"the 1862 orders were aimed at cotton speculators"
They were buying cotton from southerners and paying gold, giving the rebels funds to sustain their war effort. It was demoralizing to the troops to see northern speculators making big money helping the rebels, while they were bleeding and suffering.
Came across your post and want to understand your point.
Is it that Grant’s order impacted a small percentage of the 150,00 to 200,000 Jewish people living in the U.S. at that time, while the Democrats were waging a war to keep 3.5 million African descended people in slavery? And that Grant’s purpose for the order was to shorten the war and in doing so, shorten the time it would take to emancipate the slaves?
It would be hard to forget there were Union states that allowed slavery. It wasn’t that long ago that Joe Biden bragged his state was a slave state. But my question was to understand what you were trying to communicate in your post, not to open a can of worms as you say. And knowing you have a history degree, let me ask you a question. Don’t you think Frederick Douglass, in his speech in April 14, 1865, does an incredible job of enumerating Lincoln’s personal and leadership challenges in eventually making the war about slavery. And how Lincoln overcame his personal prejudices and those of other Americans to justify the end of slavery?
And although your point is still not clear, yes all sides can make bad judgments and all people have prejudices they must fight to control. We could go back and forth all day listing black marks in history. But can we deny that eventually Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant mustered the courage to abolish slavery?
According to an Encyclopedia I own from the 1940’s, after the Catholic Monarchy of France collapsed to the Masonic led revolution of the 18th century, Napoleon released the Jews from the Ghettos of France. The Pope was also exiled during this time.
"the 1862 orders were aimed at cotton speculators"
They were buying cotton from southerners and paying gold, giving the rebels funds to sustain their war effort. It was demoralizing to the troops to see northern speculators making big money helping the rebels, while they were bleeding and suffering.
"Doesn’t matter who what when where or why... it still happened under the watch of the democrat party"
Lincoln was President and he immediately reversed Grant's order. It didn't take effect.
Came across your post and want to understand your point.
Is it that Grant’s order impacted a small percentage of the 150,00 to 200,000 Jewish people living in the U.S. at that time, while the Democrats were waging a war to keep 3.5 million African descended people in slavery? And that Grant’s purpose for the order was to shorten the war and in doing so, shorten the time it would take to emancipate the slaves?
It would be hard to forget there were Union states that allowed slavery. It wasn’t that long ago that Joe Biden bragged his state was a slave state. But my question was to understand what you were trying to communicate in your post, not to open a can of worms as you say. And knowing you have a history degree, let me ask you a question. Don’t you think Frederick Douglass, in his speech in April 14, 1865, does an incredible job of enumerating Lincoln’s personal and leadership challenges in eventually making the war about slavery. And how Lincoln overcame his personal prejudices and those of other Americans to justify the end of slavery?
And although your point is still not clear, yes all sides can make bad judgments and all people have prejudices they must fight to control. We could go back and forth all day listing black marks in history. But can we deny that eventually Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant mustered the courage to abolish slavery?
According to an Encyclopedia I own from the 1940’s, after the Catholic Monarchy of France collapsed to the Masonic led revolution of the 18th century, Napoleon released the Jews from the Ghettos of France. The Pope was also exiled during this time.