Slavery...the eternal issue in America Part 2/2

 Lincoln stated that the emancipation of slaves was not his focus or goal. Why? Because his priority was the preservation of the Union; addressing Southern secession, therefore, was his principal objective.

It was only when Lincoln feared losing the Civil War (1861-1865) that he freed slaves in the South. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," wrote Lincoln in 1862. "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." (President Abraham Lincoln).

While the 13th amendment seems to have freed African Americans, for whatsoever reason that was.

It is crucial to note that; the passing from a state of bondage, enslavement, subjugation, confinement to a progressive state of relative progressive freedom, which transited from the right to vote, the lack of personhood or citizenship, all forms of segregation, until the tyranny of BLM, and civil right abuses going on; does not necessary mean that they were made the Equal of Whites, below is a theoretical overview on the contradiction on the state of the equality of African American to Whites, between a liberal and a conservative points of view, and how they intersect at the so-called "unprincipled exceptions"

Theoretical retrospective

LINCOLN'S UNPRINCIPLED EXCEPTION TO RACIAL EQUALITY

In a liberal society, where the only legitimate principles are liberal principles, no principled opposition to the onward march of liberal freedom and equality is possible. The only way opposition to liberalism can manifest itself is as a series of holding actions, in which the holdouts, who generally accept the prevailing liberalism, will nevertheless resist it on some particular issue without opposing liberalism as such. These unprincipled exceptions to liberalism take the form of appeals to established habits and traditions, or to majority opinion, or to common sense, or to social utility, or to inertia, or to some undefined feeling that we shouldn't go "too far," or even to some supposed beneficent fate that will keep the unwanted liberal victory from occurring without our having to do anything about it. A liberal who adheres to one or more such exceptions to liberalism is called a conservative. [Correction: There are both “liberal” and “conservative” unprincipled exceptions to liberalism. For conservatives, unprincipled exceptions to liberalism are the only permissible way in liberal society to oppose liberalism; for liberals, they are the only way to go on living and functioning despite being liberals.] The conservative's appeal is to what exists. At any given moment in time, there is present in a society an inchoate body of sentiments, habits, traditions, and understandings that liberalism has not yet challenged and which seem, as far as anyone can tell, unquestionable and authoritative. But the apparent authority of these values and beliefs is only based on the fact that they have not yet been questioned. Because no anti-liberal principle has been articulated to back up these values, as soon as they are seriously challenged, they begin to be abandoned, if not immediately, then through a prolonged process of foot-dragging. To liberals, of course, the failure of conservatives to come up with principled arguments against liberalism only proves that there is no principled position other than liberalism.

Unprincipled exception: Negros are not Equal to Whites

Perhaps the most interesting example of the unprincipled exception in American history is Abraham Lincoln's stand against Negro social equality prior to the Civil war, as set forth in his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas. Let me make it clear that in discussing the issue of racial equality I am not taking a stand for or against Lincoln's earlier endorsement of social inequality between the races, or his later, progressively more liberal views on race; I am trying, rather, to understand the dynamics by which a highly intelligent and articulate politician, who initially supported racial inequality, was moved—by the seemingly irresistible force of events and by his own evolving views of the matter—to renounce the racial inequality he had once ringingly affirmed.

Lincoln's unprincipled exception consisted in this, that he subscribed to the liberal belief in a universal equality of human rights, while making an exception with regard to political, social, and physical equality. He did this by interpreting the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence as both universal and narrow.

 As he saw it, the phrase, "all men are created equal ... with certain unalienable rights," meant that men were equal, but only in respect of those unalienable rights, not in any other respects. In the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln, fending off Douglas's charge that he was a race leveller, stated outright that he did not believe in the social equality of the races. I'll quote this famous passage in full:

[A]nything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. ... I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects----certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man ."

In the fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, he said:

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

In sum, Lincoln's position (and I'm assuming for the sake of this discussion that he was being sincere in what he was saying and not merely positioning himself for political purposes) was that blacks could have complete equality as to their natural rights, i.e., to the rights pertaining to their life, liberty and property, while they would continue to have no political rights and would be kept in a markedly subordinate social sphere. The first question that arises is, how did Lincoln imagine that such a scheme could ever be sustainable in practice? Once the Negroes ceased to be slaves and became free, free to work where they wanted, free to travel where they wanted, and so on, did Lincoln actually envision that they would not be citizens as well? And once they were citizens, would they not have political rights--the right to vote and the right to hold office? And once they had those political rights, how could social equality and social intermingling not follow? In Chicago that same year Lincoln said: "Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man—this race and that race and the other race being inferior. [Instead let us] unite as one people through this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." But how could Lincoln, whose logical faculty was the equal of anyone's in American history, think that ending slavery in the name of such a ringing ideal would leave blacks forever deprived of citizenship and political rights?

At bottom, Lincoln seemed to assume that mere social prejudice, the desire of whites that blacks not be their political and social equals, could stop any further application to the black man (beyond the ending of slavery itself) of the universal, shining principle that "all men are created equal." His belief in continued political and social distinctions between the races was thus an unprincipled exception to his principled belief in equality.

It could not stand, neither in practice, nor in logic. And, as we know from 140 years of experience since Lincoln's time, once the liberal principle of equality was adopted, all the other, ever more progressive forms of equality followed—first equality of citizenship, then political equality, then social equality, then moral equality, and then, as we have today, guaranteed group equality of results, not only for the descendants of black slaves, but for newly arrived non-white immigrants. We have thus traveled, step by step, by the abandonment of one unprincipled exception after another, from Lincoln's narrowly tailored interpretation of the Declaration of Independence to an outright system of racial socialism.

My point here is not to argue that the slaves should not have been freed or that blacks should not have citizenship rights. My point is that in the absence of any non-liberal principle of social order, people who apparently oppose the next, more progressive plank of the liberal agenda will inevitably end up yielding to it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster

The Dred Scott Case 

Dred Scott Case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1856–57. It involved the then bitterly contested issue of the status of slavery in the federal territories. In 1834, Dred Scott, a black slave, personal servant to Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. army surgeon, was taken by his master from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and thence to Fort Snelling (now in Minnesota) in Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise.

There he married before returning with Dr. Emerson to Missouri in 1838. After Emerson's death, Scott sued (1846) Emerson's widow for freedom for himself and his family (he had two children) on the ground that residence in a free state and then in a free territory had ended his bondage. He won his suit before a lower court in St. Louis, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision (thus reversing its own precedents). Scott's lawyers then maneuvered the case into the federal courts. Since J. F. A. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson's brother, was the legal administrator of her property and a resident of New York, the federal court accepted jurisdiction for the case on the basis of diversity of state citizenship. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the Supreme Court. In Feb., 1857, the court decided in conference to avoid completely the question of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and to rule against Scott on the ground that under Missouri law as now interpreted by the supreme court of that state he remained a slave despite his previous residence in free territory. However, when it became known that two antislavery justices, John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis, planned to write dissenting opinions vigorously upholding the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise (which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), the court's Southern members, constituting the majority, decided to consider the whole question of federal power over slavery in the territories. They decided in the case of Scott v. Sandford (the name was misspelled in the formal reports) that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court's opinion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. The court's verdict further inflamed the sectional controversy between North and South and was roundly denounced by the growing antislavery group in the North.

13th Amendment, U.S. Constitution: A History

Setting the Stage

 "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." 

Text of the original 13th Amendment, also known as the Corwin Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution as passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861, passed by the U.S. Senate on March 3, 1861, and signed by President Buchanan on March 3, 1861. (The Three-Fifths Compromise, aka Three-fifths Clause.)

President James Buchanan publicly endorsed and applauded the Corwin Amendment. President Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, furthermore, did not oppose the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, moreover, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment. (President Abraham Lincoln and Southern Secession: Why did the South Secede and what Caused the Civil War?.)

(Above) President Lincoln on slavery and the Union: Lincoln stated that the emancipation of slaves was not his focus or goal. Why? Because his priority was the preservation of the Union; addressing Southern secession, therefore, was his principal objective. (Civil War and Slavery: The South, Slave Trade, Slaves and SlaveryCivil War and Slavery: The South, Slave Trade, Slaves and Slavery , 13th Amendment, Constitution, Slavery: What Caused the Civil War13th Amendment, Constitution, Slavery: What Caused the Civil War , and Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:

    "I understand a proposed amendment [Corwin Amendment] to the Constitution...has passed Congress [March 2, 1861], to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, Slavery, and Civil War

It was only when Lincoln feared losing the Civil War (1861-1865) that he freed slaves in the South. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," wrote Lincoln in 1862. "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." (President Abraham Lincoln on RacePresident Abraham Lincoln on Race  and President Lincoln, Slaves, Abolition, Emancipation, Black Colonization and the Black ColonyPresident Lincoln, Slaves, Abolition, Emancipation, Black Colonization and the Black Colony .)

President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863Emancipation Proclamation of 1863  did not free a single slave, and, issued only after the Confederacy seemed to be winning the war, Lincoln hoped to transform a disagreement over SecessionSecession  into a crusade against slaveryslavery .

The Emancipation Proclamation, which also permitted and kept slavery intact in the border states, was a political decision to block the South from gaining recognition from England and France (The Trent AffairThe Trent Affair , Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the ConfederacyPreventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy , and American Civil War and International DiplomacyAmerican Civil War and International Diplomacy ). Whether slavery was intact or abolished, he stated that either was completely acceptable in order to preserve the Union. (Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)

Lincoln, who had previously obstructed the U.S. Supreme Court from conducting a hearing or ruling on secession, merely invoked "freeing the slaves" as justification to preserve the Union. As president, he was completely and unequivocally pro-Union. So, was the war about freeing the slaves or denying Southern Secession? (Southern States Secede: Secession of the South HistorySouthern States Secede: Secession of the South History  and Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)

Almost thirty years before the Civil War, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union. Why? Because of High Tariffs and not because of slavery (Nullification CrisisNullification Crisis ). Later, when the South desired to secede, this was President Lincoln's response to secession, not slavery, in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861: "No State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union." Lincoln was adamantly concerned about secession and not about slavery.

Lincoln had never sought a U.S. Supreme Court decision stating whether or not Southern SecessionSouthern Secession  was constitutional; the nation’s highest court was its only judicial and lawful arbiter. Lincoln also suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and when approached by the Chief Justice, Lincoln threatened to imprison him. (Ex Parte MilliganEx Parte Milligan , President Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court, President Abraham Lincoln and the Chief Justice, and President Abraham Lincoln and Ex Parte Merryman.)

13th Amendment controversy

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States  prohibits slavery :

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the Thirty-eighth United States Congress, on January 31, 1865. The amendment was ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six states on December 6, 1865. (It was ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states within one year of its proposal.) Mississippi, however, which was the last of the thirty-six states in existence in 1865, ratified it in 1995. The dates of ratification were:

Analysis

Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States.

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

In 1863 President Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring “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, thenceforward, and forever free.” Nonetheless, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation. Lincoln recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.

The 13th amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress. Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.

With the adoption of the 13th amendment, the United States found a final constitutional solution to the issue of slavery. The 13th amendment, along with the 14th and 15th, is one of the trio of Civil War amendments that greatly expanded the civil rights of Americans.

The Illusion of freedom in the US

Are Blacks really free>?

Almost 90% are living on welfare......Is this freedom? ...it's like the whole race is dependent of the system ... It's slavery reparation, but nobody talk about it ...Mestizos getting welfare too... Their ancestors were victim of the largest genocide in the history of the world...Americans are trying to apologize for their ancestor actions.....Now white race looks pretty missed up, the middle class collapsing to poverty, and Blacks hitting on every white wife and her daughter in sight ...Latino making tons of cash illegally and sending it south of the border, if things get messed up, they got an insurance in  their native country ...and white will be stuck here with poverty and damaged white vagina ....hahhahahah 

Honestly, Are Blacks really free?

Can they be independents? can they survive without all kinds of government assistance, that is the way of whites to say "sorry folks about our common history, slavery and sheeet..."

Can they do other kind of work other than those especially made to integrate them? especially made to the Blacks lazy nature and low IQ. i.e.  Security guards...they are all black...That was a good idea....Blacks hung out in corners and in entrance of buildings anyway, So, the brilliant idea was to put them in uniforms, letting them hung around in corners and buildings entrance, same way as they do anyways, except now they will get paid for it....How brave, original slavery reparation way. 

Yawl so pathetic. 

Note de conclusion

Freedom is closely related to independence you can’t be free if you are not independent, dependence means an ensemble of constraints and exigencies controlling and shaping the daily life necessities and an imposed way of action regarding different vital aspects of life and it interfere with the pure essence of freedom...

The illusion of freedom best presentation is in the American society, built on slavery and fresh from an era of extreme segregation where there was areas for colored and areas for whites, the false interpretation of freedom is the main issue in America, smoothened to an presentable image of an American society, homogenous where life is better, while the whole stupid mass live in an virtual slavery, and are technically enslaved by the Zionist government for its world domination agenda, the NWO theory is already practiced in America, and American are the cobailles for the more global idea of an universal government, think about how Americans are stupid and brainwashed in a way to present America.    

Add kadia altered in video   

https://www.bencurtis.org/liberian-civil-war/

"The Emancipation can be defined as a transition from a state of Bondage to a state of dependence, forced by divers political, and socio-economic constraints  ...Freedom is always in the Horizons"

 Franco TaMere