Yes even Lincoln. He was brutal with the indigenous Americans just like all his contemporary genociders.
And even on the subject of slavery, he was basically forced into it. He also really hampered radical reconstruction which sought to actually change the power structure, take land from slaveholders and give it to the freedmen… Went way easy on former Confederates and let them slip into (subdued, but still significant) control. He wasn’t as bad as his successor in that regard but he’s no role model. Read “Black Reconstruction in America” by W.E.B. DuBois if you’re interested.
I mean the emancipation proclamation didn’t ban slavery, it just banned it in rebelling states by freeing the slaves in those states. It was a year/years later that the 21(?) 13th Amendment was signed that actually banned the practice.
Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves, he just didn’t want the south using them as an army.
he definitely wanted to free the slaves, talked about it and wrote about it extensively, and definitely why we they started the civil war.
his bff was a former slave, even… and just how do you suppose he was supposed to add that 21st amendment before the civil war? you know the president isn’t dictator, right? half of congress was the south, at the time… and they were voting pretty heavily in favor of slavery…
members of congress actually beat members of congress to death, in congress, in the lead up to the civil war… while arguing about slavery (in particular about accusations of members of congress owning slaves for raping purposes, rather than their arguments about labor)
You both need to stop saying the 21st amendment. Hard to take the rest of your history lessons seriously when you’re saying Lincoln repealed prohibition. It was the 13th amendment.
He was always ambivalent about abolition. Not a fan of slavery, sure. Maybe. But he made it clear over and over and over again that he would much rather keep the country together than free any slaves if he could.
He also MANY times said he wouldn’t even know where freed slaves fit into American society, proposing they be shipped off to some island to colonize so he wouldn’t have to deal with them.
It was only at the insistence of his generals that it was a military necessity or they’d lose the war that he freed some of the slaves.
He might have somewhat wanted to, but it wasn’t an explicit goal of his until it became strategic to the war effort.
Lincoln before he got elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln after elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln during the war: “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them”
Lincoln the moment the British might aid them: “the war is now about slaves and their freedom so Britain won’t feel good about helping”
Yes, Lincoln didn’t like slavery and thought it was bad for the country, but much like the founding fathers he thought it was on its way out naturally. Without the southern states throwing The Great Tantrum Lincoln would have left the slave issue alone
Lincoln during the war: “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them”
i don’t think you understand that sentence you just quoted… i know it’s a bit weird in phrasing, but it’s probably a trap to cite the longer quote, but ignoring the context that he’s a politician in the process of convincing people of shit and not every sentence he said was some plain fact and proof of something by itself, in a vacuum
Lincoln before elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
i wonder why that was a topic? it’s almost as if: slavery was a very big point of contention, and the war and division was brewing for a while and lincoln didn’t start the civil war by himself… and so he said some politician-type stuff to get elected and then in fact “come for” the slaves…
The civil war was started over the economics of slavery, not the cancellation of slavery. The south wanted slaves to count towards votes, but not count towards taxes owed. The north refused to allow that, and they decided that slaves didn’t count towards either. And since without slaves the southern states had much lower populations, that dramatically diminished their voting power. That is why the civil war started.
Edit:I guess you guys missed the whole 3/5ths comprimise
oh it was aaaaall about that! well thanks for explaining that so well…
it’s weird all of the historical documents showing quite a few people were arguing about the morality of slavery… that members of congress came to blows over it and nobody mentioned the secret double secret reason of: it was aaaaall about votes because scubus saw a youtube video about it once…
This is revisionist, false, and stinks of the DotC.
The war was about the South keeping it’s slaves, and it’s ability to continue to subjugate an entire race of people. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States states that “our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” That only the “black race” is capable of being slaves. And in case you think this could be twisted somehow to support a rally against taxes, it goes on to say “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union”
This is the opening volley off secession. It talks about commerce but not about taxes. It doesn’t mention counting slaves as votes because they’d won that fight 60 years previously.
What’s the doct? And yeah, the south feared the dissolution of slavery but from my understanding that was not what it was about for the north. Hence the 3/5ths compromise.
You realize that the 3/5ths compromise was added in 1787 at the constitutional convention right? That wasn’t even remotely at issue during the civil war.
So it would seem. A bunch of the sources I was just googling seemed to confirm what I had learned in school, hence this debate. We were never taught about the dotc though, I take it they were a post war group of propagandists?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
Yes even Lincoln. He was brutal with the indigenous Americans just like all his contemporary genociders.
And even on the subject of slavery, he was basically forced into it. He also really hampered radical reconstruction which sought to actually change the power structure, take land from slaveholders and give it to the freedmen… Went way easy on former Confederates and let them slip into (subdued, but still significant) control. He wasn’t as bad as his successor in that regard but he’s no role model. Read “Black Reconstruction in America” by W.E.B. DuBois if you’re interested.
He was an abolitionist before his presidency
Just not something he could realistically do without the civil war
And yes it only happened because after the civil war 90% of the US was free states
you’re basically making shit up
I mean the emancipation proclamation didn’t ban slavery, it just banned it in rebelling states by freeing the slaves in those states. It was a year/years later that the
21(?)13th Amendment was signed that actually banned the practice.Lincoln didn’t want to free the slaves, he just didn’t want the south using them as an army.
he definitely wanted to free the slaves, talked about it and wrote about it extensively, and definitely why we they started the civil war.
his bff was a former slave, even… and just how do you suppose he was supposed to add that 21st amendment before the civil war? you know the president isn’t dictator, right? half of congress was the south, at the time… and they were voting pretty heavily in favor of slavery…
members of congress actually beat members of congress to death, in congress, in the lead up to the civil war… while arguing about slavery (in particular about accusations of members of congress owning slaves for raping purposes, rather than their arguments about labor)
You both need to stop saying the 21st amendment. Hard to take the rest of your history lessons seriously when you’re saying Lincoln repealed prohibition. It was the 13th amendment.
i just quoted him… i don’t have the amendments memorized by number
He was always ambivalent about abolition. Not a fan of slavery, sure. Maybe. But he made it clear over and over and over again that he would much rather keep the country together than free any slaves if he could.
He also MANY times said he wouldn’t even know where freed slaves fit into American society, proposing they be shipped off to some island to colonize so he wouldn’t have to deal with them.
It was only at the insistence of his generals that it was a military necessity or they’d lose the war that he freed some of the slaves.
standard nazi bullshit lies
What the fuck are you on about
nazi bullshit lies, mainly
He might have somewhat wanted to, but it wasn’t an explicit goal of his until it became strategic to the war effort.
Lincoln before he got elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln after elected: no, I’m not coming for your slaves
Lincoln during the war: “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them”
Lincoln the moment the British might aid them: “the war is now about slaves and their freedom so Britain won’t feel good about helping”
Yes, Lincoln didn’t like slavery and thought it was bad for the country, but much like the founding fathers he thought it was on its way out naturally. Without the southern states throwing The Great Tantrum Lincoln would have left the slave issue alone
i don’t think you understand that sentence you just quoted… i know it’s a bit weird in phrasing, but it’s probably a trap to cite the longer quote, but ignoring the context that he’s a politician in the process of convincing people of shit and not every sentence he said was some plain fact and proof of something by itself, in a vacuum
i wonder why that was a topic? it’s almost as if: slavery was a very big point of contention, and the war and division was brewing for a while and lincoln didn’t start the civil war by himself… and so he said some politician-type stuff to get elected and then in fact “come for” the slaves…
The civil war was started over the economics of slavery, not the cancellation of slavery. The south wanted slaves to count towards votes, but not count towards taxes owed. The north refused to allow that, and they decided that slaves didn’t count towards either. And since without slaves the southern states had much lower populations, that dramatically diminished their voting power. That is why the civil war started.Edit:I guess you guys missed the whole 3/5ths comprimiseoh it was aaaaall about that! well thanks for explaining that so well…
it’s weird all of the historical documents showing quite a few people were arguing about the morality of slavery… that members of congress came to blows over it and nobody mentioned the secret double secret reason of: it was aaaaall about votes because scubus saw a youtube video about it once…
This is revisionist, false, and stinks of the DotC.
The war was about the South keeping it’s slaves, and it’s ability to continue to subjugate an entire race of people. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States states that “our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” That only the “black race” is capable of being slaves. And in case you think this could be twisted somehow to support a rally against taxes, it goes on to say “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union”
This is the opening volley off secession. It talks about commerce but not about taxes. It doesn’t mention counting slaves as votes because they’d won that fight 60 years previously.
What’s the doct? And yeah, the south feared the dissolution of slavery but from my understanding that was not what it was about for the north. Hence the 3/5ths compromise.
Daughters of the Confederacy
You realize that the 3/5ths compromise was added in 1787 at the constitutional convention right? That wasn’t even remotely at issue during the civil war.
So it would seem. A bunch of the sources I was just googling seemed to confirm what I had learned in school, hence this debate. We were never taught about the dotc though, I take it they were a post war group of propagandists?
You’re kinda right, but wording it in the worst way possible
The 13th amendment outlaws slavery… mostly