Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | Warren Homecoming | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Williams column missed point of law

February 24, 2013

DEAR EDITOR: Walter Williams in his column “Defining Abraham Lincoln” accuses Lincoln of hypocrisy in the Emancipation Proclamation for only freeing those slaves of states in rebellion and not in th......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-24-13 6:49 AM

Abe Lincoln was a great American President. It's too bad that he died so young and by violence against him by the Southern conspiracy.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-24-13 8:40 AM

Mr. Eling is exactly right. The facts and the truth has never been very important to Walter Williams.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-24-13 8:52 AM

Also, there were no slaves in the northern states at the time.

The only slaves subject to ownership rights, were subject to ownership rights that existed ONLY in the states of rebellion.

Lincoln didn't need to free lawfully owned slaves by "slaveholders", in the northern states.

AND . . . back then "states rights", meant a lot more, so why would he even take a chance at a constitutional crisis for something not needed.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-24-13 1:26 PM


If you studied history, you'd find that the civil war happened because the states that wanted to secede followed the secession process outlined by the Constitution, but were rebuffed by the Feds.

You might also want to know that Maryland, Conn, Kentucky, and Indiana only stayed in the Union because their gov'ts instituted Martial Law and confiscated the guns of the majority that wanted to secede (over states rights, not slavery).

Lincoln wanted the US to have a strong central gov't, the rebels wanted to maintain a constitutional republic. Lincoln won.

Abe could have cared less about the slaves. If the war had been about slavery, why did he wait until 1863 (almost 3 yrs in) to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?

The Emancipation Proclamation should go down in history as the world's greatest marketing gimmick. Then as now it's about power and control.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 8:23 AM

XWARREN, You are correct that to Lincoln the war was not about slavery. To the South however IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY, and the right of the STATES to permit it. Lincoln was an abolitionist who wished to rid the nation of the scourge of slavery, but did not advocate war as a means to do it. It was the Southern states who chose to attack their own country at Fort Sumpter.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 9:32 AM

XWarren and tiredofit

How can you be so sure Lincoln didn't care to end slavery? What an enormous burden "to keep the union together while ending slavery," so certainly he was afraid to do anything. How flippant to suggest he "waited 3 years" to pen the EP!

The US Constitution is a mere piece of paper, when compared with real laws, the laws God wrote on our hearts and minds.

There were scores of abolitionists in the north and around the world who put pressure on Lincoln to do the right thing: EP. Therefore, "the Emancipation Proclammation" was an incredibly brave and good thing for Lincoln to do and he paid with his life for it. He obeyed God's law above some piece of paper written by men, as we all should.

If you know in you heart that slavery is wrong, could you defend it, XWarren, for a man made law?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 11:53 AM

"the majority that wanted to secede (over states rights, not slavery)."

Exactly. "States rights." Specifically, the right to allow crimes against humanity to occur within their borders. The right to allow private citizens to OWN human chattel; to steal the labor of another human being under the lash and at the point of a gun.

The rights of states to allow kidnapping and theft -- how monstrously perverse is that?

The Civil War was NOT about states rights; it was about whether theft and kidnapping and involuntary imprisonment would be allowed to continue.

600,000 Americans died to extend the rule of law to an entire race.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 7:26 PM

Wow. She's going off on all kinds of tangents with all of her personalities.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 8 of 8 comments


I am looking for: