Man, what a sore loser! "I have no doubt it was common for those debaters in that era to say one thing one day and completely reverse the next day." Sure, in the days where matters of honor was occasionally settled by pistols at 20 paces. "He said it in a debate, which is sufficient enough reason for me to know that he was playing to the electorate to win votes in his battle with Douglas." I would like to see the full transcript of that debate, all debates, personal writings, etc." You have the major source already listed for you. One thing is for certain, you do not know your American History.
I could care less about immersing myself in ancient American history to make arguments that are lacking proof of intent. Prove intent, prove to me what was in Lincoln's thinking at the time he said what he said. Honor among politicians? That is indeed the silliest thing I have ever heard. Sore loser? Who was keeping score anyway? A life...ever heard of one? As in get one? Like a fiddle, like a fiddle.
Prove? It's common knowledge the theme in Lincoln's quote was the reality of that era. Or do you think there was an affirmative action movement afoot in the mid 1800's? BTW, ol' Abe is documented to have sold slaves.
This doesn't seem to constitute "proof" to me about the man's thinking at the time. "Reality of that era"....what does that mean? That everyone thought the same? Like now? Max, this is not up to your standards. BTW, where is it "documented" that Lincoln sold slaves? I have tried to find this documentation and come up dry., (And Max, take note: I do not say such documentation does not exist...I just said I can't find it, so if it does, don't jump for joy. There are no prizes here). http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/rank.htm http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/faq.htm (contains the following): Q: Did Lincoln own slaves? A: Regardless of what you have heard, there is no truth to this assertion. Lincoln is sometimes confused with other presidents who did own slaves, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Peace, RS
Affirmative action in the mid 1800's? Why would you suggest such a concept. The Emancipation Proclamation came in 1862. Common knowledge: Grant is buried in Grant's tomb. The founding fathers owned slaves. Before indoor plumbing people shit outdoors. Lincoln freed the slaves. What is your point again? That things change? Brilliant. P.S. The sky is blue and water is wet. P.P.S. Still waiting for proof of what was in Lincoln's mind and his intentions then and going forward concerning his comments. Common knowledge of existing mores and values of a time frame do not constitute proof of what his intention was once he was elected. Bush's initial campaign for the presidency didn't mention terrorism. The war with Iraq was all about the removal of WMD and upholding the UN resolutions. It then morphed into part of the war against terrorism. Then it became all about the "Liberation of the Iraqi people." Politicians simply bend with the winds of time, and try to make it seem as if they are leading the most popular tends, if indeed those trends prove to be popular once put into action. That you think politicians today, or in Lincoln's time, or in the time of the Romans are essentially anything other than opportunists pushing their own ego based agenda is naive to be sure.
Really? Like I said, you don't know American History. Show me where Lincoln freed any slave. Go back and read the document you tout above, to wit: "That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thence forward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." Did you catch that? "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States" Notice that good ol' Abe didn't bother to free any of those Union slaves, nor were the slaves in the States in "rebellion" free either, they were a separate nation and it was a meaningless and purely political proclamation utilized against the enemy Confederacy.
Help me out here Max. This sentence doesn't seem to specify any particular States. North or south of the Mason-Dixon Line. It just says "any State or "designated part of a State". While I agree that in practical terms your interpretation holds true, (because history played out that way), in purely legal terms, this sentence indeed does "emancipate" all slaves. RS
Please, RSX.X, you know better. Contrary to your "opinion," New Yorkers (or any other Union state) owning slaves in 1862, were most certainly not "people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." There is no comma between "people" and "whereof shall then be." The definition of "whereof" is "of what." The statement is obviously directing its object upon any slaves that exist in a state that possesses the following quality: "the people whereof shall then be in rebellion." The definition of "whereof" is "of what."
Can't find a link to this fact I allege so I will retract it. However, what I remember is that Abe sold his wife's slaves rather than freeing them. She came from a Southern slave owning family in Lexington, Kentucky and three of her half-brothers died fighting for the Confederacy.