but it rhymes." Looking at this, there's not much rhyme but a lot of repeat.
...When (conveniently) castigating our
forefathers (therefore) for
allowing slavery to have lasted so long, or for having slaves at all,
or for "introducing" slavery to the American continent, I wonder if
leftists realize that one of the reasons it persisted was the Democrat
Party's opposition to… (wait for it)… to… hate speech.
And
the practitioners of hate speech (the abolitionists) were considered
unethical, unrealistic, delusional crazies, who deserve little else but
the utmost disgust — you might even say that they were the equivalent of
today's demonized Tea Partiers.
Don't believe me?
Think that sounds far-fetched? Or too far-fetched?
Ask Abraham Lincoln.
I've known about the debates, but I've never read them; looks like I should have.
… the fathers of the Government expected and intended the institution of
slavery to come to an end. They expected and intended that it should be
in the course of ultimate extinction. … It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas
assumes, made this Government part slave and part free. Understand the
sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing
within itself,—was introduced by the framers of the Constitution. The
exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and
they left it as they found it. But in making the Government they left
this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They
found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the
difficulty—the absolute impossibility—of its immediate removal. And when
Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part
free, as the fathers of the Government made it, he asks a question based
upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood …
No comments:
Post a Comment