost the peace.

Trump "Hold my Beer!"

Johnson's "crimes" were his attempt to implement Lincoln's reconstruction terms and his firing of the most corrupt and tyrannical Secretary of War in the nation's history, Edwin Stanton, who was practically staging a coup against him to try to stop him from implementing Lincoln's sensible, lenient reconstruction terms.

Except they weren't sensible if they allowed the Southern Inbreds to impose Jim Crow and undermine everything the North had fought for.

I bet you have no clue that the Supreme Court later ruled in Johnson's favor, ruling that Congress could not prevent a president from firing a cabinet member. Are you aware that initially the Radicals did not even want to allow Johnson's lawyers to call witnesses in his defense at the Senate trial?

Actually, that was hardly a slam dunk, legally.

I've read five books on Andrew Johnson, at least a dozen online articles about him, all of his veto messages, five of his speeches, and the transcript of his Senate trial. I'm guessing this dwarfs what little reading you've done about him.

Um, only the President to get impeached until Clinton in 1998. That's how awful of a president he was.

But to do that they would have had to prove in a court of law that secession was treason, and they were worried they could not prove that. The Radicals would have been in quite the pickle in a trial when Davis's lawyers proved that early American legal giants such as William Rawle and George Tucker said the Constitution allowed for secession, that Thomas Jeffferson and James Madison supported the right of secession, that the framers clearly never intended for the Union to be maintained by force, and that the founding fathers and other Patriot leaders believed the 13 Colonies had the natural right to peacefully separate from England and viewed the British use of force against the Colonies as immoral and a violation of natural law.

Sure they could have.

Jury of 12 Union Veterans who lost arms and legs in the war. Davis has a date with a rope. Just like at Nuremberg and Tokyo, they didn't let Germans and Japanese onto those juries.

Look at what you are defending here, Mike. You are defending people who TRIED TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY so a few rich assholes could keep owning and raping other human beings.

As for the Framers, they were a bunch of slave-raping idiots who shit in chamber pots and thought that bleeding was a valid medical treatment. We really should stop asking ourselves, "What did the Framers intend" and ask, "What works now?"

The very fact that we have a completely flawed person like Trump right now shows how flawed our current system is. None of the suppsoed "safeguards" have prevented him.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Understanding the smearing of Andrew Johnson is a key to understanding Civil War history. Most Civil War scholars have peddled the Radical Republicans' smears against Johnson, just as they have repeated the Radicals' smears against George McClellan.

Some scholars even make the amazingly bogus argument that Johnson abandoned Abraham Lincoln's reconstruction plan. In point of fact, Johnson tried to implement Lincoln's reconstruction plan. The Radical Republicans were the ones who opposed Lincoln's plan from the outset and who ditched it as soon as they had enough votes in Congress to do so.

Over the last 30 years or so, nearly all scholars have argued that Johnson's reconstruction terms were not only too lenient but were also racist and inhumane, and that the Radicals' terms were fair, enlightened, and humane. These scholars rarely explain that the Radicals' terms trashed Lincoln's terms and went far beyond what Lincoln believed was wise and fair, and that the Radicals' terms caused decades of violence, bitterness, and hate.

If you believe the Radicals were right about Reconstruction, you are saying that Lincoln was horribly wrong about it. Johnson's reconstruction plan was actually slightly tougher than Lincoln's plan on one or two points but was identical to it in every other aspect--they were essentially the same plan, with only one or two relatively minor variations, whereas the Radicals' plan bore no resemblance to Lincoln's plan.

There are two good online sources that tell the truth about Lincoln and Johnson's reconstruction plan and about the Radicals' rejection of that plan. One source is Gideon Welles' 24-page article "Johnson and Lincoln: Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority." Welles was a good friend of Lincoln's and served as Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy.

The other source is an article by two of the deans of Civil War scholarship in the 20th century, James Randall and Richard Current, titled "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction," in which they note that "Lincoln painstakingly evolved a plan for harmonious reconstruction of the Union, which Radical Republicans moved to sabotage," and argue that Lincoln's lenient policy "would have been better in the long run for Negroes as well as for Southern whites and for the nation as a whole."

 

[JoeB131]

Understanding the smearing of Andrew Johnson is a key to understanding Civil War history. Most Civil War scholars have peddled the Radical Republicans' smears against Johnson, just as they have repeated the Radicals' smears against George McClellan.

Some scholars even make the amazingly bogus argument that Johnson abandoned Abraham Lincoln's reconstruction plan. In point of fact, Johnson tried to implement Lincoln's reconstruction plan. The Radical Republicans were the ones who opposed Lincoln's plan from the outset and who ditched it as soon as they had enough votes in Congress to do so.

Ahhh, the old, "Lincoln was really one of us" ploy. By the 1920s, the KKK was even telling its members to "Get Right By Lincoln".

And since Lincoln was dead, he couldn't exactly object, could he?

So here's what your Boy Johnson did that made the Republicans hate him.

1) He vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau
2) He issued mass pardons for every piece of shit that wore the Gray.
3) He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1868. (And 20 other bills)
4) He allowed the Southern States to form new governments with very little oversight.

No, Lincoln wouldn't have done these things, had he lived.

friendsofthelincolncollection.org/lincoln-lore/reconstruction-what-went-wrong/

In personality and outlook, President Andrew Johnson was ill suited for the responsibilities he now shouldered following Lincoln’s assassination. A lonely, stubborn man, he was intolerant of criticism and unable to compromise. He lacked Lincoln’s political skills and keen sense of Northern public opinion. Although Johnson had supported emancipation during the war, he held deeply racist views. A self-proclaimed spokesman for poor white farmers of the South, he condemned the old planter aristocracy, but believed African-Americans had no role to play in Reconstruction. Thus, Johnson proved incapable of providing the nation with enlightened leadership.

With Congress out of session until December, Johnson in May 1865 outlined his plan for reuniting the nation. He issued a series of proclamations and more amnesties than any president in American history. But rather than magnanimous acts, Johnson offered a pardon to all Southern whites, except Confederate leaders and wealthy planters (and most of these subsequently received individual pardons), who took an oath of allegiance. He also appointed provisional governors and ordered state conventions – elected by whites alone. Apart from the requirement that they abolish slavery, repudiate secession, and abrogate the Confederate debt, the new governments were granted a free hand in managing their affairs. Previously, Johnson had spoken of severely punishing “traitors,” and most white Southerners believed his proposals surprisingly lenient.

Over the last 30 years or so, nearly all scholars have argued that Johnson's reconstruction terms were not only too lenient but were also racist and inhumane, and that the Radicals' terms were fair, enlightened, and humane. These scholars rarely explain that the Radicals' terms trashed Lincoln's terms and went far beyond what Lincoln believed was wise and fair, and that the Radicals' terms caused decades of violence, bitterness, and hate.

Again, what do you consider fair?

Complete equality for the black man, that was fair. We don't have that until this very day, and Johnson's racist views and working against Reconstruction had a LOT to do with that.

 

[JoeB131]

More on Mike's Hero, Feckless Andy.



History has not looked kindly upon Andrew Johnson. To be fair, our 17th president had a tough act to follow, thrust into America's highest office by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. And he had the immense challenge of post-Civil War Reconstruction. But the man generally regarded as our best president was succeeded by, very probably, the worst.

He did all he could to restore the political and economic power of the men who led the South into rebellion, sat by while Night Riders terrorized millions of newly-freed slaves, and set back the course of race relations for generations to come.

Ms. GORDON-REED: Yes, he had a vision of America as a white man's government. His idea was that the South had never really seceded because it was illegal -secession was illegal, and so they had never really left the United States. And because they had not left the United States, once the hostilities ended, we would go back to where we were before Fort Sumter, before everything fell apart.

And the only thing that would change was that there would be no slavery. So black people would be put in this position of serfs, you know, sort of quasi -not citizens, but serfs, people who were totally under the dominion of white people, except that white people would not have the capacity to turn them into legal chattel.

So, you know, he didn't think that all that had gone on, you know, through the war and before the war and all of the sort of political battles and the actual battles changed anything in the American system of progress, or the reasons for - that there was no reason to change anything after the end of the war.

Ms. GORDON-REED: Well, to a degree, yes. That's what he thought he was doing. He's following in Lincoln's plan. But as we said before, once it became clear that leniency was not getting them anywhere - in other words, when white Southerners turned on the former slaves, Night Riders, violence. The level of violence was just amazing.

And that's where I suggest that a person who had - who was more supple, you know, even if you started out with one intention, once it becomes clear that that's not working, you have to change. You have to change course. And Johnson was not able to do that.

 

[Quantrill]

JoeB131

How about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the war? When did that change?

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

As for the Framers, they were a bunch of slave-raping idiots who crapped in chamber pots and thought that bleeding was a valid medical treatment. We really should stop asking ourselves, "What did the Framers intend" and ask, "What works now?"

LOL and SMH! You again show what a poorly educated wingnut you are. To this day, legal scholars, historians, and elected officials from both sides have continued to recognize and praise the framers for their wisdom, understanding, and foresight. Most of the founding fathers were highly educated and had a deep knowledge of history, going back to ancient Greece and Rome. They were far more educated than you are.

Yet, here you are, JoeB131, a Nazi-whitewashing, anti-Semitic, pro-Jihadist Maoist and Stalinist whose go-to source for information is Wikipedia and who never passes up an opportunity to repeat Nazi, neo-Nazi, and Jihadist lies about Jews, such as the Nazi lie that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI or the neo-Nazi/Jihadist lie that the Israelis knowingly attacked the USS Liberty in 1967--here you are with these miserable credentials passing judgment on the framers and claiming they were not only backward but were "a bunch of slave-raping idiots."

FYI, many of the framers were not slaveholders, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, Gouveneur Morris, Eldredge Gerry, George Clymer, and Thomas Paine. Those framers who did own slaves included George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin, all of whom later freed their slaves.

You and your ilk can't even define what a woman is. You guys think it's just fine and dandy to let minors get their genitals irreversibly mutilated via transgender surgery, think it's just swell to allow men to compete in women's sports, see nothing wrong with elective abortion (even late-term elective abortion), and are outraged that many parents object to having their young children exposed to LGBTQ ideology in elementary school.

This is not to mention the fact that an increasing number of your fellow "liberals" are embracing the fiction that pedophiles are "born that way," and some have begun to argue that pedophilia should be decriminalized and that Western society needs to "grow up" when it comes "minor-attracted persons."

 

[JoeB131]

LOL and SMH! You again show what a poorly educated wingnut you are. To this day, legal scholars, historians, and elected officials from both sides have continued to recognize and praise the framers for their wisdom, understanding, and foresight. Most of the founding fathers were highly educated and had a deep knowledge of history, going back to ancient Greece and Rome. They were far more educated than you are.

Um, wingnuts are right-wing.

And yet they were still 18th-century savages. You'd probably get executed in a week in the 18th century. That they were slightly smarter than other 18th-century savages doesn't mean all that much to me.

Let's be honest about the Founding Slave Rapists, as I lovingly call them.

They claimed "All Men Are Created Equal," but still wrote slavery into the Constitution. They put things into the Constitution that are CLEARLY bad ideas - The Senate, Presidential Pardon Power, the Electoral College, in order to placate mostly the slave owning states.

Keep in mind, France, the smarter, cooler kid that they stole their Enlightenment ideas from, was able to outlaw slavery in 1794.

We had to have a Civil War to end it.

Yet, here you are, JoeB131, a Nazi-whitewashing

Guy, don't rehash arguments you've already lost or proven yourself unable to make to start with. That your view of history is pro-American propaganda without much understanding of why all foreigners just don't want to be Americans, dang it, says more about you than me.

If you can't understand what a 1920s German or a 1940s Chinese was thinking or going through, then you really have no business condemning their choices.

FYI, many of the framers were not slaveholders, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman, Gouveneur Morris, Eldredge Gerry, George Clymer, and Thomas Paine. Those framers who did own slaves included George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin, all of whom later freed their slaves.

You left out Tommy Jefferson, the guy who was raping his 15-year-old slave because she looked like his dead wife. (Well, she was his dead wife's half-sister)

You and your ilk can't even define what a woman is. You guys think it's just fine and dandy to let minors get their genitals irreversibly mutilated via transgender surgery, think it's just swell to allow men to compete in women's sports, see nothing wrong with elective abortion (even late-term elective abortion), and are outraged that many parents object to having their young children exposed to LGBTQ ideology in elementary school.

Um, yeah, we don't want to be ruled by your religious superstitions.

Gender Affirming Care has PROVEN benefits. Every objection I hear is about the sexual insecurities of cisgendered people.

Abortion is wonderful. Fetuses aren't people, and some people just shouldn't be parents.

And teaching kids not to be homophobic bigots is a good thing.

This is not to mention the fact that an increasing number of your fellow "liberals" are embracing the fiction that pedophiles are "born that way," and some have begun to argue that pedophilia should be decriminalized and that Western society needs to "grow up" when it comes "minor-attracted persons."

Do you mean like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, both of whom married girls as young as 14?

I don't think anyone has argued it should be decriminalized. We probably do recognize that pedophilia is probably in a person's wiring and should be treated with therapy. But if they act on it, criminal penalties need to be imposed.

You do love your strawmen, don't you?

I know this is going to come as a shock to you... OTHER PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS THAT AREN'T YOURS.

I mean, I've read your "Mike Has Real Issues Homepage" and man, there's a lot of crazy shit there.

The Japanese were entitled to bomb Pearl Harbor.
The Rape of Nanjing wasn't that bad, and the Chinese should stop whining about it.
McClellan was a good General (even though he putzed around for years without achieving his objectives)
JFK was killed in a conspiracy. (Sadly, that one is still popular, for the wrong reasons.
RFK was killed by a brainwashed Sirhan Sirhan.
Oh, yeah, my Favorite- OJ was innocent.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, Lincoln wouldn't have done these things, had he lived.

friendsofthelincolncollection.org/lincoln-lore/reconstruction-what-went-wrong/

Oh, please. You don't know what Lincoln did with Reconstruction, nor do you know what he would or would not have done on the issues you mentioned. FYI, Lincoln adamantly opposed granting immediate universal suffrage to all ex-slaves, as did even some Radical Republicans, and as did the vast majority of Northern voters.

I know this will be news to you, but Andrew Johnson actually supported granting voting rights to all ex-slaves who could read and write and/or who owned property and paid taxes on it, and he fully supported the eventual granting of suffrage to all ex-slaves after they underwent a qualification process that was even less stringent than the process that new immigrants had to undergo to qualify to vote. Even devout South haters and ardent abolitionists such as Charles Dana, George Stearns, and John Andrew agreed with this approach.

Once again we see the sad results of your refusal to do serious research and your habit of relying of shallow fluff pieces that support what you want to believe. Obviously, you did not bother to read the two articles I linked in my reply, one of which was written by Lincoln's good friend Gideon Welles, who was also Secretary of the Navy for both Lincoln and Johnson, and the other of which was written by two of the recognized deans of Civil War scholarship in the 20th century, Dr. James G. Randall and Dr. Richard Current.

Gideon Welles' 24-page article "Johnson and Lincoln: Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority." This article alone refutes, indeed embarrasses, the PC propaganda piece by the Friends of the Lincoln Collection that you found in your hasty search to find sources that support what you want to believe.

Randall and Current's "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction," in which they note that "Lincoln painstakingly evolved a plan for harmonious reconstruction of the Union, which Radical Republicans moved to sabotage," and argue that Lincoln's lenient policy "would have been better in the long run for Negroes as well as for Southern whites and for the nation as a whole."

So here's what your Boy Johnson did that made the Republicans hate him.

1) He vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau

We have abundant evidence, including accounts from some Freedmen's Bureau officials, that the Freedmen's Bureau was running amuck in the South, that many Bureau officials were purposely stirring up racial hatred, and that many Bureau officials were engaging in theft and fraud. Aware of these facts, Johnson vetoed two bills to extend the Bureau beyond its original one-year lifetime to expand its authority.

2) He issued mass pardons for every piece of *&^%^% that wore the Gray.

Johnson rejected over 1,000 pardon applications, and did not grant general amnesty until late 1868. Lincoln's reconstruction terms would have given amnesty/pardons to even more ex-Confederates and much sooner than Johnson did.

3) He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1868. (And 20 other bills)

Johnson had very good reasons for vetoing the Radical Republican power-grab known as the "Civil Rights Act of 1868." I know you've read nothing that explains and defends Johnson's sound reasons for vetoing the bill.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you couldn't care less about "civil rights" when it comes to brutal regimes such as Mao's Red China, Stalinist Russia, and the Hamas-run tyranny in Gaza. You're just fine with tens of millions of people having their civil rights trampled on by those regimes, but you turn around and engage in phony self-righteous posturing about civil rights in the post-war South.

4) He allowed the Southern States to form new governments with very little oversight.

Lincoln's reconstructions terms allowed Southern states to form new governments with even less oversight and more easily than did Johnson's terms. You don't know this because you haven't bothered to read anything that contradicts the PC orthodox version of history that you've chosen to accept in this case (yet you reject the orthodox version of history when it comes to many other issues, e.g., the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, the Nazi lies about Jews and Germany's collapse after WWI, Mao's murder of tens of millions of Chinese, Stalin's murder of some 20 million Russians, Hamas's tyranny in Gaza, the founding of the state of Israel, the wisdom and understanding of the founding fathers, to name a few).

You are the last person to be talking about civil rights. You still peddle Nazi and neo-Nazi lies about Jews, such as the long-debunked myth that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI. You have actually said many times that the Nazis, and in fact "all" Germans, had valid reasons for hating the Jews, in addition to your infamous declaration that "Hitler wasn't the problem" And yet you have the stupidity and the nerve to pretend like you give a hoot about civil rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, please. You don't know what Lincoln did with Reconstruction, nor do you know what he would or would not have done on the issues you mentioned. FYI, Lincoln adamantly opposed granting immediate universal suffrage to all ex-slaves, as did even some Radical Republicans, and as did the vast majority of Northern voters.

Well, that makes it okay, then!

Of course, we don't know what Lincoln would have done had he lived, because some Southern Inbreds shot him.

I know this will be news to you, but Andrew Johnson actually supported granting voting rights to all ex-slaves who could read and write and/or who owned property and paid taxes on it, and he fully supported the eventual granting of suffrage to all ex-slaves after they underwent a qualification process that was even less stringent than the process that new immigrants had to undergo to qualify to vote. Even devout South haters and ardent abolitionists such as Charles Dana, George Stearns, and John Andrew agreed with this approach.

Again, every black person SHOULD have been granted the franchise. That's what was agreed to in the 15th Amendment. But we have people to THIS VERY DAY trying to disenfranchise them. "Hey, let's pass a stringent new voter ID Law!!!"

Johnson was a racist POS, and got a well-deserved impeachment

Once again we see the sad results of your refusal to do serious research and your habit of relying of shallow fluff pieces that support what you want to believe. Obviously, you did not bother to read the two articles I linked in my reply,

No, guy, I don't read anything you link to, I don't have time for that much batshittery in my life.

If it comes from you, I assume it's from the crazy end of the pool.

We have abundant evidence, including accounts from some Freedmen's Bureau officials, that the Freedmen's Bureau was running amuck in the South, that many Bureau officials were purposely stirring up racial hatred, and that many Bureau officials were engaging in theft and fraud. Aware of these facts, Johnson vetoed two bills to extend the Bureau beyond its original one-year lifetime to expand its authority.

Really? Because from everything I read, the only people stirring up "Hatred" was your boy Nathan Forrest starting the KKK and lynching people. and Johnson sat on his hands and did NOTHING about it.

Johnson rejected over 1,000 pardon applications, and did not grant general amnesty until late 1868. Lincoln's reconstruction terms would have given amnesty/pardons to even more ex-Confederates and much sooner than Johnson did.

But he did grant a general Amnesty for all the traitors.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you couldn't care less about "civil rights" when it comes to brutal regimes such as Mao's Red China, Stalinist Russia, and the Hamas-run tyranny in Gaza. You're just fine with tens of millions of people having their civil rights trampled on by those regimes, but you turn around and engage in phony self-righteous posturing about civil rights in the post-war South.

If I were Chinese, Russian, or Palestinian, I might be concerned, but I'm really not.

Again, talk to some Chinese people and see what they think of Mao. you'd be surprised. A lot of Russians think highly of Stalin despite decades of "De-Stalinization".

Lincoln's reconstructions terms allowed Southern states to form new governments with even less oversight and more easily than did Johnson's terms. You don't know this because you haven't bothered to read anything that contradicts the PC orthodox version of history that you've chosen to accept in this case

Again, Lincoln wasn't there to make adjustments. The minute the Southerners started putting on hoods and lynching black folks, that's when someone needed to snap their asses back. Grant eventually did, but the damage was already done.

(yet you reject the orthodox version of history when it comes to many other issues, e.g., the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, the Nazi lies about Jews and Germany's collapse after WWI, Mao's murder of tens of millions of Chinese, Stalin's murder of some 20 million Russians, Hamas's tyranny in Gaza, the founding of the state of Israel, the wisdom and understanding of the founding fathers, to name a few).

Yeah, because those are all garbage.

The only way you get to "Tens of millions" with Mao is if you throw in the famines.

As for Stalin, how could he have killed a bajillion people, yet the population of the USSR expanded by 40%. (ANd that's DESPITE WWII, where Russia took the most fatalities.)

The Liberty- You don't attack a clearly marked ship three times by accident. Once, maybe. Three times. Doesn't pass the Bullshit detector.

 

[Quantrill]

JoeB131

How about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War? When were they removed?

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

I know this will be news to you, but Andrew Johnson actually supported granting voting rights to all ex-slaves who could read and write and/or who owned property and paid taxes on it, and he fully supported the eventual granting of suffrage to all ex-slaves after they underwent a qualification process that was even less stringent than the process that new immigrants had to undergo to qualify to vote. Even devout South haters and ardent abolitionists such as Charles Dana, George Stearns, and John Andrew agreed with this approach.

Correction: I meant to write Richard Henry Dana, not Charles Dana. Richard Henry Dana was an ardent abolitionist and a prominent Northern attorney. He was a founder of the anti-slavery Free Soil Party and belonged to the Boston Vigilance Committee, a group that assisted fugitive slaves. During the war, he served as a U.S. Attorney and represented the U.S. Government in the Prize Cases case, successfully arguing that the government had the right to blockade Confederate ports without formally recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation. Dana is best known for his famous "Grasp of War" speech that he gave shortly after Lee surrendered in April 1865, in which Dana argued that the war was not really over and that the government should keep the Southern states in the "grasp of war" until slavery was totally eradicated and until black civil rights were secured.

Yet, even Dana did not support immediate suffrage for all ex-slaves. He agreed with Johnson's approach on black suffrage, even though he opposed the rest of Johnson's reconstruction terms as being too lenient.

FYI, I should add that Charles Dana, who was a leading abolitionist and who early on argued for making the Civil War a war against slavery, likewise opposed immediate universal black suffrage.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131

How about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War? When were they removed?

Quantrill

Never happened, but you do go on.

Jim Crow was purely a Southern Thing, because the inbreds were afraid the black man might have sex with their sisters and satisfy them more.

 

[JoeB131]

Correction: I meant to write Richard Henry Dana, not Charles Dana. Richard Henry Dana was an ardent abolitionist and a prominent Northern attorney. He was a founder of the anti-slavery Free Soil Party and belonged to the Boston Vigilance Committee, a group that assisted fugitive slaves. During the war, he served as a U.S. Attorney and represented the U.S. Government in the Prize Cases case, successfully arguing that the government had the right to blockade Confederate ports without formally recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation. Dana is best known for his famous "Grasp of War" speech that he gave shortly after Lee surrendered in April 1865, in which Dana argued that the war was not really over and that the government should keep the Southern states in the "grasp of war" until slavery was totally eradicated and until black civil rights were secured.

Yet, even Dana did not support immediate suffrage for all ex-slaves. He agreed with Johnson's approach on black suffrage, even though he opposed the rest of Johnson's reconstruction terms as being too lenient.

FYI, I should add that Charles Dana, who was a leading abolitionist and who early on argued for making the Civil War a war against slavery, likewise opposed immediate universal black suffrage.

And I'm not sure what your point is here, Mike.

The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870. That rendered the whole question of how quickly we gave the franchise to ex-slaves moot.

The problem isn't that we dragged our heels on equality. WE STILL DON'T HAVE RACIAL EQUALITY TODAY!!!!

The problem is that we didn't sufficiently punish the South for its treason.

Dana was right in that the South couldn't be trusted. They were immediately going back to the bad behavior as soon as they possibly could, despite the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which is why we got.

Jim Crow
Miscegenation laws
Debt Peonage
Voter Suppression
Literacy Tests

They simply can't help themselves.

Say what you want about the Germans, at least they felt bad about what they did after the war.

 

[Unkotare]

And I'm not sure what your point is here, Mike.

The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870. That rendered the whole question of how quickly we gave the franchise to ex-slaves moot.

The problem isn't that we dragged our heels on equality. WE STILL DON'T HAVE RACIAL EQUALITY TODAY!!!!

The problem is that we didn't sufficiently punish the South for its treason.

Dana was right in that the South couldn't be trusted. They were immediately going back to the bad behavior as soon as they possibly could, despite the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which is why we got.

Jim Crow
Miscegenation laws
Debt Peonage
Voter Suppression
Literacy Tests

They simply can't help themselves.
...

No, democrats can't. Then and now.

 

[Quantrill]

Never happened, but you do go on.

Jim Crow was purely a Southern Thing, because the inbreds were afraid the black man might have sex with their sisters and satisfy them more.

Let's see, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, and New York all had Jim Crow black codes before the War.

Oh...and look, your fair state of Illinois had Jim Crow Black Codes before the War. What a bunch of racist bastards you come from.

And yet you hypocritically ***** about Jim Crow in the South. Illinois produced the powerful white supremacist, Abe Lincoln. No wonder there were Yankee Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War.

Glory, glory,...hallelujah, glory, glory...hallelujah....

Quantrill

 

[eagle7-31]

Let's see, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, and New York all had Jim Crow black codes before the War.

Oh...and look, your fair state of Illinois had Jim Crow Black Codes before the War. What a bunch of racist bastards you come from.

And yet you hypocritically ***** about Jim Crow in the South. Illinois produced the powerful white supremacist, Abe Lincoln. No wonder there were Yankee Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War.

Glory, glory,...hallelujah, glory, glory...hallelujah....

Quantrill

Data is a bit sketchy but there were blacks living in America in the 1500's and early 1600's when there was no slavery. Not many from what I have read but they were living here and no one seem to care, at least at that point in time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I'm not sure what your point is here, Mike. The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870. That rendered the whole question of how quickly we gave the franchise to ex-slaves moot.

LOL! Oh my goodness. This is why you have no business pretending to know anything about this matter. We're talking about Johnson's opposition to the Radicals' attempt to impose immediate suffrage for ex-slaves in the South starting in early 1866 and their attempt to ban most ex-Confederates from voting at the same time.

The Radicals introduced the 15th Amendment because they knew they could not just impose black suffrage on Northern states, most of which either banned black voting or placed restrictions on it. They knew they would not need to amend the Constitution to bring about black suffrage in the North, since the Constitution did not give the federal government the dictate voting qualifications to the states.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Oh my goodness. This is why you have no business pretending to know anything about this matter. We're talking about Johnson's opposition to the Radicals' attempt to impose immediate suffrage for ex-slaves in the South starting in early 1866 and their attempt to ban most ex-Confederates from voting at the same time.

RIght, we are talking about Johnson's supposedly sensible position that freed slaves shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Still makes you mad, doesn't it.

Because they aren't "White and Delightsome".

The Radicals introduced the 15th Amendment because they knew they could not just impose black suffrage on Northern states, most of which either banned black voting or placed restrictions on it.

Ummmm... you realize Amendments have to be ratified by the states- 3/4 of them in fact.

So how could they impose sufferage on the Northern States without getting Northern States to sign on (Because the South certainly wasn't!)

The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment were:

1. Nevada: March 1, 1869
2. West Virginia: March 3, 1869
3. North Carolina: March 5, 1869
4. Illinois: March 5, 1869
5. Louisiana: March 5, 1869
6. Michigan: March 8, 1869
7. Wisconsin: March 9, 1869
8. Maine: March 11, 1869
9. Massachusetts: March 12, 1869
10. Arkansas: March 15, 1869
11. South Carolina: March 15, 1869
12. Pennsylvania: March 25, 1869
13. New York: April 14, 1869
14. Indiana: May 14, 1869
15. Connecticut: May 19, 1869
16. Florida: June 14, 1869
17. New Hampshire: July 1, 1869
18. Virginia: October 8, 1869
19. Vermont: October 20, 1869
20. Alabama: November 16, 1869
21. Missouri: January 10, 1870
22. Minnesota: January 13, 1870
23. Mississippi: January 17, 1870
24. Rhode Island: January 18, 1870
25. Kansas: January 19, 1870
26. Ohio: January 27, 1870 (After rejection: April 1/30, 1869)
27. Georgia: February 2, 1870
28. Iowa: February 3, 1870

 

[mikegriffith1]

It is worth remembering that Andrew Johnson initially took Edwin Stanton's word on Jefferson Davis's guilt in Lincoln's assassination. Shortly after Lincoln died, Stanton met with Johnson and assured him he had ironclad evidence that Jefferson Davis and other Confederate officials directed Booth to kill Lincoln.

Soon after his meeting with Stanton, Johnson issued a presidential proclamation offering a $100,000 reward for the capture of Jefferson Davis. That was a huge fortune in 1865, the equivalent of about $2.7 million in today's dollars. The proclamation also named Confederate officials Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, Beverley Tucker, George N. Sanders, and William C. Cleary as co-conspirators and offered rewards for their capture.

But Johnson soon realized that Stanton had no credible evidence whatsoever that Davis and other high CSA officials played any role in Lincoln's death, much less that they ordered and funded it. Johnson naturally wondered why Stanton and his henchman Joseph Holt would falsely claim to have evidence against Davis and other Confederates, especially so soon after Lincoln's death.

Johnson also soon realized that the Radicals were the only ones who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to bring about Lincoln's murder, and he publicly voiced his suspicion of the Radicals' guilt in the matter. Decades later, evidence surfaced that implicated Stanton and other Radicals in Lincoln's death (see Unwanted Evidence). Before this evidence surfaced, Civil War scholar Otto Eisenschiml made a strong circumstantial case against Stanton and the Radicals in Lincoln's death in his book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (available to read and download online here).

 

[JoeB131]

So in typical Mike Fashion, he starts out with something that almost sounds reasonable, and then dips right into the batshit crazy.

It is worth remembering that Andrew Johnson initially took Edwin Stanton's word on Jefferson Davis's guilt in Lincoln's assassination. Shortly after Lincoln died, Stanton met with Johnson and assured him he had ironclad evidence that Jefferson Davis and other Confederate officials directed Booth to kill Lincoln.

Soon after his meeting with Stanton, Johnson issued a presidential proclamation offering a $100,000 reward for the capture of Jefferson Davis. That was a huge fortune in 1865, the equivalent of about $2.7 million in today's dollars. The proclamation also named Confederate officials Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, Beverley Tucker, George N. Sanders, and William C. Cleary as co-conspirators and offered rewards for their capture.

But Johnson soon realized that Stanton had no credible evidence whatsoever that Davis and other high CSA officials played any role in Lincoln's death, much less that they ordered and funded it. Johnson naturally wondered why Stanton and his henchman Joseph Holt would falsely claim to have evidence against Davis and other Confederates, especially so soon after Lincoln's death.

I don't know, maybe because there were so many OTHER plots against Abe's life that could be traced back to the Confederate Traitors.

Baltimore Plot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Johnson also soon realized that the Radicals were the only ones who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to bring about Lincoln's murder, and he publicly voiced his suspicion of the Radicals' guilt in the matter. Decades later, evidence surfaced that implicated Stanton and other Radicals in Lincoln's death (see Unwanted Evidence). Before this evidence surfaced, Civil War scholar Otto Eisenschiml made a strong circumstantial case against Stanton and the Radicals in Lincoln's death in his book Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (available to read and download online here).

And then he goes into the pure crazy.

But then again, he believes in crazy RFK and JFK assassination theories.