Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We agree again. Lincoln didn't think highly of Black people. He considered them a different race. Not as in Black vs White race, rather Sub-Human vs Human race. His reason for being an abolitionist wasn't his concern for Black slaves.
That is not what quotes show. For example, his letter to Joshua Speed I quoted. And no, whatever his reasons for fighting the Civil War have nothing to do with his personal beliefs.
This lie has been debunked so many times that it's reappearance in every lost causers revisionist history is embarrassing.
Just think the south viewed black people as fundamentally and inherently inferior, they were adamant that black people were unfit to fight a war.
Yet lost causers believe that the racist southern states armed thousands of black soldiers.
You can't get anymore embarrassing and irrational and dishonest to believe that crap
It would be like saying thousands of Jewish people fought for the nazis.
It doesn't fit because of course the nazis wouldn't arm Jewish people.
And it's very clear that southern racists wouldn't arm black people.
Again, you're half right, which seems to be your M.O. The amount of Blacks fighting for the South was negligible. You had some free Blacks fighting for the South, but not many. You had some Black slaves used in support roles, but not many. You had groups like the all-Black Louisiana Militia fighting for the Confederacy who weren't technically Confederate soldiers, but those guys switched allegiances (logically) to the Union after the battle of New Orleans.
Where you're either ignorant or dishonest is that the entire country, not just the South thought Blacks were fundamentally inferior & unfit to fight a war. Lincoln didn't trust Blacks to join the Union army. He thought of them as mischievousness children & feared the weapons he supplied them would end up in Confederate hands. He also feared he'd push border states into joining the Confederacy if he enlisted Black soldiers. That's why Black soldiers weren't a significant part of the Union army until late in the war. Once it became clear the war would drag on for years though, Lincoln softened because he needed more bodies & the influx of Black soldiers for the Union arguable was the difference that won the war. Blacks should be proud of their contribution to the Civil War, but at the same time we should try to keep historical accuracy in mind & that dictates that we acknowledge the North & President Lincoln thought of Blacks as inferiors as well. It was not unique in any way to the South. It's just how things were at that time.
The Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought to keep the Confederate states from seceding. Four of the Union states were slave states. You need to learn your history before you try to bash others for not knowing it.
The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. But it doesn't take away the fact that as a nation, we did not end slavery voluntarily. Nor does it say much about this woman's claim that we were "exceptional". How does she think the rest of the world ended slavery? Does she think that Great Britain didn't end slavery voluntarily?
So, by claiming that we were "exceptional", she is, indeed, re-envisioning history, incorrectly.
It's not nonsense. The economic factors that gave slavery their value were shifting. While the states didn't have an intention of giving up slavery, they would have gradually given up the practice because eventually it would have become economically unfeasible. The cost of feeding, housing, clothing and guarding slaves would have outweighed any economic benefits, as farmland was worn out, and as machines could assume a lot of the tasks previously performed by slaves.
That is not what quotes show. For example, his letter to Joshua Speed I quoted. And no, whatever his reasons for fighting the Civil War have nothing to do with his personal beliefs.
That's incorrect. What you mean to say is that he also has some quotes that show him softening on Blacks & your prefer to ignore the years of blatant racism to focus on those.
Two common myths, one held by each "side" in the modern debate:
The Civil War was fought to end slavery.
Slavery was on its way out anyway.
Liberals love to believe the first one, and conservatives love to believe the second, and neither is true.
The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Others have already posted Lincoln's quotes on the subject, but the Emancipation Proclamation itself, plus the wooing of European allies by the Union make it quite clear that ending slavery was a convenient propaganda tool, but not the Union's motivation. Yes, the Confederacy had perpetuating slavery as its central premise for secession, no doubt, but the Union only cared about bringing the Confederate states and their lucrative export cash, back under the federal boot heel. So never think for one second that Lincoln and his republicans were "end slavery, all other considerations are secondary" saints, because they weren't. He was President and about 3/4 of the entire US export market decided to call it quits and form their own country. Yeah, no sitting President can have a major chunk of the economy just take their ball and go home. Hell, the battle of Ft. Sumter was about control of a shipping port, a whole two years before Lincoln decided to give a rat's arse about slavery.
Now, as far as slavery on its way out...LMAO. Really? Given the investment slave owners had racked up in their held slaves, and how freeing them would not only simply void every dime invested in a slave to that point, but would wreck the future profit margin they were in no mood to reorganize under a paid labor model? No no, slavery wasn't going anywhere in the 1860s, and the Southern states economic model was too entrenched with slavery to just go weak kneed and end it. No southern politician alive at the time would have been elected, reelected or even made it home alive had they been abolitionists. The equivalent to saying the southern states would have ended slavery voluntarily would be like saying North Carolina and Virginia are trying desperately to ban tobacco, and Florida wants to ban the interstate sales of fruit. It's pure nonsense to think the Confederacy was going to give up on slaves without being forced to, because Occam's Razor says it makes not one shred of economic or financial sense.
Most history classes get one or both of those things wrong. Typically both. I know every history I learned from teachers got both wrong, and I had to go find out the real history on my own, by reading a whole lot more than what our party indocrination centers...err...public schools teach.
Two common myths, one held by each "side" in the modern debate:
The Civil War was fought to end slavery.
Slavery was on its way out anyway.
Liberals love to believe the first one, and conservatives love to believe the second, and neither is true.
The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Others have already posted Lincoln's quotes on the subject, but the Emancipation Proclamation itself, plus the wooing of European allies by the Union make it quite clear that ending slavery was a convenient propaganda tool, but not the Union's motivation. Yes, the Confederacy had perpetuating slavery as its central premise for secession, no doubt, but the Union only cared about bringing the Confederate states and their lucrative export cash, back under the federal boot heel. So never think for one second that Lincoln and his republicans were "end slavery, all other considerations are secondary" saints, because they weren't. He was President and about 3/4 of the entire US export market decided to call it quits and form their own country. Yeah, no sitting President can have a major chunk of the economy just take their ball and go home. Hell, the battle of Ft. Sumter was about control of a shipping port, a whole two years before Lincoln decided to give a rat's arse about slavery.
Now, as far as slavery on its way out...LMAO. Really? Given the investment slave owners had racked up in their held slaves, and how freeing them would not only simply void every dime invested in a slave to that point, but would wreck the future profit margin they were in no mood to reorganize under a paid labor model? No no, slavery wasn't going anywhere in the 1860s, and the Southern states economic model was too entrenched with slavery to just go weak kneed and end it. No southern politician alive at the time would have been elected, reelected or even made it home alive had they been abolitionists. The equivalent to saying the southern states would have ended slavery voluntarily would be like saying North Carolina and Virginia are trying desperately to ban tobacco, and Florida wants to ban the interstate sales of fruit. It's pure nonsense to think the Confederacy was going to give up on slaves without being forced to, because Occam's Razor says it makes not one shred of economic or financial sense.
Most history classes get one or both of those things wrong. Typically both. I know every history I learned from teachers got both wrong, and I had to go find out the real history on my own, by reading a whole lot more than what our party indocrination centers...err...public schools teach.
As invested in slavery as the Confederacy was, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was economically unsustainable as new inventions came along as the result of the Industrial Revolution, and as the farming practices of that era were also unsustainable.
As invested in slavery as the Confederacy was, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was economically unsustainable as new inventions came along as the result of the Industrial Revolution, and as the farming practices of that era were also unsustainable.
Slave owners were doing well economically pre-civil war. What was so unsustainable about it?
That's incorrect. What you mean to say is that he also has some quotes that show him softening on Blacks & your prefer to ignore the years of blatant racism to focus on those.
my quote was from 1855, years before he became president
Slave owners were doing well economically pre-civil war. What was so unsustainable about it?
Actually that is not totally true, many slave owners where finding slavery to be expensive and were gradually phasing it out themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
