Thinking Back To Abraham Lincoln

[mikegriffith1]

He wasn’t moderate at all. He was a passionate racist even in his time.

Yes, he was moderate, even progressive, for his day. Compare his views on race to those of Alexander Stephens, Robert Barnwell Rhett, John C. Calhoun, John Wilkes Booth, etc., etc.

He did see slavery as unfair, but had no intention of ever ending it.

How can you say this given his actions during the war? Even before the war, he ardently opposed the expansion of slavery in the hope that it would die off if not allowed to expand.

He sold his wife’s slaves to earn a nice profit.

George Washington owned slaves and sold some of his slaves, yet he detested slavery and intended to move to the North if the North and the South separated. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and carried ads for slave sales in his newspaper, yet he denounced slavery. James Madison owned slaves, yet he supported gradual emancipation.

So, if you want to excoriate Lincoln for selling his wife's family's slaves and ignore all he did to end slavery, that's shaky ground.

As you must know, the Emancipation Proclamation was a deceptive political move.

No, it was not. This is long-debunked Confederate/Lost Cause propaganda, propaganda that, ironically enough, black radicals have resurrected.

Ultimately he did end slavery and deserves credit for that, but at what cost?

"At what cost"??? Whatever the cost, you can blame it on stubborn plantation owners who refused every offer or proposal for gradual, compensated emancipation. When Lincoln tried to get slaveholders in the Union slave-holding states to agree to compensated emancipation, they refused.

When Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, to their great credit, began to push for emancipation for Confederate slaves in exchange for military service in late 1864, many planters accused Davis and Lee of treason.

 

[Libby von H]

You're the racist who just argued that Black people who disagree with Frederick Douglass aren't real Blacks. At least my insults don't come with any pretense of being anything but.

Also I don't care about Lincoln's moves to hold off abolitionists. I didn't even mention them. I simply referenced his own stated views on the inferiority of black people. Here's what he wrote in a Chicago paper in 1858.

I am not, nor ever have 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 ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.​

Then let me be clear YOU ARE NOT A REAL BLACK
There , can you understand that

 

[gipper]

Yes, he was moderate, even progressive, for his day. Compare his views on race to those of Alexander Stephens, Robert Barnwell Rhett, John C. Calhoun, John Wilkes Booth, etc., etc.


How can you say this given his actions during the war? Even before the war, he ardently opposed the expansion of slavery in the hope that it would die off if not allowed to expand.



George Washington owned slaves and sold some of his slaves, yet he detested slavery and intended to move to the North if the North and the South separated. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and carried ads for slave sales in his newspaper, yet he denounced slavery. James Madison owned slaves, yet he supported gradual emancipation.

So, if you want to excoriate Lincoln for selling his wife's family's slaves and ignore all he did to end slavery, that's shaky ground.


No, it was not. This is long-debunked Confederate/Lost Cause propaganda, propaganda that, ironically enough, black radicals have resurrected.


"At what cost"??? Whatever the cost, you can blame it on stubborn plantation owners who refused every offer or proposal for gradual, compensated emancipation. When Lincoln tried to get slaveholders in the Union slave-holding states to agree to compensated emancipation, they refused.

He opposed slavery in the territories because he didn’t want blacks taking jobs from whites.

You are the one claiming Abe opposed slavery, yet he sold slaves. Why didn’t he free his wife’s slaves?

You claim to be an historian, yet you fall for the Lincoln Cult. Haven’t you read his numerous racist statements and desire to keep slavery forever?

Apparently you think the USA unable to end slavery without violence, yet the entire western hemisphere managed to do it. Why do you think this way?

 

[Curried Goats]

Then let me be clear YOU ARE NOT A REAL BLACK
There , can you understand that

Sure. Do you also imagine you're the person who gets to decide that?

 

[Lesh]

What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

A damn good first step.

It only freed slaves in captured Confederate territory

 

[gipper]

A damn good first step.

It only freed slaves in captured Confederate territory

No it did not. Border states were exempted. It was a deceptive move but typical of dishonest Abe.

 

[Lesh]

No it did not. Border states were exempted. It was a deceptive move but typical of dishonest Abe.

All persons held as slaves within the rebellious states

 

[Libby von H]

No shit. The conclusion being that the vast vast majority of white America and white American culture is deeply racist. You're not arguing against that conclusion so much as you seem to be trying to get me to excuse it.

False,and self-contradicting. You can see in the letters of John and Abigail Adams that the woman part is wrong.
As to Indians, many Indians feared other Indians as 'inhuman'. Blacks ,well that's your bigotry again. Lincoln won because most whites did see then as equally human while not wanting a mixing of cultures that even today (and you are a prime example) do not mix

It is a trick of deep racists like yourself to use the 'like' word so as to avoid 'equality' I say you are equal but I do not like you.

 

[gipper]

All persons held as slaves within the rebellious states

Stop posting.

 

[Curried Goats]

False,and self-contradicting. You can see in the letters of John and Abigail Adams that the woman part is wrong.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The woman part is wrong?

As to Indians, many Indians feared other Indians as 'inhuman'. Blacks ,well that's your bigotry again. Lincoln won because most whites did see then as equally human while not wanting a mixing of cultures that even today (and you are a prime example) do not mix

I also don't know what you're trying to say here except for the last part and you couldn't be more wrong. I am a big mix. I'm actually Black, Chinese and Indian. And family is an even bigger mix that has Europeans, South Americans and other Caribbean nations. As well as Christians, catholic, muslims, jews, rastafarians, buddhists, and Hindus.

It is a trick of deep racists like yourself to use the 'like' word so as to avoid 'equality' I say you are equal but I do not like you.

I don't like you either.

 

[mikegriffith1]

He opposed slavery in the territories because he didn’t want blacks taking jobs from whites.

No, he opposed slavery in the territories because he wanted to force slavery's death. He hoped that by halting slavery's expansion, it would die a natural death. He explained this many, many times.

You are the one claiming Abe opposed slavery, yet he sold slaves. Why didn’t he free his wife’s slaves?

So do you excoriate James Madison for never freeing his slaves, even though he supported compensated emancipation? Do you excoriate George Washington for not freeing his slaves while he was alive? How about "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Patrick Henry--do you excoriate him too, since he never freed his slaves while he was alive, even though he argued against slavery throughout his life?

You claim to be an historian, yet you fall for the Lincoln Cult.

I am definitely pro-Lincoln, but I do not agree with some of the things he did as President, and I acknowledge that as a young man he was immoral. I think his treatment of General McClellan was unjust and disastrous, but I realize he did it out of ignorance and not malice.

Haven’t you read his numerous racist statements and desire to keep slavery forever?

You find me one authentic source that has Lincoln expressing a desire to keep slavery forever. Let's see it.

Apparently you think the USA unable to end slavery without violence, yet the entire western hemisphere managed to do it. Why do you think this way?

Well, actually, I substantially agree with you on this point. I think the Radical Republicans bear much of the blame for the antebellum sectional tensions and for the Civil War. I think the Crittenden Compromise may well have been a workable solution that would have led to slavery's peaceful demise in a few decades.

 

[gipper]

No, he opposed slavery in the territories because he wanted to force slavery's death. He hoped that by halting slavery's expansion, it would die a natural death. He explained this many, many times.


So do you excoriate James Madison for never freeing his slaves, even though he supported compensated emancipation? Do you excoriate George Washington for not freeing his slaves while he was alive? How about "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Patrick Henry--do you excoriate him too, since he never freed his slaves while he was alive, even though he argued against slavery throughout his life?


I am definitely pro-Lincoln, but I do not agree with some of the things he did as President, and I acknowledge that as a young man he was immoral. I think his treatment of General McClellan was unjust and disastrous, but I realize he did it out of ignorance and not malice.


You find me one authentic source that has Lincoln expressing a desire to keep slavery forever. Let's see it.


Well, actually, I substantially agree with you on this point. I think the Radical Republicans bear much of the blame for the antebellum sectional tensions and for the Civil War. I think the Crittenden Compromise may well have been a workable solution that would have led to slavery's peaceful demise in a few decades.

He wanted to force slavery’s death, yet he was fully prepared to ensconce it into the Constitution if the south agreed not to secede. Have you read his first inaugural speech? I don’t think you’re understanding him clearly.

 

[gipper]

No, he opposed slavery in the territories because he wanted to force slavery's death. He hoped that by halting slavery's expansion, it would die a natural death. He explained this many, many times.


So do you excoriate James Madison for never freeing his slaves, even though he supported compensated emancipation? Do you excoriate George Washington for not freeing his slaves while he was alive? How about "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Patrick Henry--do you excoriate him too, since he never freed his slaves while he was alive, even though he argued against slavery throughout his life?


I am definitely pro-Lincoln, but I do not agree with some of the things he did as President, and I acknowledge that as a young man he was immoral. I think his treatment of General McClellan was unjust and disastrous, but I realize he did it out of ignorance and not malice.


You find me one authentic source that has Lincoln expressing a desire to keep slavery forever. Let's see it.


Well, actually, I substantially agree with you on this point. I think the Radical Republicans bear much of the blame for the antebellum sectional tensions and for the Civil War. I think the Crittenden Compromise may well have been a workable solution that would have led to slavery's peaceful demise in a few decades.

Here is some real history for you…

A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He – and the U.S. Congress – declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

Jim Powell's book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell's book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."


Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.
Lincoln's Greatest Failure (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery) - LewRockwell

 

[gipper]

More real history for you.

DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery, because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers that he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States, and throughout his life Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, had human rights but not political rights.)
Demolishing the Lincoln Myth - LewRockwell

 

[mikegriffith1]

He wanted to force slavery’s death, yet he was fully prepared to ensconce it into the Constitution if the south agreed not to secede. Have you read his first inaugural speech? I don’t think you’re understanding him clearly.

The amendment you're talking about read as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The Deep South states were not satisfied with this amendment because they realized that it in reality it would actually change nothing, since there was no chance that Congress would abolish slavery anytime in the foreseeable future anyway.

Indeed, if the Deep South states had not foolishly withdrawn their Senators from the Senate after the election, the Democrats would have maintained control of the Senate. Also, the Republicans actually lost seats in the House in the 1860 election.

The Deep South's main concern was expanding slavery into the territories. That was the main thing they insisted on in the negotiations that were held in an attempt to resolve the secession crisis. They vainly and backwardly viewed this as a matter of honor and principle.

 

[Libby von H]

Yes, he was moderate, even progressive, for his day. Compare his views on race to those of Alexander Stephens, Robert Barnwell Rhett, John C. Calhoun, John Wilkes Booth, etc., etc.


How can you say this given his actions during the war? Even before the war, he ardently opposed the expansion of slavery in the hope that it would die off if not allowed to expand.



George Washington owned slaves and sold some of his slaves, yet he detested slavery and intended to move to the North if the North and the South separated. Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and carried ads for slave sales in his newspaper, yet he denounced slavery. James Madison owned slaves, yet he supported gradual emancipation.

So, if you want to excoriate Lincoln for selling his wife's family's slaves and ignore all he did to end slavery, that's shaky ground.


No, it was not. This is long-debunked Confederate/Lost Cause propaganda, propaganda that, ironically enough, black radicals have resurrected.


"At what cost"??? Whatever the cost, you can blame it on stubborn plantation owners who refused every offer or proposal for gradual, compensated emancipation. When Lincoln tried to get slaveholders in the Union slave-holding states to agree to compensated emancipation, they refused.

When Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, to their great credit, began to push for emancipation for Confederate slaves in exchange for military service in late 1864, many planters accused Davis and Lee of treason.

No, Lincoln and Washington KNEW that the manumission of slaves simple and immediately would mean the sick ,the aged, those unable to work, the most vulnerable -- they would be liberated. I don't have the quote to hand but Frederick Douglass concurred

 

[Libby von H]

They did open the borders to escaped slaves

The illegal immigrants of their day

Silly man with no education...that was merely the Founders following the BIble
DEUTERONOMY 23:15
New International Version
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.

"In a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review on the influence of European writers on the political literature of the founding, Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought. The Bible, he found, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the most cited secular source. In fact, DEUTERONOMY was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu."

 

[Curried Goats]

No, Lincoln and Washington KNEW that the manumission of slaves simple and immediately would mean the sick ,the aged, those unable to work, the most vulnerable -- they would be liberated. I don't have the quote to hand but Frederick Douglass concurred

Right.... they kept them enslaved out of compassion....

 

[mikegriffith1]

One of the facts that made the Deep South's secession so foolish, hasty, and unreasonable was that the Democrats would have maintained control of the Senate if the Deep South states had stayed in the Union and had not withdrawn their senators.

Another fact is that the Republicans actually lost seats in the House in the 1860 election, so their power in the House would have been reduced from what it was before the election--again, if the Deep South states had stayed in the Union and had not withdrawn their representatives from the House.

Thus, if there had been no secession, any bill to end slavery would have been DOA in the Senate, even assuming such a bill made it out of the House, which would not have been a slam dunk by any means.

Furthermore, Lincoln won the presidency with only 39.9% of the popular vote, so he had no mandate to abolish slavery, legally or illegally. 59.1% of American voters voted for presidential candidates (Douglas, Bell, Breckinridge) who opposed abolitionism and who supported allowing slavery in some or all of the territories.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the facts that made the Deep South's secession so foolish, hasty, and unreasonable was that the Democrats would have maintained control of the Senate if the Deep South states had stayed in the Union and had not withdrawn their senators.

Another fact is that the Republicans actually lost seats in the House in the 1860 election, so their power in the House would have been reduced from what it was before the election--again, if the Deep South states had stayed in the Union and had not withdrawn their representatives from the House.

Thus, if there had been no secession, any bill to end slavery would have been DOA in the Senate, even assuming such a bill made it out of the House, which would not have been a slam dunk by any means.

Furthermore, Lincoln won the presidency with only 39.9% of the popular vote, so he had no mandate to abolish slavery, legally or illegally. 59.1% of American voters had voted for candidates who opposed abolitionism and who supported allowing slavery in some or all of the territories.

If left on its own, Slavery would have been slowly abolished in the next 20-30 years and owners would have been compensated.
But the Southern Hotheads won out and forced secession which ended slavery in four years and gave slaves full citizenship and voting rights