He was still a racist in that he believed that White people were inherently superior. Don't take it so hard, nearly everybody was back in those days. Had to be. Half the country owned slaves, so to protect the national conscience we had to convince ourselves that their inferiority was mostly to blame for their status as slaves. He was an abolitionist, which was pretty liberal at the time.
Respectfully, I don't recall ever reading anything that historically validates Lincoln being an abolitionist.
A true abolitionist would have believed in the immediate end to the practice of slavery in ALL states.
Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the union. Slaves in select states were freed by default in his accomplishing that objective.
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
.
Having admitted what you did, you must now accept the reality that the primary goal of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment was not about slavery, but about the creation of two classes of citizenship:
14th Amendment citizens
Preamble Citizens
Stage 2 of this elaborate and well thought out scheme was to place everyone under the purview of the 14th Amendment, negating all of your
unalienable Rights and making them government created rights (which are actually privileges) which turned ALL of us into slaves.
Supreme Law Library : Resources : Two Classes
Unalienable rights can't be negated.
In theory, you would be right;
However, it did not work out that way. Let me prove it to you by way of a Second Amendment analogy:
“
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
“
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Now watch:
"
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Second Amendment WAS an
unalienable Right. Of this Right, the United States Supreme Court ruled in its earliest ruling:
"
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
The Right to keep and bear Arms exists. It just wasn't granted by the Constitution. It was admitted in the Heller decision. Here are the exact words:
"
It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right..."
From where did the right to keep and bear Arms come from? It is an extension of your Right to Life. And how did the government justify negating the Second Amendment?
Unalienable Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment.