Just read - no comments needed

[L Verge]

Jefferson freed all of Hemings' surviving children:[9] Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston, as they came of age (they were the only slave family freed by Jefferson). They were seven-eighths European in ancestry, and three of the four entered white society as adults. Descendants of those three identified as white.[10][11] After Jefferson's death Hemings was "given her time," and lived her last nine years freely with her two younger sons in Charlottesville, Virginia. She saw a grandchild born in the house her sons owned.[12] - Source: NPR

We should note also - and I am not trying to excuse Jefferson or any other men (North and South) who engaged in relationships with enslaved women (dare I add men) - but, it was an accepted part of society and had been for centuries with other nations. One was just expected to keep it discreet.

Also, how many people realize that Sally Hemings was more white than black? Her mother, Betty Hemings, had a white father, as did Sally, who was fathered by Jefferson's father-in-law. Three-fourths white, and yet she remained a slave under the laws of her time, while her half-sister married Thomas Jefferson. Some sources that I have read describe Sally as "more white" with long, brown hair that hung down her back. I have often wondered if her link to Martha Jefferson is what attracted the widower to his slave.

Personal note: Thirty years ago, my daughter had a friend whose mother was black and whose father was white. One year in school, while filling out the multitude of first-day papers, Lisa was faced with the question of race. Should she mark WHITE, BLACK, or OTHER? She marked OTHER and got reprimanded by her teacher. The old "one drop" rule was evidently still being applied.

But, I digress and promise to return to more Lincoln-related topics...

[Rsmyth]

"J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School, named after a Confederate general, will become Barack Obama Elementary School. The decision means that Richmond, the former capital of the Confederate States of America, will soon have a school honoring America’s first black president."
Common sense and decency prevail.

[Gene C]

Glad you feel that way.

Bless your heart -


I remember, when we lived in Richmond VA slightly over 20 years ago, my wife was asked to make cookies for the elementary school winter holiday party. She was asked specifically not to make "Christmas Cookies"
Her reply, "Do you want the cookies or not?"
She made "Christmas Cookies."

[JMadonna]

FWIW
Since time immemorial slaves have always been part of the hierarchy of society no matter which government they served under. Western culture began to change in the mid 1400's when Gutenberg began to print bibles.This led to the Protestant Reformation movement in 1517 with Martin Luther and his insistence that all Christians be able to read the Bible in their own language.

The ability to read the word of God for themselves changed Western Culture and the world. The concept of 'all equal under the eyes of God' planted the seeds for Western Democracy.

In America this led to The Second Great Awakening. A Protestant religious revival during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement preaching abolitionism. (note - this movement occurred after the founding fathers had passed on)

Preachers began sermonizing that slavery was a moral sin, and set about arousing public attention to the subject. Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once enlightened of the subject, while continued support of the system incurred "the greatest guilt" upon them.

Slave owners countered that if it was a sin why didn't Christ preach against it? But you know the end of the story.

Those who take a high moral stance and equate America's slavery experience to Hitler's genocide of the Jews simply don't know how modern their moral stance is. You weren't born with high morals they were taught to you and learned from your environment. Anti-Slavery is a very recent standard.

Much of what you read about the cruelty and mistreatment of slaves was left over propaganda written for the war effort. The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South. Every Simon Legree knew that a mistreated slave did not produce work for his master.

[L Verge]

(06-19-2018 11:00 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  "J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School, named after a Confederate general, will become Barack Obama Elementary School. The decision means that Richmond, the former capital of the Confederate States of America, will soon have a school honoring America’s first black president."
Common sense and decency prevail.

If you say so... My home county named a brand new school in "honor" of Barack Obama back in 2010. We have had a high school named after Fredrick Douglass (who did much more to aid in the Negro's plight) since the late-1800s or early-1900s.

We also have over 200 elementary, middle, and high schools plus vocational schools, charter schools, and academies; and many are named after black leaders, and one is named for Cesar Chavez. I have no problem with honoring those who truly served society.

We have gone through name changes - Roger B. Taney Middle became Thurgood Marshall many moons ago, and Francis Scott Key Middle was changed to Drew-Freeman to honor the great black physician Charles Drew and a leading black educator in our county.

The one that was really a shocker to the black and white citizens occurred around 2004. We had Lord Baltimore Middle School, whose name honored the founders of Maryland, and it was soon changed when a black member of our County Council was killed in an automobile accident. What shocked folks is that he was under investigation for a variety of felonies - and, when killed, he was joy riding with his mistress, not his wife and family. Please find the logic in that.

Let's hope that changing the names of institutions, streets, etc. really serves to educate future generations to who these folks are/were and, more importantly, how they changed our lives for the better.

One last thought from my bully pulpit. In our society and our churches, we are asked to forgive others, to help them rehabilitate themselves, shelter and feed them, etc. That is the lesson that walks out the doors of our churches with us every Sunday. And yet, many of our pious friends (on every side) still want to cling to the evil Southerners syndrome over 150 years later. If their thoughts and hopes were/are in the right place, shouldn't they have forgiven our ancestors, solved the situations, and moved on to more current problems? May I suggest that one practices what one preaches?

P.S. Now that we have shown both sides of the Nathan Bedford Forrest persona, are we taking on J.E.B. Stuart? http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-imm...valier.htm

[David Lockmiller]

(06-19-2018 01:57 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 11:00 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  "J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School, named after a Confederate general, will become Barack Obama Elementary School. The decision means that Richmond, the former capital of the Confederate States of America, will soon have a school honoring America’s first black president."
Common sense and decency prevail.

If you say so... My home county named a brand new school in "honor" of Barack Obama back in 2010. We have had a high school named after Fredrick Douglass (who did much more to aid in the Negro's plight) since the late-1800s or early-1900s.

We also have over 200 elementary, middle, and high schools plus vocational schools, charter schools, and academies; and many are named after black leaders, and one is named for Cesar Chavez. I have no problem with honoring those who truly served society.

We have gone through name changes - Roger B. Taney Middle became Thurgood Marshall many moons ago, and Francis Scott Key Middle was changed to Drew-Freeman to honor the great black physician Charles Drew and a leading black educator in our county.

The one that was really a shocker to the black and white citizens occurred around 2004. We had Lord Baltimore Middle School, whose name honored the founders of Maryland, and it was soon changed when a black member of our County Council was killed in an automobile accident. What shocked folks is that he was under investigation for a variety of felonies - and, when killed, he was joy riding with his mistress, not his wife and family. Please find the logic in that.

Let's hope that changing the names of institutions, streets, etc. really serves to educate future generations to who these folks are/were and, more importantly, how they changed our lives for the better.

One last thought from my bully pulpit. In our society and our churches, we are asked to forgive others, to help them rehabilitate themselves, shelter and feed them, etc. That is the lesson that walks out the doors of our churches with us every Sunday. And yet, many of our pious friends (on every side) still want to cling to the evil Southerners syndrome over 150 years later. If their thoughts and hopes were/are in the right place, shouldn't they have forgiven our ancestors, solved the situations, and moved on to more current problems? May I suggest that one practices what one preaches?

P.S. Now that we have shown both sides of the Nathan Bedford Forrest persona, are we taking on J.E.B. Stuart? http://www.historynet.com/jeb-stuart-imm...valier.htm

When was the last time that an innocent black person was lynched? I assume that it was not within your lifetime or you would have protested vigorously! I would suggest that one should practice what one preaches!!!

Laurie Verge wrote: "Roger B. Taney Middle [School] became Thurgood Marshall many moons ago."

I wonder how many moons ago it was that President Abraham Lincoln addressed the nation in his first inaugural address on March 6, 1861 with these words:

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

President Lincoln was referring to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. This majority decision held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported [into the United States], and sold as slaves," whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court; and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

This decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

People nowadays may have different opinions. My opinion will not be swayed by an opinion that differs from that of President Abraham Lincoln, no matter how many times such peculiar opinions are repeated!

---

(06-19-2018 01:10 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  FWIW
Since time immemorial slaves have always been part of the hierarchy of society no matter which government they served under. Western culture began to change in the mid 1400's when Gutenberg began to print bibles.This led to the Protestant Reformation movement in 1517 with Martin Luther and his insistence that all Christians be able to read the Bible in their own language.

The ability to read the word of God for themselves changed Western Culture and the world. The concept of 'all equal under the eyes of God' planted the seeds for Western Democracy.

In America this led to The Second Great Awakening. A Protestant religious revival during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement preaching abolitionism. (note - this movement occurred after the founding fathers had passed on)

Preachers began sermonizing that slavery was a moral sin, and set about arousing public attention to the subject. Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once enlightened of the subject, while continued support of the system incurred "the greatest guilt" upon them.

Slave owners countered that if it was a sin why didn't Christ preach against it? But you know the end of the story.

Those who take a high moral stance and equate America's slavery experience to Hitler's genocide of the Jews simply don't know how modern their moral stance is. You weren't born with high morals they were taught to you and learned from your environment. Anti-Slavery is a very recent standard.

Much of what you read about the cruelty and mistreatment of slaves was left over propaganda written for the war effort. The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South. Every Simon Legree knew that a mistreated slave did not produce work for his master.

"The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South."

Let the rich enslave the poor in this country and around the world, now. No doubt that they will all be "volunteers."

[JMadonna]

(06-19-2018 08:14 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Let the rich enslave the poor in this country and around the world, now. No doubt that they will all be "volunteers."

You just perfectly described the tax system.

[David Lockmiller]

(06-20-2018 09:13 AM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 08:14 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Let the rich enslave the poor in this country and around the world, now. No doubt that they will all be "volunteers."

You just perfectly described the tax system.

"The majority of slaves were expensive so they were fed and treated well. Many of whom remained loyal and volunteered for the South. Every Simon Legree knew that a mistreated slave did not produce work for his master."

I reread this a few minutes ago and it recalled to mind a story about the treatment of polo ponies by different countries. I believe that it was Argentina that adopted the Simon Legree philosophy of getting the most out of its polo ponies. i don't remember what country or countries were on the other philosophical side. But I would rather lose than ever consider adopting the Simon Legree philosophy of treating animal or man.

And, as regards slavery, I can never forget the photograph of the older distinguished black slave whose back was absolutely covered in healed whip wounds. What an awesome personality that man must have possessed! I can only hope and pray his master eventually got his just desserts.

[JMadonna]

(06-20-2018 09:45 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  And, as regards slavery, I can never forget the photograph of the older distinguished black slave whose back was absolutely covered in healed whip wounds. What an awesome personality that man must have possessed!

Not sure of your conclusion of the man's personality but I'm not defending slavery in any shape manner or form. My point was that abolition is a very recent phenomenon in the history of man. One should not damn ones ancestors for either following or ignoring the custom of the time.

[L Verge]

(06-20-2018 04:32 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:45 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  And, as regards slavery, I can never forget the photograph of the older distinguished black slave whose back was absolutely covered in healed whip wounds. What an awesome personality that man must have possessed!

Not sure of your conclusion of the man's personality but I'm not defending slavery in any shape manner or form. My point was that abolition is a very recent phenomenon in the history of man. One should not damn ones ancestors for either following or ignoring the custom of the time.

Your point coincided very well with my previous post, Jerry. Thank you. I also would question (just for the heck of it) how David is able to determine that the former slave (I believe he was in a contraband camp when photographed) was a "distinguished gentleman" with an "awesome personality."

I was about 12 years old, I think, when I first saw that photo, and it shocked me terribly. But even then, I thought he must have been very difficult to deal with in order to earn so many stripes. By that time, I was educated enough on slavery to know that very few slaves were severely punished to that extent. I also knew the horror stories of how the enslaved were mistreated by foreign and Yankee ships' captains during that horrible Middle Passage before they ever set foot on southern soil.

---

In my never-ending attempt to convince some people on the need to consider all sides of people and history, let's take Roger B. Taney, since he was "condemned" earlier. Taney wrote the majority report on the Dred Scott case, but it followed the majority vote of the entire court - 7/2. While jurists consider him one of the finest legal minds and constitutional supporters in our history, he will continue to carry the burden of that case as if it was his and his alone to decide.

Taney was also a Roman Catholic, which was not popular in those days. Taney considered slavery an evil. He had freed the slaves he had inherited before he came to the Supreme Court. It was his belief, however, that slavery was a problem to be resolved gradually and chiefly by the states in which it existed. Remember that, until the Civil War, much of the governmental authority rested on the states - not on a strong, central government such as Lincoln and the Republicans established.

And, speaking of Lincoln, Scott ruled against many of the unusual wartime measures that the President put into action. After the war and the assassination, the deceased Taney's reputation was smeared for having questioned the martyred Lincoln during life.
Again, we become products of our time.

[J. Beckert]

Back to J.E.B. Stuart....

"Stuart inherited two slaves but freed them in 1859. He opposed secession, but he sided with his native state when war broke out, as did many other Virginia officers. He was 31 and a Confederate general when he died from wounds suffered in battle. His military prowess still is widely acclaimed. A saber hook he developed (U.S. patent No. 25,684 A) was used by armies across the globe. And so renowned was his military genius, even internationally, that British M3 and M5 tanks used in World War II were nicknamed “Stuart tanks” in his honor."

A far cry from a man who's idea of fighting the enemy is to send them $400 million for hostages. Renaming that school was a disgrace.

[My Name Is Kate]

(06-20-2018 06:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And, speaking of Lincoln, Scott ruled against many of the unusual wartime measures that the President put into action.

Laurie, can you elaborate a little on the above quote from your post?

Also, wasn't Taney upholding the Constitution in the Dred Scott decision, as is the duty of the Supreme Court? It was the Constitution that needed to be changed, which the Civil War brought about.

[AussieMick]

I'd like to comment on whether Taney was "upholding the Constitution in the Dred Scott decision".
We in Australia have a Constitution (since 1901). It is quite short (which in many ways is quite good). The developers used some of the American Constitution as a basis.

My point is that, over time, parts of our Constitution have had to be interpreted to deal with modern issues. It has happened that High Court judges have made decisions which "interpret" the meaning of relevant parts of the Constitution. That's all very good. Except that those interpretations can be controversial and can depend (of course) on the Judges (usually several of them) own political leaning. It can happen that what we call 'activist' judges make a decision which comes up with a view which is only very tenuously (if at all) based on the 1901 constitution. Their role is to try to interpret what the developers of the 1901 constitution were thinking. ( Changes can be made to the Constitution but only by referendum needing a majority of electors in the all the Australian States)

I suggest that Taney was interpreting, not "upholding", the US Constitution. Of course that was his role as Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court. However, it has to be said that Judges are human beings and as such can make mistakes. Taney said that negroes could not be considered as citizens and when the US nation was created they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. ( Hence the Founding Fathers did not include them in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. )

We (at least those of us who hold to generally accepted normal standards of decency) would now view those words as being unacceptable. But back then clearly many agreed with Taney. They were wrong. Many knew immediately that they were wrong and many in the US came to realize in a short time (like Lincoln) that they were wrong.

My thoughts , from afar and in 2018, are that it is difficult to see how Taney could arrive at his interpretation of what the Declaration of Independence's Founding Fathers thought and what constitutes a human being. It seems to me that he was working his way back from an interpretation which would suit the result which he wanted. He was not 'upholding' the Constitution because that would require us to believe that the US Constitution was based upon an immoral basis (IMO) ... that negroes cannot be citizens and that the rights of negroes do not need to be respected.

[JMadonna]

Good insight Mick

[David Lockmiller]

(06-20-2018 06:11 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Taney considered slavery an evil.

Doris Kearns Goodwin takes exception with this opinion.

In her book, "Team of Rivals," she wrote at pages 188-189: "The court was headed by Chief Justice Roger Taney of Maryland, 'an uncompromising supporter of the South and slavery and an implacable foe of racial equality, the Republican Party, and the antislavery movement.'" Goodwin's interior quotation was from Finkelman,"Dred Scott v. Sanford," p. 29.

Doris Kearns Goodwin also added on page 189 this observation regarding Taney's opinion of the Negro race: "Blacks were 'so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'" Roger B. Taney, opinion quoted in Finkelman,"Dred Scott v. Sanford," pp. 35-36.

---

(06-20-2018 04:32 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:45 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  And, as regards slavery, I can never forget the photograph of the older distinguished black slave whose back was absolutely covered in healed whip wounds. What an awesome personality that man must have possessed!

Not sure of your conclusion of the man's personality but I'm not defending slavery in any shape manner or form. My point was that abolition is a very recent phenomenon in the history of man. One should not damn ones ancestors for either following or ignoring the custom of the time.

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."