A Southern lawmaker called Lincoln a ‘tyrant’ and compared him to Hitler

[David_TheMan]

Since we are quoting Lincoln, here's the money shot " If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Political bullshyt.
this is a man, that had he not been assasinated, would have forcefully rounded up blacks, put us on a ship and sent us to a US colony in africa.
Lincoln was a outright racist, Fredrick Douglass hated the man, and only spoke at his funeral because he thought he might be able to generate some good will for american blacks after talking to Lincoln's wife.

 

[Pirius Black]

Who cares if Lincoln was a racist. He freed the slaves. There seems to be some magical thinking going on, that because he wasn't John Brown, he did nothing to benefit blacks. I don't care about his motives, only that the act was done
Secondly, he received Douglass at the White House, where Douglass then marvelled at the gentlemanly way he was received, without regards to color. Lincoln by 1864 had already quietly dropped his colonization plans. His tentative plans in Louisiana, in which he endorsed limited franchise being extended to black veterans and freedman is proof of this.

 

[Pirius Black]

Said by no one

But is that not the crux of your argument sir? That all those innocent white people didn't have to die to free us poor darkies, that the white loving invisible hand of the free market would have sped us to freedom in due time? Are you not arguing that the slaves, the most valuable material asset in the US, would have been freed peacefully and without conflict correct?

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

But is that not the crux of your argument sir? That all those innocent white people didn't have to die to free us poor darkies, that the white loving invisible hand of the free market would have sped us to freedom in due time? Are you not arguing that the slaves, the most valuable material asset in the US, would have been freed peacefully and without conflict correct?

He's also ignoring that the United States held onto the institution of slavery decades after the ending of the transatlantic slave trade. There's no defending his stance.

 

[Pirius Black]

He's also ignoring that the United States held onto the institution of slavery decades after the ending of the transatlantic slave trade. There's no defending his stance.

And they only ended the Trans Atlantic trade because the foreign trade in our people threatened to undercut "domestic production" and disrupt the internal slave trade! Buy American indeed @

 

[Samori Toure]

Go read the Articles of Secession. The southerners explicitly state that they wanted to secede in order to preserve the institution of slavery and that continued subjugation of Black people was an expression of God's will. That fact that some regular citizens didn't give a fukk is irrelevant. The causes of the war are defined by those with the ability to wage war. All this taxes and tariffs bullshyt is just a byproduct of lost cause scholarship. Southerners knew they were going on the ash heap of history and were trying to save face for future generations.

I have no idea what taxes and tariffs bullshyt that you are talking about, because I never brought that shyt up.

What I brought up was that the Civil War was not as cut and dried as people have been led to believe. There is a lot of revisionism that has went on in both the North and the South to try to cast peoples bullshyt in a noble light. The lies that have been told are just absurd, because some of the stuff that you have been told that they were fighting about; was not what the fukk that were really fighting about.

Not all Northerners were in favor of abolishing slavery, but in history Northern White people have conflated the position of the abolitionist as the position of that of all Northern White people. That was simply not true, because there were Northerners that sympathized with the Southerners. Additionally, not all Southerners were in favor of the Civil War. Seriously read the stuff written during that time in the legislatures or North Carolina and Tennessee.

Seriously, most Northerners were only interested in preserving the Union. The ending of slavery was a by-product of that goal.

Here is Lincoln's own quote in a letter that he wrote to Horace Greeley:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.

Here are other things dealing with Lincoln and slavery.
5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines

General Sherman like Lincoln didn't care one way or the other about slavery. It was the Union that they were concerned with.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/shermans-southern-sympathies/?_r=0

 

[88m3]

War of Northern Aggression

Negged

 

[Eddy Gordo]

@DEAD7 In what scenario does the slavery just die of natural causes in the U.S. That's cool in the U.K where they don't have a massive economy based on slave labor. Yet in the US where most of the states that seceded identified slavery as their reason or one of their reasons for leaving. While this was going on they started to try taking forts from the union armies by force I.e. Sumter, Pickens. How does this scenario not start a war?

 

[DEAD7]

Negged

 

[DEAD7]

But is that not the crux of your argument sir? That all those innocent white people didn't have to die to free us poor darkies, that the white loving invisible hand of the free market would have sped us to freedom in due time? Are you not arguing that the slaves, the most valuable material asset in the US, would have been freed peacefully and without conflict correct?

My argument is that war wasnt necessary and that slavery could have, and would have ended in America the same way it ended in countless other countries around the world at the time.
I've quoted my post for accuracy.

The civil war wasn't necessary

Slavery was ended everywhere else without conflict... supporting the idea.
What makes you think that war was necessary?

But now that we have taken the question of whether war was necessary and moved into the "innocent whites" vs "poor darkies" space and the make believe free market argument has reared its ugly head again. I'ma just bow out.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

would have ended in America the same way it ended in countless other countries

Countless? Okay. Give us the details on, say, ten countries where slavery ended with the slavers just saying "You know what? Y'all free to go. I admit, I was wrong to be enslaving you like that. My bad."