Replies

He said it repeatedly. There is no reason to think Lincoln did not mean exactly what he said.

I agree. He meant exactly what he said, and his actions backed what he said about how the nation can't survive being half free and half slaves.

there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.

You are correct. The North had no intention to preserve slavery, so there was no reason to pass it. If they had ever intended to preserve slavery, then they could have passed it anyway.

The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.

No the correct answers are 1858, 1860, and 1864.

Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions

I was speaking tongue in cheek. I guess I needed to put an emoticon or something in there.

hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.

Sure about that? ;)

Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.

Nope. The abolitionists including those in the South don't bear the blame. The voters who elected reps to abolish slavery don't bear the blame. Nor do the states that voted to abolish it with the 13th Amendment.

Yes, I know the Southern states also voted to abolish slavery. That's the whole point you seem to miss. The South that voted to abolish slavery isn't the same South that seceded. My saying "the Confederacy did this" doesn't mean "the South did this". The South had abolitionists, and fighting age white men who crossed the lines to fight against slavery, and everything else. I don't tie the Confederacy and its defense of slavery to the South or to you. Do you?

or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....

Without the market, there would be no human traffickers of any kind. That's my stand whether it was back then, or with human trafficking today

When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

And who is this author that I need to believe this? I mean, besides someone who writes what you want to hear.

Besides, it is well known that desertions started long before the EP due to the losses resulting from incompetence of the Union generals. It didn't just start with the EP.

Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.

I don't agree with any of your points about Lincoln, except that he said a lot of things we would find repugnant today. He said those things to cheering audiences who wanted to hear it, and who he had to deal with. Frederick Douglas understood that. I understand that. You? Nope.

I agree. He meant exactly what he said, and his actions backed what he said about how the nation can't survive being half free and half slaves.

Yet he was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.

You are correct. The North had no intention to preserve slavery, so there was no reason to pass it. If they had ever intended to preserve slavery, then they could have passed it anyway.

I am correct. The North was perfectly willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment in order to get their cash cows the Southern states not to leave. The MONEY is all they were interested in - not abolitionism.

Nope. The correct answer is zero. ZERO Republicans who advocated abolition were elected until late in the war.

There were incredibly few abolitionists North or South prior to late in the war. The Southern states voted to abolish it with the 13th amendment too.

Of course the Southern states voted to abolish slavery by passing the 13th amendment. I haven't missed that at all...and by the way, yes that is the same South that seceded. It was their democratically elected representatives who voted for it. They were not unconstitutionally unseated and the voters in the Southern states not disenfranchised until they voted against passage of the 14th amendment which massively infringed on the rights of the states in favor of the federal government and dictated to sovereign states whom they could and could not elect. There were very few abolitionists in the South or the North until late in the war. It simply did not have much popular support. I don't agree that the CSA was defending slavery. That was not what the Southern states seceded for.

Without the market, there would be no human traffickers of any kind. That's my stand whether it was back then, or with human trafficking today

I blame both the places that allowed slavery which was most of the western hemisphere as well as those who sold the slaves.

And who is this author that I need to believe this? I mean, besides someone who writes what you want to hear.

Leftist history prof at Princeton and author. He is one of the chief PC Revisionists who pushed the "all about slavery" myth. I cited this quote as a statement against interest. LOL!

Besides, it is well known that desertions started long before the EP due to the losses resulting from incompetence of the Union generals. It didn't just start with the EP.

Its true there had been desertions before but they really spiked after the EP which was not popular with union troops. They were motivated by nationalism - not abolitionism.

I understand he was a man of his time and had opinions that were in many cases in line with the majority. You seem to cling to the fantasy that he didn't really mean what he said even though there is no reason to believe that other than a desire to whitewash several of his more ugly (by our standards) views.