Another Democrat Big Lie - Lincoln didn't care about slavery

[melvin_udall]

In the vein of my post about the Democrat Big Lie regarding the 3/5ths Clause as part of their effort to falsely paint the Constitution as a racist document, I figured I should cover a similar lie about Lincoln

Comments

Lincoln and Slavery

[jordan179]

Two factors also at play here are The Year Zero and Words Count Not Actions.

The Year Zero

The Left is constantly "re-inventing" itself and trying to win propaganda victories by devising new "standards" and then attacking others for failing to "meet" these standards. Lincoln was, by the standards of 1860, as close to a radical Abolitionist as stood a chance of being elected. But, because he failed to speak to meet the political standards of 2010, he's rejected as a "racist."

Words Count Not Actions

Anyone criticizing Lincoln for not really wanting to end slavery has to face one huge inconvenient fact: he is, in fact, the President who ended slavery. By executive fiat, no less, which means he was taking a serious political risk in doing so. But then if words count rather than actions, who cares? Lincoln failed to mouth the words to please the Leftist audience of 2010, and that's all that matters.

What difference does it make that said Leftist audience, rather than ending the chattel slavery still practiced in 2010, instead

Re: Lincoln and Slavery

[melvin_udall]

Excellent observations. Dead on.

The Year Zero factor I refer to as presentism but yours is more accurate, as presentism is just a factor.

What difference does it make that said Leftist audience, rather than ending the chattel slavery still practiced in 2010, instead has come up with "multicultural" reasons why we should accept it in silence?
Absolutely true. They can't give a rat's ass about CURRENT slavery in Africa. Given their global perspective I'm unsure how that doesn't make each and every Democrat as bad as those slave condoning and owning racist Founding Fathers.

Re: Lincoln and Slavery

[kharmii]

The closest that I've heard a liberal complain about current slavery is white slavery in western countries. They claim that we don't do enough to stop it, almost insinuating that it's deliberate! Granted, the Dept. of Homeland Security is obviously lax on immigration issues, but I could at least imagine they'd crack down on that.

Re: Lincoln and Slavery

[melvin_udall]

You mean sex trafficking? Some few do, yes.

[yes_justice]

You cited level_head, who wrote: "It has become trendy by some on the political extremes -- on both sides -- to assume that Lincoln was really a bigot, a power-seeker, and that he didn't care about slavery."

I would like an example of this on either side. I've seen historians do this, but not the lefty ones like Zinn and ilk.

Why do you think level_head wrote "on both sides"?

[melvin_udall]

Go look.

Dunno.

[yes_justice]

Ok.

[melvin_udall]

Oh BTW, the posts people choose to reply to says a lot about them. Their selection then choice of comment tends to make their agenda and bias obvious.

For instance, if they are too much a coward or liar to post about post (A) because they know their Liberal talking point wouldn't survive without tag teaming, but they show up to post (D) because they think they sense a weakness they can mock or exploit in front of the vermin in their friends lists and communities, it says a great deal about their character and intentions.

Just saying.

[langostino]

Lincoln's letter is about the expansion of slavery. He says he will fight its expansion, not its existence. He was perfectly willing to countenance the continuation of slavery in the current slave states.

[melvin_udall]

Thank you. Someone was asking if you people actually do this and I had no ready proof.

[langostino]

Read your own quote from the letter. Lincoln was very opposed to the expansion of slavery--you might call him an anti-expansion activist--but even what you've quoted says nothing about ending slavery where it currently existed.

This is not a knock against Lincoln; in his day, ending slavery entirely was considered politically impossible by pretty much everyone. And guess what? They were right--it took a war, and a good deal of physical destruction of the South, to achieve that end.

[melvin_udall]

You make a fine argument. I already said thank you.

BTW, as I just observed to another member of the clique, the comments that are skipped are often more telling than those that receive a comment.

I appreciate both your input and lack thereof as informative, I assure you.

[myndcryme]

I need to bone up on my Lincolnian history, especially when it comes to his attitude toward the institution.

What I do know is that he was the president who dealt the death blow to the tenth amendment, and inadvertently opened the floodgates to the federal headless leviathan.

- V -

[hannahsarah]

I remember very clearly, in my high school history classes (appx 1979, 80) , that the teachers always emphasized how Lincoln, and Northerners in general did not care about slavery AT ALL. It had nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with power, greed and political wranglings. Apparently, white people are incapable of making moral decisions.

I didn't care. In my mind Lincoln was a brave man who went against the tide of public opinion, risking his career and evenutally his life. He was a hero, but he had to be a secret hero.

Today, if you ask the average black teen "Who freed the slaves?" I'll bet you the majority of them will say MLK or Malcom X.