Here is a very interesting fact

Did you ever thank the founders for allowing slavery to exist so many people could die?

 

What are you basing that claim on?

 

Reading writings from the time period. Hell, we had clergy all over the South defending slavery as a religious issue and part of the "natural order". Plus there was the fact that roughly one third of every person in the South was part of a slave-owning household, whether or not they were the head of that household. The idea that the only people who cared about slavery in the South were the slave owners is complete nonsense.

 

The 'writings from the time period' that I've read indicate that non-slaveowners in the south saw slavery as none of their business, and didn't really care either way- they didn't want to own slaves, but they didn't care that others did either. It was similar in the north, with the exception that many northerners saw southern slaveowners as a conspiracy of corrupt elites using their slaves as an economic weapon to unfairly influence political power. To be frank, the general consensus I've seen indicated most people -north and south- saw blacks as inferior and wanted nothing to do with them, with the most noteworthy exception being the wealthy minority that wanted to enslave them. Most other people on both sides would prefer there simply not be any black people. Racism was, quite simply, the norm for most everyone.

It is true that many southern churches preached slavery, but thats because of money- tithes from rich slaveowners. Just like today how they preach 'pay your taxes and obey the govt' so they can keep their 501c3 status which might as well be a tithe from the govt.

 

Can you cite them, then? What writings from the time period have you been reading?

Again, what writings are you reading?

Yes. Racism was the norm. But plenty of those racists (including Lincoln) were anti-slavery. Hell, I'm sure most abolitionists were still racist. Trying to change the subject to just general racism isn't going to work. We were talking about slavery.

 

I'll see if I can find them.

General racism is relevent to the issue of ending slavery, because the goal obviously wasn't to free blacks, but rather end an institution of economic political power that just happened to also necessitate the freeing of blacks.

Lincolns desire to then deport them all was a popular one in the north.

 

Appreciate it.

Again, this just isn't so. People who were racist were still capable of seeing the injustice of the institution. Hell, I'd wager almost every racist I know no is still anti-slavery.

Yes, and he and his party were explicitly anti-slavery, so much so that his election triggered the South to begin seceding in order (in their own words) to protect the institution of slavery.

 

and that was the part I destroyed by showing their "economic independence" was PC for SLAVERY!!!!
Their economy was SLAVE based both in the value of their "property" lost by freeing people from SLAVERY and the increase in the cost of production from their lost "property."

 

Nothing, as you well know, it was a reply to a different moronic post of yours:

 

don't disagree, time for us all to come together as one people, one nation, we can start by removing the Confederate Statues and Flags from State house lawns



also time for a reparations bill, that gives every American $5000, for blacks it's a sorry for slavery, for whites it's a thank you for freeing the slaves from the Confederates

 

Re:

Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense after you've already been shown that Lincoln had absolutely no "inclination" to interfere with slavery anywhere in the US?

If Lincoln was so obsessed with freeing the slaves, why did he wait until well into the war to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?


“Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People”
https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...s-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/4/

EXCERPT “While the previous quotes prove that, politically, Lincoln was not firmly insistent on freeing the slaves of the South, his following quote reveals that he personally did not want to: “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.” CONTINUED

 

Lincoln's plan was for compensated emancipation. He had already made explicitly anti-slavery statements in several debates and had publicly stated that the US could not exist as partially free and partially slave -- that it would have to become wholly one or the other.

In case you forgot, the first state to secede explicitly cited Lincoln's words and his anti-slavery stances in the Declarations of Clauses.

For political reasons. Hell, he had a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already written even when he was telling people he wasn't going to free the slaves in the South. He was waiting for the right time. He had to appeal to both his anti-slavery party and to border states.

As far as "10 racist quotes go," racism and slavery aren't the same thing. Plenty of people who opposed slavery were still racist. As far as your excerpt goes, this is from Lincoln's inaugural address . . . after slave states (their preferred term for themselves) had already seceded in order to preserve slavery (again, by their own account).

Lincoln had made plenty of anti-slavery statements before this point. The slave states cited those statements when seceding, calling his party the "Black Republicans" and accusing both him and his party of being radical abolitions. Lincoln tempered his language after secession in order to prevent further secession and appeal to the border states.

Again, even when he made this statement, Lincoln had plans for compensated emancipation. That was his approach for a lawful method.

 

@Grau

In anticipation of other semantic games: Lincoln's initial position was that he did not have the Constitutional authority to simply end slavery with a pen stroke. Does that mean that he wasn't anti-slavery? No. His plan, from the beginning, was to halt the spread of slavery and to take care of existing slavery through compensated emancipation. Thank of it as a mandatory slave buy-back program.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South" - Lincoln

Again, this speech terrified the slave states so much that it was directly cited as a cause for secession in South Carolina's Declarations of Causes.

Lincoln's repeated belief that blacks had the same rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as whites also lead to widespread panic in the South.

 

This nonsense is a perfect example of losing sight of the forest for the trees.
You’re only embarrassing yourself by pushing this sort of sophist nitpicking.
Most southerners didn’t own slaves because they couldn’t afford them. It doesn’t change the fact that their economy was based on slave labor.
Many northerners were racist too, and they fought the civil war to protect their country against a bunch of insurrectionist traitors who would rather tear it apart than stop owning human beings.
None of that changes the fact that the south fought to preserve their right to own human beings like cattle. It doesn’t say much for their character.

 

It's as asinine as nitpicking the personal motivation of German and Japanese soldiers in WWII...

 

And should abused women thank their maggot husbands when they quit beating them?


White people were NOT the only ones fighting for the end of slavery, many black people were, too, LONG before the Civil War.

And black people fought and died in the Civil War.

No, black people shouldn't have to thank anyone for doing what was right in the first place.

 

Citing the true sentiments of Lincoln and the actual causes of the Civil War is not "semantic games"

What part of " I have no inclination to do so." [free the slaves] is unclear to you?

Lincoln's true motive for fighting the war was to preserve the Union; a union that favored the more populous and industrialized North over the agrarian South.

"Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People"
EXCERPT
"Lincoln’s True Opinion of the Civil War

The history books often declare that President Abraham Lincoln saw the Civil War as an opportunity to bring about justice and free the millions of Black slaves in the South. Yet, this is hardly the case. In March of 1861, Lincoln rendered the following words: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.” CONTINUED

Just to further clarify Lincoln's true motives concerning slavery, he also stated:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

Not only was Lincoln indifferent to the institution of slavery, he opposed the notion of Blacks ever enjoying the same rights as Whites:

“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

How "free" do you think Blacks would have been in a "liberated" country that prohibited their living with social and political equality.

There were numerous causes for the American Civil War that include cultural differences dating back to the English Civil War but the notion that the American Civil War was "about" slavery is only virtuous sounding propaganda.

 

Serious question: are you aware that Lincoln spoke more than one or two sentences over the course of his entire life? It appears you are unaware of this. I've addressed your post, and you have failed to respond. Is this just going to be a repeating theme?

 

I am simply citing salient quotes that prove that Lincoln was indifferent to slavery except to use it as a propaganda tool.

 

And you have failed to do so. Actually looking at Lincoln's statements about slavery over time show that he was always personally against slavery throughout his political career. He also advocated for "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for black people from the earliest points in his political career. Was he inconsistent about the extent of those rights? Yes; he was, for example, advocating intermarriage -- though the terror that the South had regarding Lincolon's policies leading to intermarriage should tell you something about their own motivations. This doesn't change the fact that he advocated for them and that the South named his advocacy as a cause for secession.

He was against the propagation of slavery to new states and territories (as was his entire party), but advocated for compensated abolition as he means to get rid of the rest of slavery. This made him something of a moderate. He succeeded in getting compensated abolition in DC, and he tried getting border states to agree to the same. Hell, he even tried to get the Confederacy to agree to the same as an olive branch. They, of course, declined. Lincoln's "inclination" comment was with regards to outright outlawing slavery. He was personally against slavery, but he did not think he had the legal authority to outlaw it outright, and instead (and I've quoted him on this, which you ignored) advocated preventing the expansion of slavery while finding other means to extinguish slavery in existing territories. Again, his primary plan was compensated emancipation . . . which you are still ignoring.

Claiming that Lincoln was "indifferent to slavery" is pure historical ignorance. "Yeah, but he was a racist too," doesn't change that.

I'm going to cover a few more more things you said:

You should try reading my first post in this thread. Or the numerous other times I've said he exact same thing. What you don't realize is that he didn't think he could preserve the Union if some states were free and others were slave states. You also conveniently forget that the South drew first blood.

When it came to slavery, sure. In reality, the North was also highly agrarian. The "anti-South" policies were all policies about slavery. And before you try interjected with "tariffs" as an alternative view of history, please do your homework first. It is a bad argument.

As I've said a dozen times before: The Civil War was about secession; secession was about slavery. There were not "numerous causes" for the South's secession. It was always primarily about slavery. They repeatedly said so. Denying this historical fact is only virtuous sounding propoganda.