No I didn't mean that at all.. I meant millions of black lives were forever altered for the better and it's impact is still felt to this day
Disagree... Did you read my quote I have of Lincoln where he said he didnt give a fuck about slavery?
Personally - and this is very debatable - I honestly think the way slavery was outlawed in the south by the civil war, actually is largely responsible for the racism climate in the US today. Now this is hard to prove, but it seemed to me while reading history that slavery was already being shunned socially. There was already a movements (even in the south) that started looking down on people participating in slavery. I feel in time, that the south would have outlawed it on their own.... and had that happened, had the change happened by society damning it, then there would be less hicks holding onto that idea that it was so great. I could be wrong about this, just something I have wondered about which will never be proved. And don't misunderstand what I am saying... I am not pro-slavery obviously. What I am though is against Lincoln getting credit for freeing slaves when he didn't give a damn about that. I'd much rather credit people who actually cared about the idea and did stuff about it... Harriet Tubman or other prominent abolitionist like William Lloyd Garrison
Yea I don't really care about you personal opinion seeing as it's dumb anyway.. Your rumblings missed the entire point. Lincoln's views on slavery are fucking itrelevent. The impact being positive or negative, Is irrelevant.. The point was one man in a log cabin eventually changed the world for the rest of time as we know it.. Regardless of the fact that slavery would have been eventually outlawed anywAy, the impact still stands.. My whole point was to prove that change can occur from all unlikely place, idgaf about Lincoln personally
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited 2015 01
Dude I already said that On the first post I made on this topic I said "I know this is besides the point you are making, but I implore you to stop giving Lincoln credit for being an abolitionist". I didn't ever disagree with you about him having a worldly impact after coming from humble beginnings, which was your main point and that isnt even arguable. I was just trying to provide you more information on the very little he did for the slavery movement.
Lincoln started the war The winning of the war led to the 13th amendment which freed all slaves The emancipation proclamation could've been more symbolic but it was the catalyst to the abolishment of slavery.. With out Lincoln at the time of the signing of the 13th amendment we would still have been no where near as close to signing something like that period
And the whole argument of Lincoln didn't care about slaves.. If so then why would there have been a war in the first place? southern states be like "hey we wanna keep slavery" lincoln be like "ok 0 fucks" Boom done no war
And the whole argument of Lincoln didn't care about slaves.. If so then why would there have been a war in the first place? southern states be like "hey we wanna keep slavery" lincoln be like "ok 0 fucks" Boom done no war
There was a war in the first place because Lincoln believed the United States were a single entity as opposed to individual states that had the right to succeed from the union. The war 100% started because of South Carolina succession from the United States in 1860. Why did they the southern states feel they needed to succeed? Well their declaration stated that they were leaving the union because Northern states had organized together to subvert the original scope of the Constitution. Specifically (C&P form the inet).
1. The Northern states were failing to return fugitive slaves, in
violation of their obligations under Article Four of the Constitution.
2. The Northern states tolerated abolitionists and insurrectionists who incited slaves in the South to rebel.
3. misguided political and religious beliefs in the North made future sectional unity impossible.
4. some states were elevating persons "incapable of becoming citizens"
(i.e. free blacks) and using their votes to support anti-slavery
policies.
5. the Republican Party was planning to wage a war against slavery upon taking office in March 1861.
So Lincoln was elected into a position where the Northern territories were largely against slavery, and the Southern territories were upset with the North trying to influence how they ran their territories. Lincoln personally didn't care either way, but he was put into an office at a time when the country splitting apart, and he needed to figure out some way to prevent that from happening. Lincoln cared 100% about making the USA be a strong central government as opposed to individual states that have the right to leave.
If what you say is true then it's still pretty confusing almost all those points you made about why the south wanted to secede were in regards to dlavery matters.. if Lincoln wanted unity more than anything than why wouldn't he just do things like return fugitive slaves and make sure free blacks couldn't vote ?
If what you say is true then it's still pretty confusing almost all those points you made about why the south wanted to secede were in regards to dlavery matters.. if Lincoln wanted unity more than anything than why wouldn't he just do things like return fugitive slaves and make sure free blacks couldn't vote ?
Yes the southern states and the northern states were at odds with each other over the issue of Slavery... No disagreement there. And yes Lincoln 100% used this slavery issue to further his own agenda which was "finding any way to keep the union together". Lincoln couldn't just continue to allow slavery in the south, and return escaped southern slaves to the south, but keep it illegal in the north because the northern society was very angry over slavery in the south. Lincoln really only had two options - 1. Go to war with the south and force them into alignment after war. 2. Allow the southern states to succeed from the union. He was extremely against 2, so he did option 1.
Look- I'm not saying Lincoln wasnt put in a very difficult position at a crazy time in US history. I will even say that I can understand Lincolns logic for wanting to keep the union together and form a stronger central government. Even if I dont 100% agree with that path, I can't say there isnt a lot of sound logical reasoning for going that route. The only thing I am saying is that it bothers me that he gets so much credit for civil rights work, when he literally didn't care one way or the other. And that's my only problem. He is thought of in high regards for civil rights in the same level as MLK jr, when that isnt what he believed. If someone wants to say "Lincoln is one of the greatest presidents to support a strong central government that we have today", then I'd take no issue with that comment and say "Yup... he is". But when someone says "Lincoln is such a hero for freeing the slaves" then it bothers me because he didnt give a fuck about that and it undermines all the actual absolutist of the time that were actually actively working to free slaves and change society.
I honestly don't think he was in as much of a pickle as you might think. Yes the abolitionist movement was growing in the north, but it was still a fractional, almost grass roots campaign. Like Lincoln , most northerners didn't give a fuck about black people and were still also very racist. As you saw when the north initiated the war draft, riots and opposition were massive due to the fact that most northerners didn't give enough fucks to even want to fight the war .. And this was back when fighting in a war was looked at as like an honor and a privilege
Nothing of what I said has been wrong.. Wake just likes contradictory opinions cuz he's wake.. He plays devils advocate cuz wake
Not really... Just trying to reverse the history warping we all experienced in our public education. I am not exactly sure where, when, or why educators in this country started painting Lincoln in this role as abolitionist, however I personally found it rather interesting when later in life I stumbled upon published letters Lincoln wrote that clearly shows he was anything but an abolitionist. Why public educators feel they need to continue propagating this lie is beyond my understanding. If you get it... please explain it to me because I honestly don't
tinfoil hat time - It's almost like someone at the top made the decision that they would paint Lincoln in this light such that he could serve as an icon for American pride. He's now like the national anthem or the American Flag... A symbol the stupid masses can use to make themselves feel superior to other countries in the world. Note - I agree this last part is a little crazy. and admit it is entirely speculation
I honestly don't think he was in as much of a pickle as you might think. Yes the abolitionist movement was growing in the north, but it was still a fractional, almost grass roots campaign. Like Lincoln , most northerners didn't give a fuck about black people and were still also very racist. As you saw when the north initiated the war draft, riots and opposition were massive due to the fact that most northerners didn't give enough fucks to even want to fight the war .. And this was back when fighting in a war was looked at as like an honor and a privilege
this might be true. hard to really know unless you were there.
Comments
Personally - and this is very debatable - I honestly think the way slavery was outlawed in the south by the civil war, actually is largely responsible for the racism climate in the US today. Now this is hard to prove, but it seemed to me while reading history that slavery was already being shunned socially. There was already a movements (even in the south) that started looking down on people participating in slavery. I feel in time, that the south would have outlawed it on their own.... and had that happened, had the change happened by society damning it, then there would be less hicks holding onto that idea that it was so great. I could be wrong about this, just something I have wondered about which will never be proved. And don't misunderstand what I am saying... I am not pro-slavery obviously. What I am though is against Lincoln getting credit for freeing slaves when he didn't give a damn about that. I'd much rather credit people who actually cared about the idea and did stuff about it... Harriet Tubman or other prominent abolitionist like William Lloyd Garrison
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
The winning of the war led to the 13th amendment which freed all slaves
The emancipation proclamation could've been more symbolic but it was the catalyst to the abolishment of slavery.. With out Lincoln at the time of the signing of the 13th amendment we would still have been no where near as close to signing something like that period
southern states be like "hey we wanna keep slavery"
lincoln be like "ok 0 fucks"
Boom done no war
1. The Northern states were failing to return fugitive slaves, in violation of their obligations under Article Four of the Constitution.
2. The Northern states tolerated abolitionists and insurrectionists who incited slaves in the South to rebel.
3. misguided political and religious beliefs in the North made future sectional unity impossible.
4. some states were elevating persons "incapable of becoming citizens" (i.e. free blacks) and using their votes to support anti-slavery policies.
5. the Republican Party was planning to wage a war against slavery upon taking office in March 1861.
So Lincoln was elected into a position where the Northern territories were largely against slavery, and the Southern territories were upset with the North trying to influence how they ran their territories. Lincoln personally didn't care either way, but he was put into an office at a time when the country splitting apart, and he needed to figure out some way to prevent that from happening. Lincoln cared 100% about making the USA be a strong central government as opposed to individual states that have the right to leave.
almost all those points you made about why the south wanted to secede were in regards to dlavery matters..
if Lincoln wanted unity more than anything than why wouldn't he just do things like return fugitive slaves and make sure free blacks couldn't vote ?
Look- I'm not saying Lincoln wasnt put in a very difficult position at a crazy time in US history. I will even say that I can understand Lincolns logic for wanting to keep the union together and form a stronger central government. Even if I dont 100% agree with that path, I can't say there isnt a lot of sound logical reasoning for going that route. The only thing I am saying is that it bothers me that he gets so much credit for civil rights work, when he literally didn't care one way or the other. And that's my only problem. He is thought of in high regards for civil rights in the same level as MLK jr, when that isnt what he believed. If someone wants to say "Lincoln is one of the greatest presidents to support a strong central government that we have today", then I'd take no issue with that comment and say "Yup... he is". But when someone says "Lincoln is such a hero for freeing the slaves" then it bothers me because he didnt give a fuck about that and it undermines all the actual absolutist of the time that were actually actively working to free slaves and change society.
tinfoil hat time - It's almost like someone at the top made the decision that they would paint Lincoln in this light such that he could serve as an icon for American pride. He's now like the national anthem or the American Flag... A symbol the stupid masses can use to make themselves feel superior to other countries in the world. Note - I agree this last part is a little crazy. and admit it is entirely speculation