Abe Lincoln's racism is incredible.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."-1858

"I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them?"-August 26, 1863

Is it just me or does this guy get more credit than he deserves?

Discuss!

Nevermind. It's a quote.

Anyway, okay.

The guy has been dead for over 100 years, give him a rest.

What's wrong with the second quote?

pretty much everyone was racist back then

........................ Wow you don't say? A white guy from the 1800s whose racist? Do people understand that the vast majority of whites in the US before and after the Civil War were extremely racist regardless if they were for or against slavery? No one should put Lincoln on the pedestal for that, especially when he had no intention of ending slavery to begin with..

What's wrong with the second quote?

Oleg_Huzwog

Cannon fodder, dude.

pretty much everyone was racist back then

sikanderahmed

You sure? He was debated several times on his racism from whites that cared FOR black people and their equality. If everyone was racist, why were black women allowed businesses in the south? Seems like they'd be denied, sort of like how Illinois denied free slaves from entering their state.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

What's wrong with the second quote?

BessenStock

Cannon fodder, dude.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

pretty much everyone was racist back then

BessenStock

You sure? He was debated several times on his racism from whites that cared FOR black people and their equality. If everyone was racist, why were black women allowed businesses in the south? Seems like they'd be denied, sort of like how Illinois denied free slaves from entering their state.

It makes no sense hating on people for what was thought to be common practice and custom during their time. Though alot of people still do it.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

pretty much everyone was racist back then

BessenStock

You sure? He was debated several times on his racism from whites that cared FOR black people and their equality. If everyone was racist, why were black women allowed businesses in the south? Seems like they'd be denied, sort of like how Illinois denied free slaves from entering their state.

... Blacks were tolerated if they "learned their place".. If you actually read things like the riots in the north the decades after you would see the north was hardly better then the south when it came to racist sentiment.. Take for instance Ford.. Who many people considered a "pioneer" of equality to some between whites and blacks when he hired both in Detroit.. He wasn't, he actually was quite the racist himself and had his own personal security force to make sure the whites and blacks outside of work didn't converse.. Furthermore they made sure that the black workers were living in the correct area for blacks etc etc..

Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?xaos

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

Abraham Lincoln was very progressive for his day.Genetic_Code

Ideologically, not at all.

There is a big difference in what is taught (about Lincoln) at the HS at college levels. The removal of slavery was not meant to bring about equality.rawsavon

[QUOTE="xaos"]

Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?

BessenStock

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

Not really.

Whatta jerk.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?BessenStock

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

I don't see what your getting at.. Its pretty common knowledge every one was racist asses just about (outside of a extreme minority) throughout the United States.. The only thing I go after the South for is the claim that the Civil War was about supposed "states rights" and not because of slavery.. When we have found evidence that states completely otherwise.. They had no care for states rights for instance if it served their own interest for instance, as obviously shown with the fugitive slave act they all supported..

[QUOTE="xaos"]Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?BessenStock

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

Eh? Who rejects that the North had issues?

thats great.

[QUOTE="BessenStock"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?sSubZerOo

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

I don't see what your getting at.. Its pretty common knowledge every one was racist asses just about (outside of a extreme minority) throughout the United States.. The only thing I go after the South for is the claim that the Civil War was about supposed "states rights" and not because of slavery.. When we have found evidence that states completely otherwise.. They had no care for states rights for instance if it served their own interest for instance, as obviously shown with the fugitive slave act they all supported..

I'd say the states in the south seceded to self govern, slavery being perhaps the most major issue which served as the catalyst to do so, whereas the North fought to retain power.

Not really disagreeing with your post...

a politician making promises he didn't keep, shocking.

[QUOTE="BessenStock"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Are we being led by the nose to some amazing revelation that the north was actually way more racist than the south?sSubZerOo

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

I don't see what your getting at.. Its pretty common knowledge every one was racist asses just about (outside of a extreme minority) throughout the United States.. The only thing I go after the South for is the claim that the Civil War was about supposed "states rights" and not because of slavery.. When we have found evidence that states completely otherwise.. They had no care for states rights for instance if it served their own interest for instance, as obviously shown with the fugitive slave act they all supported..

Lincoln himself stated it wasn't about slavery either. He stated:

"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."

And in the north, Illinois blocked access for freed slaves to enter their state...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BessenStock"]

Nope. I don't split the nation up "north/south" in that regard. Both had racist attitudes. That's the point. We are easy to point out "The south had slaves!" and reject that the north had issues too.

BessenStock

I don't see what your getting at.. Its pretty common knowledge every one was racist asses just about (outside of a extreme minority) throughout the United States.. The only thing I go after the South for is the claim that the Civil War was about supposed "states rights" and not because of slavery.. When we have found evidence that states completely otherwise.. They had no care for states rights for instance if it served their own interest for instance, as obviously shown with the fugitive slave act they all supported..

Lincoln himself stated it wasn't about slavery either. He stated:

"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."

And in the north, Illinois blocked access for freed slaves to enter their state...

That only has to do with why the north fought, not why the south did.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Abraham Lincoln was very progressive for his day.coolbeans90

Ideologically, not at all.

And in the north, Illinois blocked access for freed slaves to enter their state...BessenStock

Mind providing a source for that?

And at any rate one can be racist and still disagree with the idea of slavery. I once knew a man who didn't like anyone who wasn't white, and didn't want to associate with anyone who wasn't white. He believed that God had created the races seperate and that seperate they should remain. Nontheless he felt that all people regardless had a God-given right to self-determination.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat party. Even to this very day, they have the black popluation fooled into beliving they represent their best interests. All they see blacks for is easy 'votes'.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Abraham Lincoln was very progressive for his day.Genetic_Code

Ideologically, not at all.

He wasn't really a progressive beyond using the end of slavery as a means to break the south. So, pragmatically, yes he was progressive, as his actions ended up ending slavery. Ideologically, he said that he was fine with keeping slavery if it would save the Union...

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat party. Even to this very day, they have the black popluation fooled into beliving they represent their best interests. All they see blacks for is easy 'votes'.

p2250

The Democratic party of today is not the same as the Democratic party of the 1860s. Just as the Republican party of today is not the same as the Republican party of the 1860s. Whatever non-point you're trying to make is laughable.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."-1858

"I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them?"-August 26, 1863

Is it just me or does this guy get more credit than he deserves?

Discuss!

BessenStock

He was from a different time, it is understandable.

[QUOTE="p2250"]

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat party. Even to this very day, they have the black popluation fooled into beliving they represent their best interests. All they see blacks for is easy 'votes'.

worlock77

The Democratic party of today is not the same as the Democratic party of the 1860s. Just as the Republican party of today is not the same as the Republican party of the 1860s. Whatever non-point you're trying to make is laughable.

Wow someone 150 years ago was rascist! Everyones racist then and now people need to learn to accept that

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat party. Even to this very day, they have the black popluation fooled into beliving they represent their best interests. All they see blacks for is easy 'votes'.

p2250

No thats not right the KKK was formed to play practical jokes... I don't know how it got to where it was

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by the Democrat party. Even to this very day, they have the black popluation fooled into beliving they represent their best interests. All they see blacks for is easy 'votes'.

p2250

Wow someone 150 years ago was rascist! Everyones racist then and now people need to learn to accept that

Cruse34

who cares... everyone one is racist blacks and whites back then... and people still racist now days and always be like that

U.S-mexians

world-muslims

us china

uk americans

good looking-ugly

jocks-nerds

get over it... it never will end until EVERY person ooks/acts/ live/ 100% the same