Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[HUGGY]

Odd, prior to Gettysburg, Lincoln maintained that he was NOT out to eliminate slavery.

Are you implying that he was lying?

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

 

[Skylar]

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union. If he could have done so without abolishing slavery, he'd have done it in a second.

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

Answer that question and you can see why Lincoln would have done it anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm still waiting to hear from you Confederates about John Brown.

I'm still waiting to hear you admit that in principle, his intentions, to incite an armed rebellion of slaves against the TYRANNY of the South,

is the perfect example of what you people never cease to defend.

Why so quiet about it?

Does it trouble you that what John Brown wanted was a violent uprising of black men against their tyrannical white oppressors?

That John Brown wanted that so-called Tree of Liberty soaked in the blood of your white Southern heroes,

all in the name of a principle that ironically you are otherwise quick to justify????

Let's hear it.

 

[HUGGY]

How did abolishing slavery help him preserve the Union?

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

 

[paperview]

Where is that in the Constitution?

It's found right at the end of a Spencer rifle.

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Remember the plenty good reason to call a Convention to form "A more Perfect Union" back then - because the A of C just wasn't working out.

When they met, there was that little thing (which was not so little and was weighing heavy on the minds of many of the delegates) as you know --

going on in Mass, known as Shays Rebellion. It stirred George Washington out of retirement to attend the Convention and help insure a more powerful federal government. (Ironic, eh? to the firebreathers here...)

That rebellion helped underwrite broad federal military powers as well --- and wouldcha know... a few years later, George Washington himself would be using those broad federal powers enshrined in the Constitution to put down another rebellion. With a mighty hefty force, and him, on horse, with sword - at the charge.

 

[Skylar]

I'm still waiting to hear from you Confederates about John Brown.

I'm still waiting to hear you admit that in principle, his intentions, to incite an armed rebellion of slaves against the TYRANNY of the South,

is the perfect example of what you people never cease to defend.

Why so quiet about it?

Does it trouble you that what John Brown wanted was a violent uprising of black men against their tyrannical white oppressors?

That John Brown wanted that so-called Tree of Liberty soaked in the blood of your white Southern heroes,

all in the name of a principle that ironically you are otherwise quick to justify????

Let's hear it.

No, no no. YOu don't get it. Violence is only illegitimate if used AGAINST a southern rebellion. Violence if used BY the South to put down rebellions is perfectly legit. As is systematic violence to keep millions in slavery.

Um....'because'.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you feel that it's in the second amendment?

LOL!

Adorable... I never seem to get my fill of watching Leftist try to think.

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. And by your logic, the police officer that shot a fleeing suspect in the back was also justified because he was rebelling by trying to get away and deserved to be shot. Your argument has fail written all over it.

The obvious problem with your analogy being that the wife wasn't 'beaten' by anyone. The South attacked the US. They initiated the military conflict.

It would be like insisting that the police lack the authority to stop a riot in progress. Even though cops and local citizens are being killed. Of course they possess that authority. Likewise, the US possesses the authority to defend its territory and to put down rebellions.

As does any nation. Any nation that can't do these two things isn't a nation for long.

Yes the South was being beaten. I know because you're a Leftist you have no idea what issues led up to the war. (Leftists just assume it's slavery) But there was real economic oppression being levied against southern states by Northern states who were utterly unconcerned with how their policies affected agricultural economies. The state seceded to escape from the heavy boot of Northern economic aggression. In many senses, it could be said that the North caused secession to be the only viable option left, though even secession was no justification for war. There was only one purpose of the war, to force seceding states back into the union so they can continue to endure the abuse, just like an abusive husband uses force to keep his wife in the house so he can continue to beat her.

The analogy is succinct. Your ignorance and inability to understand it doesn't change that.

 

[Skylar]

Because Lincoln didn't think the nation would survive half state and half free. The civil war itself being compelling evidence in support of his premise. I mean, have you even read the 'House Divided' speech? He lays it out in pretty, plain language.

While Lincoln personally disliked slavery and owned no slaves, his priority was the Union. He'd have gladly traded the slaves for unity. But it wasn't an option. So he put down the rebellion and got rid of the primary impetus of the schism: slavery.

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

 

[paperview]

I'm still waiting to hear from you Confederates about John Brown.

I'm still waiting to hear you admit that in principle, his intentions, to incite an armed rebellion of slaves against the TYRANNY of the South,

is the perfect example of what you people never cease to defend.

Why so quiet about it?

Does it trouble you that what John Brown wanted was a violent uprising of black men against their tyrannical white oppressors?

That John Brown wanted that so-called Tree of Liberty soaked in the blood of your white Southern heroes,

all in the name of a principle that ironically you are otherwise quick to justify????

Let's hear it.

<popcorn>

 

[there4eyeM]

'Rights' are mighty, especially when those that have them also have a monopoly on firearms.

 

[thanatos144]

THey understood it?

Why did they have to "understand it"?

It was explicitly communicated to them. The anti-federalists argued that the the States should remain sovereign. The federalists argued against it.

The Federalists won. With the Constitution largely written by the nation's leading Federalist, in accordance with the Federalist Papers. With a thorough majority of the founders supporting the Federalist vision.

Worse for your argument, in NY, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr tried to put language into their ratification of the Constitution that would grant them the authority to secede if they chose. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY ratification representatives that the the constitution must be adopted in toto and for ever. And that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid.

Here's the letter:

First, Hamilton's question regarding 'receding', or leaving the union.

"You will understand that the only qualification will be the reservation of a right to recede, in case our amendments have not been decided upon, in one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution, within a certain number of years, perhaps five or seven. If this can, in the first instance, be admitted as a ratification, I do not fear any further consequences. Congress will, I presume, recommend certain amendments to render the structure of the Government more secure. This will satisfy the more considerate and honest opposers of the Constitution, and with the aid of them will break up the party.

The Right of Secession. - NYTimes.com

And now the relevant portion of Madison's reply, which didn't contained the slightest ambiguity:

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification: that it does not make New-York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification.

Madison's letter was read publicly. Lansing's secessionist language was removed. And NY ratified the constitution.

This wasn't a grand secret. This was thoroughly understood, debated, and discussed at the time. The Anti-Federalists took your position. The Federalists, Madison's.

The Federalists won.

I like how strongly you point out that his letter "didn't contained the slightest ambiguity".

To bad the same can't be said of the actual written document that was actually voted on, and enshrined in law.

You lefties seem to like that term, "in toto, and FOREVER".

Can you find it in the Constitution?

ROFLMNAO!

The Cult has found a Right to murder one's own child in one's own WOMB in the Constitution...

LOL! In the first amendment which specifically forbids any laws that precludes the free exercise of religion, they found the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Wherein ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISE MUST BE SHUT DOWN the instant one comes to any position in US government.

Which establishes them as little more than the personification of Evil itself.

Quoting the Father of the Constitution on the meaning of the Constitution is the 'personification of Evil itself'?

Wow. Decaf for you.

NOooo... the personification of Evil is in the intentional misrepresentation of the words you quote.

The Consent to be governed by the enumerated and limited powers set forth in the US Constitution, in toto and FOREVER... does not provide any obligation in the way of consent to be governed by powers taken outside the scope of those specifically enumerated power.

(That's sorta the coolest part of republican constitutional government... and why such historically survives well beyond the average span of existence of the feckless democracy.)

Yet if you secede you are no longer part of the Constitution you are in essence pissing on it. Like Obama does

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So Lincoln starts a war and that's his evidence that he should abolish slavery? Do you even read what you type before posting it?

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution gives the government the right to put down armed rebellion.

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. And by your logic, the police officer that shot a fleeing suspect in the back was also justified because he was rebelling by trying to get away and deserved to be shot. Your argument has fail written all over it.

The obvious problem with your analogy being that the wife wasn't 'beaten' by anyone. The South attacked the US. They initiated the military conflict.

It would be like insisting that the police lack the authority to stop a riot in progress. Even though cops and local citizens are being killed. Of course they possess that authority. Likewise, the US possesses the authority to defend its territory and to put down rebellions.

As does any nation. Any nation that can't do these two things isn't a nation for long.

Yes the South was being beaten.

No, it wasn't. If you want to talk about 'economic oppression', bring it. Just remember that you'll have to back it up.

Meanwhile, there's no question that the South attacked Ft. Sumter. That they initiated the military conflict.

The US government absolutely has the authority to put down rebellions and respond to military attacks. You can awkwardly try and argue that it wasn't a rebellion or wasn't an attack. But to argue that instead the the US lacked the authority to respond to either is purest revisionist fantasy nonsense.

Washington proved otherwise. Twice. Unless you're giong to dismiss Washington and the Founders as 'leftists', then your entire argument was just poorly thought through silliness.

The state seceded to escape from the heavy boot of Northern economic aggression.

And it just happened to be right after a man they accused of wanting to emancipate the slaves was elected. Before a single policy was enacted, before that man had even taken office.

What a grand coincidence, would you say? What are the odds?

 

[thanatos144]

What legal and binding document are you quoting?

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

Eat this:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interesting... Yet where such laws are set upon the people, outside the scope of the enumerated limits upon the power of the US Federal Government, no American is in any way obligated to so much as recognize that law, let alone to comply with such.

Of course the Federal Government will likely disagree... as did the Crown of England, when we informed them of that very principle.

A right to rebellion? Maybe and even legal IF you win . The confederates didn't

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Derr. I think he knows that.

The question still applies.

And if you think "The states delegated to the federal government supreme power" is wrong, then you haven't read the one important and legally binding Document you should be paying attention to...

The States ratified a Constitution which specifically limited the power of the Federal Government, specifically to preclude the Federal Government from becoming supremely powerful over the states.

If you lack the intellectual means to understand that FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PRINCIPLE... then you simply lack the means to remain a viable contributor to this discussion.

It's not even a debatable point.

Eat this:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Interesting... Yet where such laws are set upon the people, outside the scope of the enumerated limits upon the power of the US Federal Government, no American is in any way obligated to so much as recognize that law, let alone to comply with such.

Of course the Federal Government will likely disagree... as did the Crown of England, when we informed them of that very principle.

The quote you refer to is an enumerated power.

Good for you Gilligan. It turns out you do have some minor capacity to learn. Let's hope the trend continues.

All you're arguing for is the ability to commit treason. Of course people have that ability.

Yes, from your perspective the American destruction of the Leftist Cabal that has captured the US Government will be treason. Just as such was the perspective of King George when the Founders kicked his ass out of here.

But hey... let's be honest, what relevance is in the perspective effeminate lunatics?

 

[paperview]

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

When I hear people spout this shit - they never mention Lincoln's idea, as was proposed by many abolitionists, was for voluntary colonization.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Uh... LOL! No, it doesn't.

But as always you're invited to cite the specific element of the US Constitution where such a 'right' is granted.

(Reader, rest assured that this will end the would-be 'contributors' interests in this particular issue.)

You are honestly making the argument that if forces within the United States take up arms against the government that the government is constitutionally powerless to react in kind?

lol unreal

Listen to your foolishness. That's like saying the wife of an abusive man deserves to be beaten by him again because she tried to leave. And by your logic, the police officer that shot a fleeing suspect in the back was also justified because he was rebelling by trying to get away and deserved to be shot. Your argument has fail written all over it.

The obvious problem with your analogy being that the wife wasn't 'beaten' by anyone. The South attacked the US. They initiated the military conflict.

It would be like insisting that the police lack the authority to stop a riot in progress. Even though cops and local citizens are being killed. Of course they possess that authority. Likewise, the US possesses the authority to defend its territory and to put down rebellions.

As does any nation. Any nation that can't do these two things isn't a nation for long.

Yes the South was being beaten.

No, it wasn't. If you want to talk about 'economic oppression', bring it. Just remember that you'll have to back it up.

Meanwhile, there's no question that the South attacked Ft. Sumter. That they initiated the military conflict.

The US government absolutely has the authority to put down rebellions and respond to military attacks. You can awkwardly try and argue that it wasn't a rebellion or wasn't an attack. But to argue that instead the the US lacked the authority to respond to either is purest revisionist fantasy nonsense.

Washington proved otherwise. Twice. Unless you're giong to dismiss Washington and the Founders as 'leftists', then your entire argument was just poorly thought through silliness.

The state seceded to escape from the heavy boot of Northern economic aggression.

And it just happened to be right after a man they accused of wanting to emancipate the slaves was elected. Before a single policy was enacted, before that man had even taken office.

What a grand coincidence, would you say? What are the odds?

It's no surprise that a Leftist would think the states were seceding just to spite a president they didn't like. It's the warped way you people think. Long before Lincoln was elected, the seeds of secession were sown and sprouting because of the laws being passed by Congress enacting crippling tariffs. The real history of what issues pushed the country into a divided state are at loggerheads with your idiotic Leftist narrative that the war was all about slavery. Because you refuse to accept real history, your take on the entire event is fatally flawed.

 

[Skylar]

Wow you suck at paraphrasing. The South started a war by attacking Ft. Sumter. The one saying that Lincoln started the war is you.

As for Lincoln's own argument, read the House Divided speech. He lays it out clearly.

I argue Lincoln right. The single great source of division between the States was slavery. It was the core of the impetus of the civil war. And the US likely wouldn't have survived if he'd continued the institution.

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

Oh, he cared. He just cared about the Union far, far more. Lincoln found slavery detestable. But it wasn't his priority. Preserving the Union was.

And why, pray tell, would have shipping former slaves back to Africa been the 'best way to go'? Please, elaborate in extravagant detail.

 

[paperview]

Considering the hundred years of rights denied to blacks after the Civil War, Lincoln was right when he said this:

"Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best, when free; but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you."

Concerning Emancipation: Address on Colonization

Still, and famously: "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." - Lincoln

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If Lincoln could have had the sense to see far into the future he would have noticed that the blacks would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it. Question? Would the negros be any less happy if they remained slaves?

The blacks where would still be angry after 150 years and nothing he did would prevent it?

The blacks in the slave places. From what I hear the freed blacks were not all that happy either back in Lincolns day. He should have taken THAT as an indication of his potential success.

Which would be where? Remember, Lincoln's priority was preserving the Union. He didn't think the nation could survive if slavery continued.

If he could see that upon eliminating slavery the nation was still going 150 years later, he'd have freed the slaves twice as hard.

As Lincoln was about the preservation of the Union. The slaves were definitely secondary.

Not incorrect. Lincoln really didn't care about the slaves and in fact probably resented the strife they were causing which is why he wanted to ship them back to Africa. In retrospect, this might have been the best way to go.

Oh, he cared. He just cared about the Union far, far more. Lincoln found slavery detestable. But it wasn't his priority. Preserving the Union was.

And why, pray tell, would have shipping former slaves back to Africa been the 'best way to go'? Please, elaborate in extravagant detail.

No, he cared about slavery, but didn't care about slaves.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 which I believe will forever forbid the two races 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."