You're viewing a single thread.
Just decontextualized nonsense. I suspect this is a corruption of some idea about lincoln's thoughts about slavery paired with some wholly fabricated victimhood propaganda about the slave states.
For anyone who (like me) had trouble with history: After Kansas elected to be a free state the soon-to-be confederacy saw the writing on the wall for slavery. When the electoral college fucked up with a split vote between 4 candidates lincoln (an abolitionist) came out on top after several vote rounds as he was the closest to start. Instead of taking the political L peacefully the pro-slavery faction decided to kill as many people as possible and got wrecked.
After Kansas elected to be a free state the soon-to-be confederacy saw the writing on the wall for slavery.
Yes but the writing on the wall for slavery probably would have looked like a gradual process of reforms that slowly chipped away at enslaver power.
It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.
It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.
Technically, they are still dominating our political system through minority rule.
It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.
Is it fair to say Virginia's dominance of the American political system? Granted, it takes two to tango but Virginia was in the driver's seat for many decades leading up to and following ratification of the Constitution.
The war was absolutely about slavery. The sad thing is most of the people who died didn't have a hole to piss in. A rich man's war fought by poor men.
The sad thing is most of the people who died didn't have a hole to piss in. A rich man's war fought by poor men.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a war where this wasn't the case.
Quite a few revolutions but that's it.
Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and made express remarks to the contrary during his campaign.
"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 ... 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 intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Taking any statement as representative of a person without full context is shady at best.
Stephen Douglas had just accused him of being an abolitionist. He was listing all the "extreme" views radical abolitionists held that go beyond just the end of slavery. He was maintaining the Republican Party stance of halting the expansion of slavery without directly supporting equality.
Its the same as a modern liberal getting called a socialist because they hold one view that lines up with socialism, then replying with a laundry list of very-socialist things they don't support.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it 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 save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.
See our present condition--the country engaged in war!--our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war would not have an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.You either were, or you weren’t an abolitionist. Abolition itself was radical. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, by his own admission. He did not desire to free the slaves, and he didn’t even believe them to be capable of reason and intelligence until he interacted with actual abolitionists like Frederick Douglass during the civil war and saw freed slaves in action against the south.
I don’t have interest in prolonged discussion today, but I would like to point you to Wikipedia’s surprisingly good article on Abraham Lincoln and slavery.