elbucho
Ok, that makes sense. I don’t agree that you were clearly arguing that until this moment; I was, in fact, very confused as to what you were saying. But perhaps you’re right that I’m misinterpreting the quote. I would argue, however, that social dominance and slavery are not too distant from each other. A big part of the justification that slavers used to salve their consciences was that blacks were naturally inferior to whites, therefore it was only natural that this state of affairs would end in slavery. Lincoln’s aping of that logic in an era where a significant number of people used it to justify slavery might not, as you suggest, mean that he thought slavery was inevitable (as the slavers did). But it certainly muddies the waters.
I will concede this point, however; because it’s not possible to get into his head at the moment he said those words and see precisely what he meant by them, the issue is muddy enough that he could have meant simply that there would necessarily be first and second class citizens in a mixed country, and not that this condition would necessarily lead to slavery. That being said, it doesn’t detract much from the rest of my point, which was, as KevonLooney said, that the union was not at the outset particularly interested in outlawing slavery.
Edit: also, this quote was pre-war, not post-war. He said it in 1858.
Ok, but I never said that he was in favor of slavery. That’s a completely separate thing from the thing I said. I said that he thought that slavery was a natural consequence of black people and white people living together. The quote I just pointed you to says precisely that. Specifically, this part of the quote:
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
He’s saying that there necessarily exists conditions for servitude in a mixed-race country, and that he wants white people to maintain their dominant position. This isn’t to say that he thinks slavery is good, just that it’s inevitable.
I honestly don’t understand what your argument is anymore. You originally took issue with my assertion that he thought slavery was inevitable, and I provided direct proof showing that was the case. What are you still arguing about?
I have no idea why this man hasn’t been arrested for kidnapping and human trafficking yet. Because that’s essentially what he’s doing. That fuck DeSantis, too. They are rounding up people seeking asylum, putting them on a bus and shipping them half a country away from the location of the courtrooms they will have to attend for their asylum hearings, thus making it very likely that they won’t make it and will be denied in absentia.
The man was racist in a manner not uncommon to his time, but hardly to the degree claimed - that slavery was a natural consequence of a mixed nation.
I agree with you that his views evolved over time, but your assertion that he did not at one point live up to the degree of racism that I claimed doesn’t mesh very well with this quote from his debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858:
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
At his White House meeting with black thought leaders in 1862, he said:
Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated
This certainly indicates that he still saw an inequality and animosity between black and white people. And while he did eventually come to agree with those who vehemently opposed resettlement of black people, it was really only after the spectacular failure of Île à Vache (a colony off the coast of Haiti) in 1863-64 that he abandoned his original position.
Abolitionists supported the war because it was the most expedient path to end the practice of slavery. That being said, Lincoln didn’t initially set out to abolish slavery. When he was campaigning for president, his goal was to halt the expansion of slavery in the Union, admitting no more slave states; he had no intention of outlawing slavery in existing slave states. In fact, when General Fremont issued an order that would emancipate the slaves of “disloyal” citizens in Missouri (which did not secede), Lincoln immediately countermanded that order. When he pushed for the emancipation proclamation a year later, his intention was not to free slaves, but rather to create chaos behind enemy lines. All slave-holding states that remained in the union were specifically exempted in its language.
And it’s not like he was super anti-slavery in his personal views, either. He didn’t like it, certainly, but he wasn’t above using it to his advantage. When the first black people escaped from slave states after the outset of war, Lincoln decreed that they should be treated as “spoils of war”, and used in the fight against the South. He did not give them a choice in the matter. In essence, though they had escaped to what was supposedly a “free” state, they just ended up exchanging one master for another. To Lincoln’s mind, slavery was a natural consequence of black people and white people sharing the country; his solution was to ship all of the black people in the US over to Liberia.
And it’s not like he was the only person with governmental authority in the Union who had laissez faire attitudes towards slavery. The original proposed 13th amendment, which saw wide bipartisan support in congress, would have prevented Congress from making any laws concerning the abolishment of slavery:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
This proposed amendment was sent to the states, but narrowly missed the threshold for ratification.
So yeah; the abolitionists supported the war effort, but to be fair, it was really the only game in town. The union was only anti-slavery as a last resort, as a way to remove the economic incentive for Southern states to secede again.
Edit: just wanted to point out that only some of the abolitionists supported the war. A significant faction of the abolitionists were the quakers, who were vehemently against war.
Huh. Call me provincial, but I had no idea that sovereign citizens existed outside of America. The idea of a Cypriot sovcit never occurred to me.
But again, even in your example, you’re demonstrating my point that “tolerating” someone means that there’s a grievance. Mainly, my original comment was just expressing my frustration that people say things like “the tolerant left”, as in “tolerating” people who are gay, etc, is some kind of virtue. It just feels like people equate the concept of tolerance with not being a bigot, when in reality only bigots have to tolerate minority groups because deep down they dislike them because of their sexual orientation or skin color or whatever.