Lincoln, to his credit, consulted Black American leaders on his thoughts about colonizing Liberia and was rebuffed.

Later on, he gave a speech endorsing limited suffrage for Black Americans.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/linc...s/last.htm

It was his last speech.

While true he consulted black leaders he still did not want them in America . And yes he wanted some black sufferage but it was very political rather then personal . It's not like his attitudes were rare . The anti slavery movement was against slavery not really against racism .

The close of Lincoln's First Inaugural address March 4, 1861

Quote:In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

  I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Can you imagine the semi-literate buffoon we have in there now even reading, let alone writing, such words?

(August 20, 2017 at 12:50 am)Minimalist Wrote: The close of Lincoln's First Inaugural address March 4, 1861

Quote:In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

  I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Can you imagine the semi-literate buffoon we have in there now even reading, let alone writing, such words?

Only if we replaced whatever it is that passes for a brain in his skull

(August 20, 2017 at 12:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote: While true he consulted black leaders he still did not want them in America . And yes he wanted some black sufferage but it was very political rather then personal . It's not like his attitudes were rare . The anti slavery movement was against slavery not really against racism .

You're fairly confident on an issue most historians feel is not settled. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what lies in a mans soul, only his deeds matter. For someone who doesn't want Blacks in America, Lincoln had a funny way of demonstrating it by bringing in the very people he supposedly didn't want to critique his proposal.

I question your genuineness and also question the political axe you've chosen. I've cited his own words up to his last three days of life. That should take a larger role in examining the racial attitudes of President Lincoln, not summarily dismissed out of hand because it inconveniences you.

(August 20, 2017 at 1:06 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(August 20, 2017 at 12:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote: While true he consulted black leaders he still did not want them in America . And yes he wanted some black sufferage but it was very political rather then personal . It's not like his attitudes were rare . The anti slavery movement was against slavery not really against racism .

You're fairly confident on an issue most historians feel is not settled. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what lies in a mans soul, only his deeds matter. For someone who doesn't want Blacks in America, Lincoln had a funny way of demonstrating it by bringing in the very people he supposedly didn't want to critique his proposal.

I question your genuineness and also question the political axe you've chosen. I've cited his own words up to his last three days of life. That should take a larger role in examining the racial attitudes of President Lincoln, not summarily dismissed out of hand because it inconveniences you.

The easiest way to sell an idea is to make the other person think that it was his idea.  Lincoln was aware that people would resist being deported  because they had fought on the Union side.  But if he could get them to think that they would be better off voluntarily leaving of their own free will he would avoid a lot of trouble. 

So it only made sense to him to talk to them to see where their minds were.  Once he knew that then he could develop an action plan to make it happen.  

Based on historical events Lincoln getting killed was probably the best outcome for the slaves.  Other people then had the opportunity to make them citizens and to grant them human and civil rights.  That's something Lincoln might have tried to avoid, based upon his previous statements.

(August 20, 2017 at 12:04 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 17, 2017 at 9:32 am)Brian37 Wrote: No, the South fought to keep slavery, that is not subject to change.

The Sought didn't actually fight to keep slavery since slavery was completely legal in America under the Constitution.  It could have kept its slaves even after the shooting started if they had simply stopped fighting and returned to the Union.  

They didn't think so. The expansion of the US was bringing more and more non-slave areas into the US and this was upsetting the balance of power in Congress. The possibility that slavery could be outlawed by a vote in Congress worried them.  Many thought that the only way to preserve "our peculiar institution" was to get out NOW.

(August 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The term has lost all meaning.

I was watching a reality show the other day where a group of Americans are put in a resort in Mexico. One of the guys on the show was wearing a shirt that had little sombreros printed all over it. He was like "I'm in Mexico so I'm wearing my sombreros shirt!" The next day, when I was listening to a podcast where the host (a white girl) was recapping the show, she started going on about how racist the guy was to have made that comment. I mean, really? There are plenty of legitimate instances to call someone a racist (the supremacists in Charlottesville are an extreme testimony to that). When it gets tossed around it loses some of it's ugliness and shock value for the times when it is actually warranted.

(August 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 19, 2017 at 10:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: For example, people here are calling Neo a racist. Nothing he has said has indicated to me that he is in fact a racist person.

Thanks, but it's okay. The term has lost all meaning. It says more about them than it does about the people they are trying to smear.

I can say though that no Republican ever owned a slave and I would bet good money that nearly all of those Confederate monuments were commissioned by Democratic politicians.

We are here discussing honoring the guardians of race-based slavery, which affected millions of humans ... and here you are making partisan hay?

I guess I know what you consider important here.

---

(August 19, 2017 at 11:40 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 16, 2017 at 8:28 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: We didn't forget the Nazis and we dismantled their statues.

Many of these Confederate statues were installed during Jim Crow and the push for Civil Rights. They were installed in bad faith and they're currently defended by people acting in bad faith.

I cannot see a better reason than that to dismantle these cheap ass ($400) piles of crap masquerading as "history".

History is preserving battle fields, not the monuments of traitors or nazis.

You don't see statues of King George throughout the South. So much for the "history" argument, which I also suspected of being made in bad faith.

Anyone who knows a damned thing about these statues and when they were installed knows a great many of them came to be over racial prejudice toward current events of that time.

The colonists destroyed all of the King George statues in America.

https://imgflip.com/i/1uao93

Good lord! However did we manage to remember him?!

Red herrings...

Red herrings everywhere.