Posted on 11/19/2017 6:23:02 AM PST by iowamark
Lincoln's presidency was shaped by the Southern rebellion, which was motivated by slavery. Had the South not rebelled there is little doubt that Lincoln and Congress would have worked to contain slavery where it existed and prevent its expansion. Either way, slavery would have been a large part of his presidency.
With information pulled primarily from his posterior.
When I was growing up we had one car in my father's name. So strictly speaking only 25% of the family owned a car but 100% drew benefit from it.
Likewise with slavery. Only 15% of Georgians may have owned slaves but add their wives to the equation and about 30% of the population benefited from those slaves. Add children and possibly half the people directly benefited from slavery.
They were fighting for states rights and to repel an invading military force.
State's right to do what?
Lincoln didn’t give a rats azz about slavery until the war was not going well...
Debatable, but one cannot deny that the South certainly gave a rat's azz about slavery from day one.
Before they rebelled the South was over-represented in that government.
The United States Census for 1860 put the percentage of slave-holding families for Georgia at 37%
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
I paid for a purchase at the Confederate Museum and Library in Greenville, SC with a $5 bill. The clerk promptly turned it upside down, stating they always did so there.
I replied that, “He was a great writer, though”, to which the clerk replied, “Ah, his secretaries did that”, smiling and letting me know with his look that that was just a throw away line.
HA! HA! Looks like I got all the Confederate trolls panties in a wad today. My job is done. LOL!
A few of his remarks re; blacks:
Lincoln said: There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...
2. On shipping blacks back to Africa:
Lincoln said: In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."
3. On outlawing slavery in the south (before the rebellion).
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 lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
4. On equality:
Lincoln said:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
5. On inter-racial marriage:
Lincoln said:
Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.
Single-handedly the stupidest, most asinine comment I've read on this board in a month of Sunday's. Congrats
Liberals would have his name and statues torn down if they could.
Like all the other countries of the world in the nineteenth century that ended slavery (including the British and Spanish empires, the French, Danes, Swedes, Dutch, and others), we could have done so peacefully and in a relatively short amount of time.
Instead, Lincoln was responsible for murdering some 350,000 fellow Americans in the 1860s, the equivalent of 3.5 million deaths today. Lincoln covered up his war crimes with a masterful use of religious rhetoric; his modern-day excuse makers are doing the same.
Actually only half of those people were fighting on the side that would eventually get rid of slavery. The other half were supporting a rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States, which was trying to set up a society that would be founded on the principle that all men are NOT created equal.
The responsibility and the blame lies squarely on the backs of the thieving bastards that started the whole affair - the southern slavers. May they rot in hell.
How?
History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force — “sell to us at our price or pay a fine that’ll put you out of business” — for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That’s what a tariff’s all about. In support of this “noble principle”, when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln caused an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country’s foreign wars — before or afterward — rolled into one.
Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent — indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims — and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south — where he had no effective jurisdiction — while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he’d have done that, instead.
Your “history” is pure revisionism.
Yeah, Southern revisionism not withstanding you completely ignored my question. Your claim was that slavery could have been ended peacefully and in a short period of time. I wanted to know how. That’s what I was looking for, not a dump of the usual Lost Cause “Lincoln was the devil incarnate” crap. How about it?
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.