I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
Can you name a single southern leader who suggested that the black man was entitled to the same rights as a white man? One who suggested that the black man was his equal in any way?
But that's not the point of the article nor any of the subsequent replies, is it? The original point was to reply to WhiskyPapa's comment asking for "proof" that Lincoln thought blacks inferior. Alex de Tocqueville wrote that "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State". Free blacks in the North were viewed as competition in the job market, and were called an "inferior caste to whom liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than the slaves" (William Lloyd Garrison, vol. I, pp 253-54).
Reading this thread has been very informative, however--the old saw that "The devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose" comes to mind. No man is wholly good or evil--Lincoln or any other. It is interesting to see the vitriol that the mention of his name stirs up 137 years after his death. The South believed that they had the right to secede. The North did not. Lincoln wanted to keep the Union whole, but in doing so changed that Union beyond recognition. "Consent of the governed" was warped into "consent of the defeated". The question is--was the "Union" a geographical or a philosophical union? I believe that the Union that was in place after the war was simply geographic, and that (obviously) there are still philosophical differences in "CSA apologists" and "DamnYankees" (one word, just like my grandmother used to say it). I appreciate the cogent, non-judgmental posts, particularly the ones that don't rehash the same arguments ad nauseum. Heck, I even enjoy some of the DamnYankee posts (on other topics, anyway....)