At the time that he was the president of the United States, slavery was dying a natural death all over the western world. It had just been expired by a legislation in England. It had just dies a natural death. That is, it was no longer economically feasible in Puerto Rico and Brazil. And the southern plantation owners were on the cusp of dying here. Instead of allowing it to die or helping it to die or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the civil war cost, Lincoln set about on the most murderous war in American history.
Over seven hundred and fifty thousand soldiers and civilians, all Americans, died. That’s more people killed as a result of American military action in one war than in all wars combined.
That of course spawned Jim Crow. That of course spawned the Ku Klux Klan. That of course spawned the need for a Martin Luther King.which was a good end result from that. But the so called freedom that Lincoln thought he was bringing, wouldn’t come about for another hundred and twenty five years because of its birth in violence and its birth in government violence rather than its birth in the natural progress of human freedom—
Lincoln soldiers, burnt court houses, robbed banks, raped women, destroyed crops, killed civilians and they were lauded for it as heroic. And they did this to their fellow Americans. This is hardly something out of which a myth or godlike stature you would expect to come. And yet it did because of the demonizing of the South.
14 comments
A neo-confederate! Haven't seen one of these dipshits in years!
Oh, and his bullshit? Is bullshit. Slavery is still alive and thriving. Right here in NYC, they are constantly arresting someone for involuntary servitude.
History fail.
There were more slaves in the US right before the Civil War than there were at any point in the nation's history. Some of the states had half of the households owning at least one slave.
The Confederate states broke away before Lincoln ever took office, and they attacked first. It could be argued they were goaded into attacking Fort Sumter, but they fired the first shots.
There has never been a confirmed account of the Union soldiers raping, robbing or intentionally killing civilians. Even Sherman issued strict orders over what his men could and could not do, and none of those things was on the "can do" list.
All of this BS was made up after the fact by organizations that were attempting to make the South seem less guilty.
Lincoln would have allowed slavery to die off by not letting any new states recognize slavery. This is what got the antebellum Southerners' panties in a twist and caused them to secede their sorry asses out of 'murica, starting with South Carolina right after Lincoln's electoral victory, and form the Confederacy. Lincoln would not have gone to war with the Confederacy had they not seceded and attacked first. He was not trying to make slavery die immediately--he tried to preserve the union.
Sure, slavery was dying out, except for in states that specifically said they weren't going to give it up without a fight, which was pretty much every state where slavery was legal.
Slavery wasn't the only reason the Civil war happened, and I will agree that the North punished the South by destroying the infrastructure to keep those below the line of Dixon poor and incapable of striking back in the aftermath to the point that it effects Southern states to this day.
But dude, don't lie and act like the South was innocent and slavery was on it's way out. Because that was far from the case int he U.S.
1) If slavery was no longer economically feasible in Brazil, why did it last another generation? And "just been expired by a legislation in England" means 28 years before.
The south demonized itself when it seceded over the right to own people.
The south had no right to secede.
they did anyway, because they couldn't ACCEPT that slavery was dying. The confederate constitution specifically mandated that all states be slave states and that slavery could never be banned.
And as for "Lincoln could have purchased the slaves --" that would have implied that the slaveowners RIGHTLY OWNED THEM, which is complete crap, of course.
Wiki, about a better man than the entire officer class of the Confederacy:
Robert Gould Shaw (October 10, 1837 July 18, 1863) was an American military officer in the Union Army during the American Civil War. As Colonel, he commanded the all-black 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, which entered the war in 1863. He was killed in the Second Battle of Fort Wagner, near Charleston, South Carolina.
The victorious Confederates buried him in a mass grave with many of his men, an act they intended as an insult. Following the battle, commanding Confederate General Johnson Hagood returned the bodies of the other Union officers who had died, but left Shaw's where it was. Hagood informed a captured Union surgeon that "had he been in command of white troops, I should have given him an honorable burial; as it is, I shall bury him in the common trench with the niggers that fell with him." Although the gesture was intended as an insult, it came to be seen as an honor by Shaw's friends and family that he was buried with his soldiers.
"It had just dies a natural death. That is, it was no longer economically feasible in Puerto Rico and Brazil."Except, of course, those 50,000 the Brazilian government still estimates are illegaly enslaved on plantations.
"Over seven hundred and fifty thousand soldiers and civilians, all Americans, died. That’s more people killed as a result of American military action in one war than in all wars combined."
"That of course spawned Jim Crow. That of course spawned the Ku Klux Klan."
"But the so called freedom that Lincoln thought he was bringing, wouldn’t come about for another hundred and twenty five years because of its birth in violence and its birth in government violence rather than its birth in the natural progress of human freedom
"
"Lincoln soldiers, burnt court houses, robbed banks, raped women, destroyed crops, killed civilians and they were lauded for it as heroic. [...] This is hardly something out of which a myth or godlike stature you would expect to come. And yet it did because of the demonizing of the South."
@UHM
Your grandfather may have fought for the wrong side but, from what you say, he committed no crimes and he served his country at a time when to have avoided service would have meant death. That might have been heroic, but it would also have been futile and stupid. You don't have to be a hero for someone to be proud of you. Sometimes just survival is enough; for that reason I am proud of my great-uncle who spent four years in the hell of a Japanese POW camp.
I think you are being too hard on both Lincoln and his predecessors. Abolitionism started in America about the time of the Revolutionary War, but it took nearly a century of argument, appeal, violence, and suffering before there was sufficient political momentum on the issue to elect someone like Lincoln. What seems obviously right to you was not obvious, or even right, to all. Americans in 1810 did not share the same moral outlook as they did in 1860, just as those of today have a different worldview from Americans of 1964; it would make as much sense to attack LBJ for his lack of interest in same-sex marriage. Changing attitudes is a long, hard battle and all those who play their part deserve credit.
@Hasan Prishtina: I am appreciative of my grandfather, not for his time as a soldier though. After the war the man build a business and house with almost no education and send two of his kids to college with one earning herself a Ph.D. And yes, not doing military service would have meant death, but still people did it, because what they believed in was more important than their own life - now that is heroic. You of course can be proud of you great-uncle, because surviving four years in Japanese POW camp is certainly an accomplishment. But, my grandfather got lucky, before ever being in a battle he got captured by American soldiers - that's as much as accomplishment as hitting a wave of green traffic lights when walking through your home town...
I do understand the idea of historical contextuality, but for a freethinker, the time you life in or the ideas that were put into your head shouldn't have anything to do with your moral and ethical compas. That said, I'm not writing historical tirades about how bad all those people were. So for me, that Americans didn't share the same outlook is right, but that doesn't make their outlook any less wrong - and the people who had them are responsible for their own outlook, not society or the era.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
