Skip to main content

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Snow fell rapidly onto visitors at the Fort Concho Commissary as they made their way from their cars to the warmer historic interior Sunday.

Angelo State University's Civil War Lecture Series is commemorating the 150th anniversary of the conflict that divided the people and the nation of the United States in two. Admission is free to the public. Former President Abraham Lincoln's 203rd birthday gave an extra special air to the day's focus: emancipation.

"I would assume that you would not have braved the elements if you were not interested in the Civil War," said Joe Muñoz, ASU's senior executive assistant to the president and assistant to the president for multicultural initiatives, who served as moderator for the lecture. David Dewar spoke on "The Moderate Republican View," while Kanisorn Wongsrichanalai spoke on "The Abolitionist Stance." The panelists are both assistant history professors at ASU.

"In digging into this topic, I discovered the history of the history," Dewar said. "Historians argue with the past, and I think it's their job."

He said the Civil War's history has changed throughout the years, with each new generation bringing up different views.

"Those who live through an event see it through their eyes," Dewar said.

The lectures discussed the Northern and Southern opinions on slavery and the movements that led to civil war. The two panelists ripped apart misconceptions about the war and its most important leaders.

President Lincoln was not an abolitionist and did not believe that blacks and whites could live together peacefully. He supported the idea of containing slavery to certain areas and "letting it die out," Wongsrichanalai said. The terms 'abolitionist' and 'anti-slavery' are two different concepts. Those who were anti-slavery simply rejected the spread of slavery.

After the lectures, the panel was opened up to the audience for discussion. Audience members brought up several topics that are little known and rarely discussed.

Some of the topics from that discussion were:

An Underground Railroad to the South existed parallel to the northbound one, with Mexico accepting escaping slaves into its northern provinces.

Near the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was trying to come up with a way to buy slaves and then deport them to the British South American colonies of Belize and Guyana.

A number of blacks in the North owned slaves themselves.

In England, the enormous cotton textile industry suffered because of the Union's blockade of the Confederacy's exports while the wool and armament business boomed because of the Union's military's demand for supplies.

Robert Bluthardt, director for the lecture series, emphasized all the technological innovations up to that point were put to the test on the battlefield. He said "the war was unfortunately very destructive, but has many interesting topics to ponder. There's no end to it. Every year, hundreds of books come out."

http://www.gosanangelo.com/new...ses-on-emancipation/

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I am suspicious of this guy Wongsrichanalai. It is true that Lincoln was not a member of the Abolitionist movement -- that movement was a front for the faction that wanted to split the US up. Lincoln wanted to preserve the nation, and then end slavery. He was not pro-slavery or anti-Black. This is revisionist BS history, like the other recent claim that Lincoln was an antiman.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by BGurd_See:
ohh rass, the pnc would surely be in power today if this had happened, without having to rig elections.

How you process this information is quite revealing . . .!

That would surely have been a tragedy for the 'hegemonist' deep inside you . . . wouldn't it?
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
Abe Lincoln's involvement in the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the south seceding from the union.
Simple-minded, and certainly doesn't explain the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the present day fad for cynicism about political leaders, Lincoln was a great human being. Just because we haven't had a good president in the US for so many years doesn't mean it's not possible.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Sunil:
Near the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was trying to come up with a way to buy slaves and then deport them to the British South American colonies of Belize and Guyana.

Utter rubbish. Guyana did not exist before 1966, which was at least 100 years after Lincoln is alleged to have considered sending anyone to a then non-existing country.
Mr.T
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
Abe Lincoln's involvement in the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the south seceding from the union.
Simple-minded, and certainly doesn't explain the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the present day fad for cynicism about political leaders, Lincoln was a great human being. Just because we haven't had a good president in the US for so many years doesn't mean it's not possible.
The emancipation proclamation etc was a by product of the civil war.

Abe's job was to keep the union as one and not to have the south secede. Are you telling me that Abe put slavery before what would have happened if the south seceded? Please don't fool yourself.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.T:
quote:
Originally posted by Sunil:
Near the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was trying to come up with a way to buy slaves and then deport them to the British South American colonies of Belize and Guyana.

Utter rubbish. Guyana did not exist before 1966, which was at least 100 years after Lincoln is alleged to have considered sending anyone to a then non-existing country.



BG did exist in 1866.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
Abe Lincoln's involvement in the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the south seceding from the union.
Simple-minded, and certainly doesn't explain the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the present day fad for cynicism about political leaders, Lincoln was a great human being. Just because we haven't had a good president in the US for so many years doesn't mean it's not possible.
The emancipation proclamation etc was a by product of the civil war.

Abe's job was to keep the union as one and not to have the south secede. Are you telling me that Abe put slavery before what would have happened if the south seceded? Please don't fool yourself.


Please re-read my post.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
Please re-read my post.
I did ... you stated my response was simple minded. I was just informing you of the facts. It is true Lincoln never had slaves, but he was also not an abolitionist ... he never called for an immediate end to slavery.

His battle with the south was to stop it seceding from the union. It had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
I was just informing you of the facts. It is true Lincoln never had slaves, but he was also not an abolitionist ... he never called for an immediate end to slavery.

His battle with the south was to stop it seceding from the union. It had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.


Someone knows history .
FM
quote:
Originally posted by caribj:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.T:
quote:
Originally posted by Sunil:
Near the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was trying to come up with a way to buy slaves and then deport them to the British South American colonies of Belize and Guyana.

Utter rubbish. Guyana did not exist before 1966, which was at least 100 years after Lincoln is alleged to have considered sending anyone to a then non-existing country.



BG did exist in 1866.

The article mentions Guyana, not British Guiana. It might look like a technicality, but it's an important one when trying to identify the accuracy of historical claims.
Mr.T
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
Please re-read my post.
I did ... you stated my response was simple minded. I was just informing you of the facts. It is true Lincoln never had slaves, but he was also not an abolitionist ... he never called for an immediate end to slavery.

His battle with the south was to stop it seceding from the union. It had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.
But to imply that Lincoln did not also wish to free the slaves is false, and a cheap debater's trick.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
quote:
Originally posted by Nuff:
Abe Lincoln's involvement in the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the south seceding from the union.
Simple-minded, and certainly doesn't explain the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the present day fad for cynicism about political leaders, Lincoln was a great human being. Just because we haven't had a good president in the US for so many years doesn't mean it's not possible.
The emancipation proclamation etc was a by product of the civil war.

Abe's job was to keep the union as one and not to have the south secede. Are you telling me that Abe put slavery before what would have happened if the south seceded? Please don't fool yourself.


Y wouldn't he? The man was considered by the Southerners and nicknamed Africanus. He was a Blackman and even more so than Clinton and Obama.
S
Booth said in his confession that he decided to kill Honest Abe Lincoln when he heard Lincoln said he was going to allowed freed blacks to vote. This was after the South was defeated.

The man gave his life for the civil rights of blacks. What more you want him to give?

There is a group of racists out there that are hell bent on proving that all whites hate blacks so they bring up these arguments from time to time.
Wally
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
The man gave his life for the civil rights of blacks. What more you want him to give?

There is a group of racists out there that are hell bent on proving that all whites hate blacks so they bring up these arguments from time to time.
That's why it took 80 years after Lincoln's death for blacks to get civil rights. Smile

I have nothing against white folk. I firmly believe there is good and bad in every race. I have met good whites and blacks and racist blacks and whites. In fact 99% of the people I come into contact with on a daily occurence are whites and I handle them professionally and with respect, and I expect the same in return.

My argument is don't be misled that Lincoln was an abolitionist. He wasn't. He even flirted with the idea of colonization. He was not going down as the president who allowed the south to secede from the union. It was about preventing a seceding south first and slavery second.
FM
And there was a damn good reason for that -- at that point in history, the only chance for the ending of slavery anywhere was the survival of the US, a unique experiment in history. The British were determined to make it fail, because they feared that if the US were to succeed, the idea of republics based on the American System of economics would begin to spread all over the world, and cause the end of empires. The British instigated and aided the southern rebellion, and Lincoln knew it.
FM
Frederick Douglass:



In her grief, and with the assistance of her personal aide, Elizabeth Keckley, Mary Todd Lincoln sent mementos to special people. Among the recipients of some of the President's canes were the black abolitionist, Henry Highland Garnet, and a White House servant, William Slade. But to Douglass Mrs. Lincoln sent the President's favorite walking staff, (on display today at Cedar Hill, Douglass' home in Washington, DC). In his remarkable letter of reply, Douglass assured the First Lady that he would forever possess the cane as an "object of sacred interest," not only for himself, but also because of Mr. Lincoln's "humane interest in the welfare of my whole race." In this expression of gratitude, Douglass evoked the enduring symbolic bond between the sixteenth President and many African Americans.
Wally
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.T:
The article mentions Guyana, not British Guiana. It might look like a technicality, but it's an important one when trying to identify the accuracy of historical claims.


It says British colony. Guyana is basically unknown by most people so if you mention the name of a territory which no longer exists, British Guiana, then it gets even worse. Guyana is the successor name to BG. Just as Belize is to British Honduras.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
And there was a damn good reason for that -- at that point in history, the only chance for the ending of slavery anywhere was the survival of the US, a unique experiment in history. The British were determined to make it fail, because they feared that if the US were to succeed, the idea of republics based on the American System of economics would begin to spread all over the world, and cause the end of empires. The British instigated and aided the southern rebellion, and Lincoln knew it.
I do not buy that ..,. you are trying to rewrite history bruddah.

The british had nothing to do with the southern revolution and the US civil war. The brits were back in the 1700's in fact to be exact 1776 that was the revolutionary war ... the civil war was 1861. The brits were long gone. We are talking about two entirely different wars separated by 80 years.

Stop making up history and get your facts straights homey! Did you ever take US history 101 I don't think so.
FM
Nuff, you are feeble dilettante. The entire economy of the Confederacy was based on growing cotton, but not on making it into textiles. The plantation-owning southern aristocracy opposed the development of manufacturing. So, guess who bought the cotton and made the cloth? The Confederacy, economically, was a British colony still. And if you might switch your brain on for just a moment, ask yourself this question: what is the standard British response to losing a colony? For example, in India, Sudan or even Guyana? They always try to engineer a civil war. And if you still don't get the point, look up the Trent Affair.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
Booth said in his confession that he decided to kill Honest Abe Lincoln when he heard Lincoln said he was going to allowed freed blacks to vote. This was after the South was defeated.

The man gave his life for the civil rights of blacks. What more you want him to give?

There is a group of racists out there that are hell bent on proving that all whites hate blacks so they bring up these arguments from time to time.


It is not wise to convince many blacks folks of anything. Because they feel the pain onto this day. Dey always looking over their shoulder for bigots -past, present and in the future.

They are racists in their mentality.
S
quote:
Originally posted by caribj:
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
Caribj do you feel that Lincoln hated blacks?


Maybe but then he was a man of his time. Maybe not hate, but certainly disrespect.


Shyte, here we go. Another one of them.
S
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
Nuff, you are feeble dilettante. The entire economy of the Confederacy was based on growing cotton, but not on making it into textiles. The plantation-owning southern aristocracy opposed the development of manufacturing. So, guess who bought the cotton and made the cloth? The Confederacy, economically, was a British colony still. And if you might switch your brain on for just a moment, ask yourself this question: what is the standard British response to losing a colony? For example, in India, Sudan or even Guyana? They always try to engineer a civil war. And if you still don't get the point, look up the Trent Affair.


Henry by 1865 the British had abolished their own slavery. India was a more important source of cotton, and an industrial complaex was already developing in the north eastern cities of the USA.

The British had no more interest in favoring the slave masters of the South than they were in supporting the sugar slave holding barons of the British West Indies.

Please slso dont imagine that the British were sorry to lose BG. They just didnt want that colony to evolve into a second Cuba. Had Cheddi been a nationalist more along the line sof an Eric Williams and not Fidel Castro BG would heve gotten their independence in 1961.

In any acse in post WWII the USA had long since emerged as the world's super power with the UK sliding into a semi colonial position to them. In 1952 the USA ordered the British to fix that "mess" in BG and the British soldiers arrive dto do exactly that.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
Nuff, you are feeble dilettante. The entire economy of the Confederacy was based on growing cotton, but not on making it into textiles. The plantation-owning southern aristocracy opposed the development of manufacturing. So, guess who bought the cotton and made the cloth? The Confederacy, economically, was a British colony still. And if you might switch your brain on for just a moment, ask yourself this question: what is the standard British response to losing a colony? For example, in India, Sudan or even Guyana? They always try to engineer a civil war. And if you still don't get the point, look up the Trent Affair.

Utter nonsense.

England abolished slavery in 1833 and in 1834 even slavery in the british colony of Guiana was abolished.

You are talking nonsense about a war (US civil war) which happened 40 years later. The US civil war had nothing to do with the british. It had everything to do with the south seceding. Get your facts straight and stop trying to rewrite history.

Take US history and learn the facts.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by redux:

How you process this information is quite revealing . . .!

That would surely have been a tragedy for the 'hegemonist' deep inside you . . . wouldn't it?


I always look on the bright side of things. Abe sending Afros to Guyana would have boosted their numbers beyond the Indo majority and Guyana would have been worse off than Haiti. ahahahha
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Henry:
Actually, in those days, the Republicans were anti-slavery and the Democrats were for it.



The KKK was the militant wing of the Democratic party. It was only in 1964 after the passing of the Civil rights act by Johnson that racist Southerners went over to the Republican party.

When George Bush Sr first ran as a congress man in Texas for the Republican party the KKK told him that they will chop his head off. In those days the KKK were strong democrats in the South and would harm anyone who voted Republican in the American south.
Wally
In fact James William Fulbright the Senator from Arkansas (who Bill Clinton worked for as a student and who the Fulbright scholarships are named after) was a segregationist, racist and white supremacist democratic senator.
Wally
quote:
Originally posted by seignet:
Do u ppl know how many cotton plantations failed in Demerara and Berbice by 1834. Tariff killed the industry because American cotton was preferred in Britain.



The British wanted free trade. The sugar industry in their colonies also did poorly because it couldnt compete against slave grown sugar from Cuba and Brazil and German beet sugar.

Does that mean that the British preferred Brazilian and Cuban slave holders over British plantation owners.

No its becasue they preferred free trade, because as the dominant industrial and commercial power free trade guaranteed them access to markets globally. Hence the fact that Britain dominated countries like Argentina even though it was never a colony of theirs.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by BGurd_See:
[I always look on the bright side of things. Abe sending Afros to Guyana would have boosted their numbers beyond the Indo majority and Guyana would have been worse off than Haiti. ahahahha



Let me list all those black islands that INDOGuyanese flee to as they seek to escape their INDO run Guyana.

Barbados, Grenada, Nevis, St Lucia, Antigua, St Kitts.

They even fled to Trinidad when it was run by the PNM!!!!!!!

Thank God those black govt created a haven for Indos to flee to.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
There is a group of racists out there that are hell bent on proving that all whites hate blacks so they bring up these arguments from time to time.



Well given what happened to blacks after the Reconstruction period can you blame them?

Think about this. A Nazi PRISONER had more rights in most of the USA than US CITIZENS who happened to be black.

Black soldiers, having fought for the USA after WW I and II, faced lynching upon return if they dared to demand the rights for which they fought. Not all of these lynchings occurred in Jim Crow South either.
FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×