Negative… Next myth..
Posted on 09/13/2025 1:03:13 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
To ponder such a scenario is to delve into the realm of historical conjecture. However, by examining the political landscape of the time and Lincoln's own aspirations, it is possible to glean insight into what might have transpired had his life not been cut short by events.
Firstly, it's essential to consider Lincoln's vision for post-Civil War America. He was deeply committed to the principles of reconciliation and reconstruction, aiming to heal the nation's wounds and forge a path towards unity. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln sought to reintegrate the Southern states into the Union with leniency and compassion, prioritizing national healing over punitive measures.
Had Lincoln survived, it's plausible that his approach to reconstruction would have been markedly different from that of his successor, Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's conciliatory stance toward the South may have led to a smoother and more inclusive reconstruction process, potentially mitigating some of the deep-seated animosities that lingered in the aftermath of the war and potentially still do today.
Moreover, Lincoln's leadership style and political acumen would likely have played a pivotal role in shaping the post-Civil War era. His ability to navigate complex political terrain and build consensus across ideological divides could have paved the way for a more stable and harmonious transition from war to peace.
One of the most intriguing questions surrounding a hypothetical continuation of Lincoln's presidency is its impact on the trajectory of race relations in America. As a staunch advocate for the abolition of slavery, Lincoln recognized the need for fundamental changes in the status of African Americans in society. While his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 marked a significant step forward, Lincoln understood that true equality would require sustained effort and political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at historyisnowmagazine.com ...
Professor DiogenesLamp, do you understand what the words Exports, and Revenues mean. Apparently, you don’t.
This is exactly correct. The primary driving force against slavery was a hatred of slave labor by wage earners, and a close second was a hatred and prejudice against blacks in general.
They wanted blacks *OUT* of their society. They wanted a white only nation.
The people who worried about the people being forced to work against their will was a teeny tiny minority.
The actual abolitionists, meaning those actually concerned with the well being of slaves, were considered a fringe nut-group at the time.
The vast majority of the North was motivated by a hate fest against "scabs" (someone who works cheaper than they do) and blacks.
Pure hard left 1619 project propaganda.
No, he's pointing out that the abolitionists were the only group that wasn't comparable to Hitler's anti-semitists.
The vast majority of the North was virulently anti-black and anti-cheap wages.
As the war against the South progressed, the people who just hated blacks and cheap labor in general, slowly started pretending to express concern for slaves, because the Overton window was shifting in that directions. It was becoming fashionable to pretend to care about the blacks.
But make no mistake. They didn't really care about slaves, they just wanted to be seen as "good" people. They were "virtue signaling".
The reality was they still hated blacks after war and did not want them in their communities.
Pretty much expressing the exact same attitude Northern liberals still express today.
Blacks are a useful political tool to gain power, but beyond that, they don't want them around.
I'm not surprised. Nobody wants to believe they have been fed a lie all their lives, and that people who they thought were heroes were really the bad guys.
I cannot show you all the proof i've found which demonstrates the North *HATED* blacks.
And you wouldn't want to read it anyways.
But if you ever feel like taking a peek outside your comfort zone, read up on the Illinois "black codes."
It will prove everything I said is true.
947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in VirginiaWhereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government, by which said laws additional duties, amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force; and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.
Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.
But the actual number is about 50% if we look at just Confederate cotton states, cotton generated about 50% of US exports in 1860.To which DiogenesLamp replied
So okay. We've once again got BroJoeK to admit the Southern states produced * 50% * of the revenue for the Federal government. In the past, i've seen him admit it was as high as 60%. So Ditto, since this is coming from the guy who absolutely does not want to admit the South (1/4th of the citizenry) was producing more taxes than the other 3/4ths of the Nation, you can accept what BroJoeK says on this particular point to be mostly true.
To which I reply…
DiogenesLamp is a moron. He thinks the US government collected taxes on Exports. They did not. The South could have sold as much cotton to Europe as they wanted and never pay any taxes. The US Government only taxed Imports to the US, not Exports from the US.
DiogenesLamp does not understand the difference between imports and exports. Maybe when he figures that out he will dump his Lost Cause mythology.
And the people who kept them in chains and sold them like cattle loved them?
All I know is that after the Confederates were defeated, there was no more chattel slavery.
“They’re out there,” as a radio host would say when somebody looney called up. If you were living in Maine or Vermont in the 1850s, it wouldn’t be hard for you to become convinced that slavery was morally wrong. It was a faraway problem and you assumed that what happened after slavery wouldn’t affect you. You wouldn’t have to believe in segregation or expulsion or elimination. If you did believe that blacks and whites couldn’t live together, you’d be more inclined to support slavery as an alternative to race war or genocide.
In other parts of the North, blacks and whites were more likely to be currently or potentially in competition and whites were more likely to fear an influx of free black competitors, but even there, the more whites feared or hated African-Americans, the more likely they were to oppose abolitionists.
Further west, closer to the frontier, nobody was going to say that the territories ought to be egalitarian, multiracial communities. You either were for slavery in the territories or you wanted them to be reserved (primarily) for free white settlement. Among those who believed in the latter option, some believed that free blacks should be rigorously excluded, but others allowed more leeway in the matter. It was hard to get elected if you said that publicly in what was then the West.
A victim implies an attacker. Oh, wait...
947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia
Can you cut to the chase? TLDR.
Stop trying to use that misdirection. You talk about "moron", do you have any idea how "trade" works?
You give them something, they give you something of equal value for the thing you gave them. Get it?
Imports and exports are directly proportional.
And don't start your other dodge about "specie." Nobody buys with specie if they can help it. "Specie" is just a temporary solution to a trade deficit.
"Trade" is the normal state of affairs.
The US Government only taxed Imports to the US, not Exports from the US.
Which were purchased by exports. Same money.
DiogenesLamp does not understand the difference between imports and exports.
I understand *YOU* want to pretend they are different, but the fact is, money produced by exports is used to *BUY* imports. Without the one, you don't get the other.
There is no "hocus pocus" magic trick which separates export value from import value.
You do not justify the evil you do by pointing out someone else was evil too.
This is a fallacy that is so old it even has a Latin name.
"Argumentum ad tu quoque."
All I know is that after the Confederates were defeated, there was no more chattel slavery.
Not correct. Slavery continued in the Northern states for another 6 months after it ceased in the Southern states.
All the South had to do to keep slavery was stay in the Union.
That's not true. Did you ever hear of a trade deficit? Probably not with your cartoon notion of finance. But even if it were true that imports = exports, how in the hell do you see the South paying 72% of Federal revenues. They didn't but I don't see how you (or the propagandists who torched your brain) came up with that fantasy.
Those evil nasty Northern states. It would have been so much better if the Confederates had won so slavery could be everywhere. < / sarcasm >
What was the trade deficit in 1860?
If you want to bring it up, I expect you to have your facts straight about it rather than just popping off at the mouth.
And how does a trade deficit get paid down? "Trade."
They were no more evil and nasty than the Southern ones, just more hypocritical.
It would have been so much better if the Confederates had won so slavery could be everywhere.
Of if they just hadn't fought for independence, because we would still have Union controlled slavery everywhere, and we would also have a constitutional amendment (Corwin Amendment) which guarantees every state the right to have slavery.
You didn't want to believe it, but you were slowly moving into that direction.
You are totally delusional.
Negative… Next myth..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.