laklak wrote:Lincoln was racist as all fuck.

So freeing slaves was a policy motivated by racism? Doesn't parse.

Lincoln did not care. He just wanted to destroy the south.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

“And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the 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.”

“I will say then that 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.”

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/05/05/not-great-emancipator-10-racists-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/5/

If it looks like a duck...

Scot Dutchy wrote:Lincoln did not care. He just wanted to destroy the south.

The fuck?? This sounds like some of the crazy revisionism they've got in the deep South. Lincoln spent his entire political career opposing slavery.

What the fuck are they they putting on British television these days? I might have to watch this show...

laklak wrote:Lincoln was racist as all fuck.

Sure, by today's standards. By the standards of his time, however, he was an SJW libtard cuck.

eta: Plus, his views evolved over time. He became less racist as he got older. And while he did believe that whites were superior, and he wasn't as abolitionist as the Radical Republicans, he absolutely hated slavery, and was morally opposed to it even before he got into politics.

Seabass wrote:

laklak wrote:Lincoln was racist as all fuck.

Sure, by today's standards. By the standards of his time, however, he was an SJW libtard cuck.

Ditto Gandhi

Seabass wrote: Lincoln spent his entire political career opposing slavery.

Of course that is why freed slaves were treated so badly. Slaves were not equals.

felltoearth wrote:

laklak wrote:Lincoln was racist as all fuck.

So freeing slaves was a policy motivated by racism? Doesn't parse.

No, freeing slaves was a policy motivated by giving economic clout to Northern industrialists who used machines, over Southern latifundiarists who relied on slaves as cheap labor to make their cotton and whatnot economically competitive.

Seabass wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Lincoln did not care. He just wanted to destroy the south.

The fuck?? This sounds like some of the crazy revisionism they've got in the deep South. Lincoln spent his entire political career opposing slavery.

The American Civil War was about slavery first and last. There is no doubt about it. In a way there's an element of truth in what Scott Dutchy wrote, though I would not express the situation so bluntly, and I'd look at it from a slightly different angle:

While Lincoln opposed slavery personally, this issue did not form part of his conduct as POTUS, at least not until the Confederates were defeated. His actions were motivated by one aim to the exclusion of all others: Saving the "united" part of the United States of America. He made this crystal clear in a letter to founder and editor of the the New-York Tribune, Horace Greeley, when Greeley accused Lincoln's administration of lacking direction and resolve. In part it read:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Lincoln did not want to destroy the south. He did want to prevent the south's secession, and to do that he had to destroy the Confederacy by military means. In that he had no choice after Fort Sumpter.

Sure, I know the letter. I'm just sayin', the notion that Lincoln didn't care about, or wasn't opposed to slavery is wrong. And I wouldn't have used "destroy" where he did. "Subdue", "defeat", "bring to heel" work, but maybe I'm just being pedantic...

Seabass wrote:Sure, I know the letter. I'm just sayin', the notion that Lincoln didn't care about, or wasn't opposed to slavery is wrong. And I wouldn't have used "destroy" where he did. "Subdue", "defeat", "bring to heel" work, but maybe I'm just being pedantic...

In addition to your post, and Scott Dutchy's, you need to bear post #21 in mind to read my reply in its proper context. Freeing slaves had nothing to do with what Lincoln thought about slavery. It had everything to do with the need of more soldiers. Lincoln actually wrote that he declared them to be free because he needed more soldiers, and that he realised he could not expect them to risk their lives without a quid pro quo. This is completely concordant with the letter he wrote in reply to Greeley's editorial.

There was also the matter of the newly found Western States and which system they would choose. Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of the southern system. The need for soldiers was an important factor.
The freed slaves were caught by their old owners in the share cropping schemes where they even ended up worse than they were as slaves.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The freed slaves were caught by their old owners in the share cropping schemes where they even ended up worse than they were as slaves.

Yes. The end of formal slavery made buggerall difference to the quality of life for the emancipated slaves. Lucy Worsley focused on that aspect as much as is possible in a program spanning barely one hour. I appreciate her the more for that.