Abe lincoln freed the slaves?

[LilOlLady]

ABE LINCOLN FREED THE SLAVES?
Yeah, right.

Slaves were taking jobs from white people and Abe freed them to release jobs for poor white people.

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
That rather sounds like a white supremacist.

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."
His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union.
WHY DID ABRAHAM LINCOLN FREE THE SLAVES?

 

[Truthmatters]

for the time he wasnt very racist.


He was without a doubt a racist though.


I would still perfer him to most of the racists we have today

 

[LibertyLemming]

Lincoln was one of the top 5 worst presidents.

He freed the southern slaves in hopes they would aid the union.

 

[Sinjorri]

ive been saying and many historians felt he was a horrible man. read the debates and look at all the stuff he did.

he didnt have a civil war to free the slaves or were they even a thought into that. they were freed and a rally cry but in one speech he admitted he didnt know what to do with them. just the kind of person he as, i read and heard many evil stories of him.

 

[Zoom-boing]

He said that slaves should be free, not freed.

 

[Nightson]

ABE LINCOLN FREED THE SLAVES?
Yeah, right.

Slaves were taking jobs from white people and Abe freed them to release jobs for poor white people.

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
That rather sounds like a white supremacist.

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."
His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union.
WHY DID ABRAHAM LINCOLN FREE THE SLAVES?

Factual American History rarely aligns with the beliefs we instill in our own minds--with the copious nudging of our earliest public education. Without pun intended: little is as black or white as we'd like it to be. Just try to use some discretion when kicking Abe out of the pantheon.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Besides as long as taxation occurs as it does, we are all victims of being forced to work without compensation by the government. Slavery is here to stay.

 

[Sinjorri]

Besides as long as taxation occurs as it does, we are all victims of being forced to work without compensation by the government. Slavery is here to stay.

football player agrees with you


Adrian Peterson: NFL Like 'Modern Day Slavery'

 

[Charles_Main]

ive been saying and many historians felt he was a horrible man. read the debates and look at all the stuff he did.

he didnt have a civil war to free the slaves or were they even a thought into that. they were freed and a rally cry but in one speech he admitted he didnt know what to do with them. just the kind of person he as, i read and heard many evil stories of him.

As was Rather Common among Abolitionists of the day. Lincoln was a Racist. He thought slavery was wrong, but he did not think the Races were equal, and his big plan actually involved them leaving this country once free, and returning to Africa.

 

[editec]

ABE LINCOLN FREED THE SLAVES?
Yeah, right.

Slaves were taking jobs from white people and Abe freed them to release jobs for poor white people.

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
That rather sounds like a white supremacist.

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."
His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union.
WHY DID ABRAHAM LINCOLN FREE THE SLAVES?

Yes, the man's publically stated point of view changed substantially over his career in politics, that is clearly evident by a study of his speeches over time.

So...that being acknowledged, do you have a point other than that?

No?

I didn't think so.

 

[midcan5]

There is a interesting line from Soviet radio, 'we cannot predict the future but the past is changing before our eyes.' History is so malleable that each year the past changes to suit an author's present. How do we really know what went through Lincoln's mind, his true self. Look only today at the views of Obama and Romney and surely a future archaeologist would wonder how many Obamas and Romneys there were. The one item that does fascinate me is the argument the war was about states rights. That revision may soothe the soul but it like lots of history seems way off track.

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery.

South Carolina: “The non-slaveholding states ... have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery” and “have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes.”

Mississippi: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union.”

Georgia: “A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

Several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” Lincoln’s election to the White House meant, for South Carolina, that “the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

A few links for the interested reader.

http://www.americanheritage.com/rss/articles/web/20070503-civil-war-chandra-manning-slavery.shtml

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed." WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery

Southern arguments for and against: Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Argument v Lincoln's position http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2...the-debate-over-secessions-constitutionality/
.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

ABE LINCOLN FREED THE SLAVES?
Yeah, right.

Slaves were taking jobs from white people and Abe freed them to release jobs for poor white people.

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
That rather sounds like a white supremacist.

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."
His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union.
WHY DID ABRAHAM LINCOLN FREE THE SLAVES?

You can but, but, but, but, but, bbbbbbbut from now until doomsday but it still doesn't change the fact that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves to the extent they considered themselves free at that time. You can debate his reasons for freeing the slaves from now until you're blue in the face or whether it was his intent to free the slaves from now until you're blue in the face but, it still doesn't change the history that, in fact, he freed the slaves. Your revisionist history in trying to proclaim he didn't free the slaves because he had no intention to free the slaves or, didn't free the slaves because his goal was to save the Union or, didn't free the slaves because this or that but, unfortunately for you, he did free the slaves regardless of any of your excuses in trying to claim he didn't. It certainly wasn't any leftist who freed the slaves.

 

[Moonglow]

Lincolns first plan was to buy the slaves from the southerns and free them.

 

[gipper]

Lincolns first plan was to buy the slaves from the southerns and free them.

Yeah...and then to deport them all back to Africa. The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln and the Issue of Race

Lincoln was a fool and a tyrant. He caused tremendous suffering and death.

It is sad that we are taught so many lies about our history.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Lincoln was a tyrant. The issue of slavery was one on its death bed before he wanted to secure suceding states for the "union". The triangle of trade was already in major decline, the rest of the world was already knee deep in social change on slavery and at best, the south would have held slaves for another few decades. As machinery replaced human production measures as the most economically viable.

Only a fool thinks Lincoln was a good president. He was a GREAT president in the eyes of the statists, because he secured power. And statists love nothing more than coercively, and forcefully, displaying/securing power over others.

 

[Katzndogz]

The cotton gin alone freed hundreds of slaves.

 

[ThirdTerm]

When Lincoln took office, he was no abolitionist, a position that was considered radical at the time. Lincoln had campaigned against the expansion of slavery into new states and territories, but he didn't believe the Constitution allowed the federal government to eliminate it outright. Through his first year as president, he stood the same ground, steering a centrist course between slaveholding Southerners and their opponents in the North. In the span of only a few years, though, as war consumed his presidency, Lincoln's views on slavery dramatically shifted. He surprised his own cabinet in 1862 with his plans to issue an emancipation proclamation. And though he still occasionally floated the idea of "colonizing" African-Americans, in the months before he died, Lincoln had not only given slaves their freedom; he'd also begun to promote full equality, including voting rights, for blacks. The turning point came in the summer of 1862, when the border states rejected, once and for all, Lincoln's proposals of gradual emancipation. "He got kind of fed up with the border states," says McPherson. "Clearly, the radical wing of the Republican Party was pushing for this virtually since the beginning of the war. And the longer the war went on, the more plausible their argument seemed: You can't win a war against an enemy that's sustained by and is fighting for slavery without striking against slavery itself."

Abraham Lincoln's Great Awakening: From Moderate to Abolitionist - US News and World Report

 

[paperview]

The cotton gin alone freed hundreds of slaves.

Huh?

You serious?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Here's a nice piece.

The Evil Lincoln
This article was originally published at OpEdNews.com on February 15, 2009

With Abraham Lincoln’s birthday just passed on February 12th the media was replete with praise for him. Unfortunately, this whitewashed view of him is misguided. Rather than being the honest and resolute knight in shining armor that he is made out to be, on closer inspection he turns out to be one of the worst politicians Illinois has produced.

Lincoln the Racist

On this subject his own words condemn him. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottowa, Illinois on August 21, 1858 he said:


I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position;

He repeated the same idea at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858:


I will say then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people...there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.

His idea of what to do with freed blacks was to have them leave the US. He stated so very plainly on August 14, 1862 in "Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men, Washington, D.C."

He was obviously no friend of the black race.

Lincoln the Corporatist

Much is made of a false quote, which I will not repeat here, in which Lincoln warns of the dangers corporations pose to the country. Our friends at Snopes debunk it.

Lincoln was the Illinois Central Railroad Company’s lawyer right up to his taking office as president. His whole career in politics revolved around serving the northern industrialists' and bankers’ interests. From the beginning of his time in the Illinois legislature he lined the railroad companies pockets with taxpayer money. The details can be read here and here.

Lincoln the Mass Murderer

The question then comes up of why did Lincoln wage the Civil War? It wasn’t to end slavery, he said so himself, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...". So, he wanted to preserve the Union. To many that may seem a lofty goal, but is it?

A clause allowing the use of force against states by the federal government was deliberately left out of the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention James Madison opposed it:


Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Since the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from seceding and it also doesn’t empower the federal government to stop them from doing so, it would seem that given the 10th Amendment states can secede.

Secession was not unheard of in Lincoln’s time. There had already been secessionist movements in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. They considered that they had such a right. So why not the South?

Ultimately, Lincoln waged the Civil War to keep the South as a captive market and as taxpayers to loot. The North’s intentions were obvious starting with the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations". That and Lincoln’s history of subsidizing his corporate buddies with taxpayer money gave the South every reason to fear being ravaged by the new Republican administration.

Slavery was an issue too, of course. While Lincoln was no abolitionist, the South no doubt saw a threat to that horrible institution in the stronger federal government that the Republicans promised. So while ending slavery was a great thing the loss of one million lives to do so was unnecessary. Slavery was everywhere in retreat, and with few exceptions peacefully so. All of the Northern states had abolished slavery by 1858. Most other countries ended the practice peacefully. There is every reason to think that slavery could have been completely ended here peacefully too.

That is why the title of this section is Lincoln the Mass Murderer. He got all those people killed to stop the South from doing what they had a right to do, secede from the Union. He was not interested in ending slavery as the mythology about him says.

It is important to understand the true meaning of Lincoln’s presidency. He marked the end of the republic of the Founders. After the Civil War no longer was "the consent of the governed", to quote the Declaration of Independence, necessary. As the abolitionist Lysander Spooner put it in 1867 in No Treason:


The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Let’s remember Lincoln for what he really did, destroy the republic and one million lives in the process.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I hope not, because the cotton gin actually raised demand for slaves.