-- and those who don't. Abe Lincoln did, the Confederates didn't.
You're so full of BS it's comical.
Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:
"I will say, then, that 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 -- that 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 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 the 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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]:
"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
"...but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack."
Your post is just more "Abe Lincoln was the anti-Christ and the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery" drivel from a neo-Confederate LOSer.
Let's take this pari passu, shall we?
1. In 150 Years of Irish Immigration to the United States, some 4 Million Irishmen came (more or less legally) to the United States.
2. Most of them spoke English, were members of a Christian sect (although a somewhat unpopular group), were familiar (all too) with Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and mores.
3. More Mexicans have entered the US illegally in the last 5 years than all the legal Irish, Poles, and Eastern European Jewish immigrants combined. And as Pat Buchanan, that horrible racist, has pointed out, "there are many Mexicos."
When the US assimilated 5 Million Legal Italian Immigrants over a 50 year period, the ballot was not printed in their language ... indeed one could not vote without passing a rudimentary English test. Today, in LA alone, there are 5 Million people who do not speak English, and whose children (American Citizens) go to school in Spanish.
The point is, Buchanan Bashers, the numbers of Third World immigrants are of an entirely different magnitude ... say 20-1 ... over what the country assimilated with European immigration.
Most American families today have relatives by blood and marriage who have Irish, German, English, Polish, Italian, Russian, and even Jewish antecedents. How is this level of assimilation supposed to occur if the population base suddenly becomes 60% hispanic?
Buchanan is not saying this is a bad thing. Or a good thing. It is merely a true thing.