Fuck the 4th of July

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
My family celebrated Independence Day on June 19th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, and President Lincoln quickly signed the legislation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html


"The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too Ñ great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory....

...Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.ÑThe rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America.is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery Ñ the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, "It is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, an denounce less; would you persuade more, and rebuke less; your cause would be much more likely to succeed." But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Amercans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their mastcrs? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is passed.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....


...Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. -- Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.

The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. 'Ethiopia, shall, stretch. out her hand unto Ood." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o'er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom's reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end,
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant's presence cower;
But to all manhood's stature tower,
By equal birth!
That hour will come, to each, to all,
And from his Prison-house, to thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I'll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive --
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate'er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.
 
Maybe you could celebrate 3/5 on the fourth of July and the remaining 2/5 on June 19th! :)
 
To my Liberal 'friends', who seem to think according to this thread that Lincloln was the greath Emancipator, the fact is, Lincoln only signed the Emancipation Proclamation because, by mid 1862, the Civil War wasn't going all that well, and he stood every chance of loosing it. It was a pragmatic decision to inject more men to fight and die for the preservation of the Union. How many have ever read the words he spoke in his first Inaugural Address?

Abraham Lincoln said:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Happy Independence Day!!
 
So... what are you sayin'?

Lincoln was a hoor?

Just that the government is not EVER your friend... not even Lincoln, who is portrayed very differently from the reality of who he really was....a believer in big government.
 
Just that the government is not EVER your friend... not even Lincoln, who is portrayed very differently from the reality of who he really was....a believer in big government.
He preferred one federal government to two of them.
 
Limited government was the original US government, under the Articles of Confederation. It was under a Confederate form of government that they originally designed the country to function, then eventually allowing for the enumerated powers of the Constitution to be given by the soverign states to a Federal government, with all but the 16 enumerated powers reserved to the states. All the power now found in the US Federal government has been usurped. That's what the civil war was about, and what the current states rights issue continues to be to this day.
 
To my Liberal 'friends', who seem to think according to this thread that Lincloln was the greath Emancipator, the fact is, Lincoln only signed the Emancipation Proclamation because, by mid 1862, the Civil War wasn't going all that well, and he stood every chance of loosing it. It was a pragmatic decision to inject more men to fight and die for the preservation of the Union. How many have ever read the words he spoke in his first Inaugural Address?



Happy Independence Day!!
You should try living in Somalia, or Mexico, if you believe the garbage you spew.
 
You should try living in Somalia, or Mexico, if you believe the garbage you spew.

I only quoted the words of Lincoln himself to gain such a response! America is a free country, in spite of its government, not because of it. The Constitution is the protection of the people from that government. There are only 16 enumerated powers to which the states gave the Federal government responsibilty. Those remaining are still the responsibility of the individual states.
 
I ask those who believe Lincoln was so hugely infused with the thoughts that slavery should be abolished as his main purpose, to question themselves as to why he said what he did in his first inaugural speech, and why it took him until two years into a civil war to announce emancipation of the slaves? If the entire purpose of the civil war was over slavery, why in hell would it take the President of the United States two years to announce them emancipated?

The public school 'education' on the subject of the Civil War has never been oriented to true education, but has always been towards indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
I ask those who believe Lincoln was so hugely infused with the thoughts that slavery should be abolished as his main purpose, to question themselves as to why he said what he did in his first inaugural speech, and why it took him until two years into a civil war to announce emancipation of the slaves? If the entire purpose of the civil war was over slavery, why in hell would it take the President of the United States two years to announce them emancipated?

The public school 'education' on the subject of the Civil War has never been oriented to true education, but has always been towards indoctrination.

The entire purpose of the Civil War was not slavery. Slavery was one of the issues. States rights was another main issue, which we are still seeing played out today.
 
They certainly did! Now, will you tell us why that was? Hmmm?
Are you serious??

You have to know this.

It was for purposes of representation in Congress.

It was the North that got them cut down to "3/5ths of a person."

And yet, somehow, this always gets misrepresented as "oh, black people only got counted as 3/5ths!"

The South wanted them counted as 5/5ths.

The North wanted them counted as 0/5ths.

It was the North that wanted them discounted as people.
 
I ask those who believe Lincoln was so hugely infused with the thoughts that slavery should be abolished as his main purpose, to question themselves as to why he said what he did in his first inaugural speech, and why it took him until two years into a civil war to announce emancipation of the slaves? If the entire purpose of the civil war was over slavery, why in hell would it take the President of the United States two years to announce them emancipated?

The public school 'education' on the subject of the Civil War has never been oriented to true education, but has always been towards indoctrination.
Lincoln actually didn't care about slavery until 1863.

He talked out of both sides of his mouth until he needed the Negroes to help him win the war.
 
Are you serious??

You have to know this.

It was for purposes of representation in Congress.

It was the North that got them cut down to "3/5ths of a person."

And yet, somehow, this always gets misrepresented as "oh, black people only got counted as 3/5ths!"

The South wanted them counted as 5/5ths.

The North wanted them counted as 0/5ths.

It was the North that wanted them discounted as people.



The southerners would have been happier if they had been counted as 5/3rds, or 5 to 1 . . .


as long as they didn't vote.


BTW, as I read the E/P, I don't see where anyone was freed at all.
 
The southerners would have been happier if they had been counted as 5/3rds, or 5 to 1 . . .

as long as they didn't vote.

BTW, as I read the E/P, I don't see where anyone was freed at all.
The point is that this issue is continually brought up as though it were the idea of the South that Negroes be considered as less than whole people, when, in reality, that was the contention of the North.
 
Are you serious??

You have to know this.

It was for purposes of representation in Congress.

It was the North that got them cut down to "3/5ths of a person."

And yet, somehow, this always gets misrepresented as "oh, black people only got counted as 3/5ths!"

The South wanted them counted as 5/5ths.

The North wanted them counted as 0/5ths.

It was the North that wanted them discounted as people.

So I guess, then, antebellum southern laws classified slaves as people and not as property, right? They could not be sold or bequeathed or anything, right?

Or did the southern states want to have their cake and eat it too?
 
So I guess, then, antebellum southern laws classified slaves as people and not as property, right? They could not be sold or bequeathed or anything, right?

Or did the southern states' want to have their cake and eat it too?
All valid, but see above.
 
The point is that this issue is continually brought up as though it were the idea of the South that Negroes be considered as less than whole people, when, in reality, that was the contention of the North.


Yes, Dear, I know, which is why I said the South would have been happy if they had counted as higher so they'd never lose control of Congress . . .


which is why they fought so bitterly to keep admitting slave states, because they were about to lose their 1/3 of the Senate in 1860.


Secession was an endgame move.
 
All valid, but see above.

I'm not saying the North as a whole was more enlightened. I think many Boston fortunes depended on slave trade.

But I think it's a stretch to say Southerners wanted slaves to counted as 3/5 of a person in light of their belief that this was a slaves were 3/5 people and 3/5 not.

It was representation. Politics.

And the Northern position more closely reflected reality.
 
Back
Top