2
57

[–] C_IsForCookie 2 points 57 points (+59|-2) ago 

Because he was trying to resolve slavery? Because he was trying to prevent hostility between blacks and whites? Both?

Or was it because he didn't want colored folk 'round these parts?

Sounds like the former to me. I don't think he had malicious intentions.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
5

[–] flyawayhigh 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Did we all read the same paragraph? It is clear from that paragraph that Lincoln was a strong and vigorous supporter of the rights of black people. His rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric.

2
11

[–] rererert 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 

Yeah, a lot of people say Lincoln was a racist by the standards of today, but I'm not so sure, I think it's likely that he occasionally put up a racist front because he lived in a time where a person that advocated total equality wouldn't get elected.

1
25

[–] Fullmetal 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

Every person is a product of their time.

0
9

[–] Tipman79 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

a lot of people say Lincoln was a racist by the standards of today,

Sure, but by the "standards of today", virtually every single person that lived in the US back then was racist. Hell, the way "the standards of today" are going, it's not long before that's true again.

0
0

[–] Ahabandthewhitegrail 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Lincoln experimented to see if blacks were capable of surviving without "white care." He dumped blacks on anan island with limited food and no shelter, and when they died, he concluded they needed assistance.

He was deeply bigoted, freed very few slaves, and had he not died, slaves in the south would still be slaves for longer than they were.

In his private memoirs, he talks of leaving the institution of slavery intact in order to more quickly integrate the southern states back into the union.

In short, he wasn't the progressive hero you wish him to be.

0
0

[–] C_IsForCookie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's "funny"... back then you had to lie about having the people's best interests at heart in order to implement positive change. Today you have to lie about having the people's best interests at heart in order to fatten your wallet.

0
2

[–] robotATTACK 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

My understanding is that his opinion evolved with time. When he was a young man, he was an ardent racist. As time (and the war) moved on, he came to sympathize with the newly freed slaves. He may have never believed in true equality, but he came to support equality under the law.

0
2

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because it was a logical decision, resource and culturally. It would have actually been a pretty cruel fate, as just dumping people in Africa is basically mass execution. It's not like they would have just rekindled with their long lost family. In fact, these people were put on slave shapes by guess what... African slave traders. They would have just be rounded up again and sold to someone else.

5
22

[–] kirkis 5 points 22 points (+27|-5) ago 

I have to thank my 8th grade teacher. She had a very honest outlook on US history, even if nobody appreciated it at the time. But Lincoln would have rather kept slavery, but abolishing slavery was the only way he could justify America's most bloody war.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] diggy 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

As an American, I'm going to blame our primary and secondary school history text books which gradually have become less and less a retelling of past events that have occurred and more a patriotic caricature of the events and people in our history.

I don't think the average college level history book is near as bad though as those courses allow a greater focus on the ambiguity of what happened and look at multiple sources.

Edit: I wanted to add that growing up in Illinois I had the unique opportunity to read a lot of civil war literature. Illinois was a unique state during the war in that we were split down the middle. (Northern Illinois fought for the north, southern Illinois fought for the south) Partially due to this, my Literature teachers often chose civil war books, essays, and short stories for us to read since many of these were written in our state.

The essay that I'm being strongly reminded of today is this one written by a former state Senator about Abraham Lincoln in 2005.

This passage particularly stood out

As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn't immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

Now it is possible that I, my teacher and the entire class misunderstood what was written, but I don't think that is the case.

0
1

[–] eulogyjones 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A lot of people also don't realize that almost nobody liked Lincoln. Even his constituents disliked him. Most of the hatred towards him stemmed from his goal of uniting the country which he knew was the only way we would last as a nation.

0
0

[–] EllenPaosEgo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You are right, I don't know why you are getting downvoted "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 save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

1
21

[–] Spiral_Out 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago  (edited ago)

As Thomas DiLorenzo and a number of non-court historians have conclusively established, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863 when opposition in the North to the war was rising despite Lincoln’s police state measures to silence opponents and newspapers. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln’s war powers. The proclamation provided for the emancipated slaves to be enrolled in the Union army replenishing its losses. It was also hoped that the proclamation would spread slave revolts in the South while southern white men were away at war and draw soldiers away from the fronts in order to protect their women and children. The intent was to hasten the defeat of the South before political opposition to Lincoln in the North grew stronger.

As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes: “Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the ‘one-percenters’ of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all.”

Lincoln was a man of empire. As soon as the South was conquered, ravaged, and looted, his collection of war criminal generals, such as Sherman and Sheridan, set about exterminating the Plains Indians in one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. Even today Israeli Zionists point to Washington’s extermination of the Plains Indians as the model for Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs and northern economic imperialism. The North was protectionist. The South was free trade. The North wanted to finance its economic development by forcing the South to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. The North passed the Morrill Tariff which more than doubled the tariff rate to 32.6% and provided for a further hike to 47%. The tariff diverted the South’s profits on its agricultural exports to the coffers of Northern industrialists and manufacturers. The tariff was designed to redirect the South’s expenditures on manufactured goods from England to the higher cost goods produced in the North.

This is why the South left the union, a right of self-determination under the Constitution.

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

The so-called Civil War was not a civil war. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of the government. The South was not fighting for control of the federal government. The South seceded and the North refused to let the South go.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/

0
1

[–] whisky_cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wow, excellent reference. Somewhere around a decade ago in college I read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. If I recall correctly, after the emancipation proclamation was signed, Lincoln wrote a letter to plantation Owners in the South, indicating their was not intention to change business as it was, but rather preserve the Union.

Even if/when the slaves would become "free", slave Owners had all the right to continue business as usual.

3
-1

[–] IShouldNotTalk 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

The South attempted unilateral secession due to the attempt to block the expansion of slavery into the newly formed western territories and states. The Southern economy was primarily based on the slave driven plantations, and they feared that if the newly formed states were not slave states they would add to the growing list of pro abolitionist congressional representatives and Senators. You are correct in asserting the war wasn't started to end slavery, it was started by rebel forces in South Carolina attacking Fort Sumter, and was continued to prevent the dissolution of the Union. The right of self determination of states to unilaterally secede isn't a Constitutional right, and it was clarified further in Texas v. White, when Texas attempted to sue the U.S government for the illegal sales of bonds by the Confederacy, which established that they legally recognized the rebelling states were essentially still part of the United States even if they had been in rebellion and were under military during reconstruction.

0
3

[–] Spiral_Out 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I would consider the "start of the war" to be a financial factor (like the economic hitmen of our current times, or the British taxing the settlers), not just some response (Fort Sumter attack) from their lively hood being taken away from them. It's silly to assume that a single attack is the starting point of any war.

8
15

[–] pm_me_firearms 8 points 15 points (+23|-8) ago 

He also suspended Habeus Corpus.

Dude was a dictator, not a good president.

4
6

[–] jackofdiamonds 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

Has there ever been a perfect President? It's really, really hard to balance everything. If he hadn't suspended Habeus Corpus, we might remember him as the dillweed who lost the Civil War and the reason slavery existed until about 1970 in the Confederate States of America.

0
0

[–] Fuhrer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So I've heard, but was he a good dictator?

0
12

[–] PorchMonkey [S] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Since the 1840s Lincoln had been an advocate of the American Colonization Society program of colonizing blacks in Liberia. In an October 16, 1854,[17]:a speech at Peoria, Illinois[18] (transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself),[17]:b Lincoln points out the immense difficulties of such a task are an obstacle to finding an easy way to quickly end slavery.[17]:c [19]

If all earthly power were given to me [...] my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.[20][21] According to historian Paul Escott, Lincoln thus favored a system of gradual emancipation that would allow for controlled management of free Negroes.[21]

And from: http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery. For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).

Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

0
8

[–] swfreak 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I think that would be for the better actually. The blacks would return to their countries of origin, and the US wouldn't have the massive seemingly unsolveable problems with black white race relations they have now.

2
0

[–] PorchMonkey [S] 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Petition: https://www.change.org/p/african-governments-please-give-asylum-to-african-americans :)

Ever wonder what the US murder rate would look like if the entire population was black? Or if it was white? https://i.imgur.com/WF7RkWU.png

Ever wonder what would happen if Blacks went back to Africa? http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/iblab.png

2
3

[–] swfreak 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Well, it's too late now. If the black populations problems is due to a hereditary low IQ, these problems will be unsolvable for the immediate future. It's a fact blacks have lower IQ than any other race, but it's not definitive if it's genetic or some other factor at play as far as I know.

This is partly why the US is fucked as a country. The bigger the dividing lines between income and race becomes, the worse it will become, and apologist power hungry lefties will exploit the confusion to further their own anti white and anti western agenda. The blacks are a powerful voting block that can shift the policies of the whole country. Welfare goes disproportionately to blacks.

So what is the realistic solution to the problem? Demographically whites are losing, so that's not going to save us.

2
0

[–] KindOfSilly 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Why couldn't both whites and black would go back and leave to native in peace?

0
5

[–] sumguy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

As someone who grew up a couple miles from a Rez, and who later lived and worked on several different providing health care.... the Native Americans of today are ill-equipped to care for their own well being even WITH free support from all fronts. If left alone/given no aid, they would all die. Ok, not all... some tribes seem to have gotten their shit together, but they're the minority.. the exception.

What do you expect when a community will ostracize a person for seeking education? Indian slang for going to college, is to be an Apple... red on the outside, white on the inside.. there is nothing worse than to be an apple.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] PorchMonkey [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Which makes the submission less true?

0
3

[–] lutinopat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

See also: Liberia

load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)