Replies

You mean EXCEPT for the colonization department he instituted in the department of interior to DEPORT them to central america, africa and asia (i.e. ANYWHERE but the U.S.)???

None of which shows an intent to forcibly deport.

As for Lincoln's racist statements, I don't deny them. But I'll also say that his views evolved and in one of his last speeches he talked about giving freed slaves the vote. John Wilkes Booth, hearing that speech, decided to kill him.

The "big deal" was pointing out that the emancipation wasn't about "freeing" anyone as you've stressed about a dozen times here and just won't let go. They weren't to become citizens - the act was an attempt to weaken the South's economy (since they were winning the war at the time) while trying to gain international favor (which was also leaning towards the south).

How, then, do you explain Lincoln's abolition of slavery in DC in 1862 and his support for the 13th Amendment? As for the south winning the war in January, 1863, it's hard to see how. They'd lost bloodily at Antietam, the confederate invasion of Kentucky had been turned back, New Orleans was in US hands, the Vicksburg Campaign was underway and the blockade was strangling them. And foreign recognition of the confederacy was never as imminent as some would have you believe. So exactly what was going the south's way?

Doesn't it get old being wrong all the time?

Pretty rich coming from you.

None of which shows an intent to forcibly deport.

How were they to be shipped all across the globe in your pretty world? Smiles and "pretty pleases"? They were aliens to the country, so they'd be DEPORTED under that plan. And definition #1 of deport would be...(drumroll)...

deport [dɪˈpɔːt]
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to remove (an alien) forcibly from a country; expel

Wouldn't need $600,000 in 1860s dollars if they were just gonna ask nicely. (And no, before you make something up, they didn't have a fleet of cushioned cruise ships waiting that they bought with that money.)

How, then, do you explain Lincoln's abolition of slavery in DC in 1862 and his support for the 13th Amendment?

How then do you explain his support of the FIRST 13th amendment TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR (i.e. before he waged war), or clarifying AFTER that his only intent of war was to restore the union (with slaves, without, or anywhere in between)? It's called he was as much a two-faced, lying, political scum as any dictator is by nature. Fortunately they all also have swarms of uninformed "useful idiots" (to use Stalin's term) to prop up their PR.

Lincoln sat on the E.P. for over a year because the North was losing nearly every battle and didn't want it to look like a move of desperation. Antietam was the battle that gave him a window to issue it while the PR team cheered that Lee withdrew his first attack on the North, so the war had "turned" in a day (even though the Union once again had many more casualties and dead). Ironically, Lincoln regretted it immediately after and told his cabinet he thought it was his biggest blunders.

And foreign recognition of the confederacy was never as imminent as some would have you believe.

"Foreign relations" existed immediately after secession as British and French envoys met with many Confederates. The British were prepared to test nationhood recognition after Manassas, but pulled it shortly after Antietam for fear they'd be on the wrong side and cripple their trade. But I'm sure that's NOWHERE "as imminent as some would have you believe."

Pretty rich coming from you.SHOOT! It's the "I know you are but what am I" defense...the one argument I haven't found a counter for ever since grade school! You might as well put a period to the end of this debate.