On 05/29/18, BOB ACKLEY said the following...
 
 BA> >  BA> > But let's assume for a moment that slavery was, in fact, dying ou
 BA> >  BA> > What was to become of the enslaved peoples and their descendants?
 BA> >  BA> 
 BA> >  BA> Lincoln wanted to pack them off to Africa.  I think they should hav
 BA> >  BA> been resettled into the northern states (and many of them did go
 BA> there).
 BA> > 
 BA> > I'm only quoting this bit because this is important.
 BA> > 
 BA> > No no; that wasn't what I asked. I don't care what Lincoln did (or did
 BA> > not) want to do.  The claim was made that slavery was on the way out in
 BA> > the confederacy.  Well, that contradicts the view of most historians,
 BA> > but that aside, I'm interested in what the *leaders of the confederacy*
 BA> > proposed to do with the enslaved and their descendants.  Suggesting that
 BA> > they simply be resettled in the northern states is punting the question.
 BA> 
 BA> Not really.  You asked what was to become of those people and I provided
 BA> two proposals.  Most people don't know - or don't want to admit - that
 BA> Saint Lincoln wanted to ship all the blacks in this country to Africa.  I
 BA> don't know what the Confederacy's leaders wanted to do with them.

No, what I asked was what the *confederacy* (or its leaders) intended to
do with the enslaved population after slavery ended since, as you asserted,
slavery was dying out anyway. Though by your own words the technology to
render slavery obsolete didn't appear until a decade or more *after* the
end of the civil war, so there's a time gap here that your argument doesn't
account for.

 BA> Would you have preferred that I said they should be killed?  It wasn't
 BA> their fault they were here.  Of course the point could be made that those
 BA> blacks shipped here had been captured in battle and were sold into
 BA> slavery by their captors (most of whom were also black); the alternative
 BA> to slavery for them was death.

Given that I was asking you to tell me what the confederacy intended to do
with the slave population, I wouldn't prefer that you told me one thing over
the other; it should be a matter of historical fact, to which preference is
irrelevant. Naturally, as a matter of course, one would generally prefer
that genocide was not the suggested course of action, but if it were then
that would be the answer to the question, unfortunate as it were.

However, you've admitted that you don't know what the leaders of the
confederacy intended to do with the enslaved population after slavery, as
an institution, ended, so that's that.

 BA> I do know that Saint Lincoln owned slaves (through his wife's family, the
 BA> Todds) that weren't freed until after the 13th Amendment was passed (as a
 BA> side note, his famed - and unConstitutional - Emancipation Proclamation
 BA> didn't free his slaves - or for that matter any slaves in any areas under
 BA> the control of the union regime).  Hiram Grant also owned slaves until he
 BA> was forced to give them up by the 13th Amendment.  OTOH, Robert E Lee
 BA> inherited slaves from his father-in-law's estate, and he freed them as
 BA> soon as he was able to do so - in 1862

Whether that's true or not, it's irrelevant. The fact is that slavery ended
in the northern states but not in the confederacy until they were forced to
end their "peculiar institution" by arms. The confederacy remained wholly
complicit with the absolute moral bankruptcy of the institution and its
apologists today would do well to note what an abjectly evil thing it was.

Lincoln wasn't a saint, and the issue is complex, but the confederacy was
unquestionably on the wrong side of history.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/32)
 * Origin: Black Flag : ACiD Telnet HQ> blackflag.acid.org:28 (1:135/369)