Related Posts
Best and worst part about working for a TPA?
Layoffs on the horizon?
Best wineries in/around Napa?
Additional Posts in Politics
Thoughts on Trump talking about wind?
Definitely not suspicious at all. Nope.
Now start getting the vermin out of the WH...
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Visual Storyteller
Lincoln never owned slaves..
Rising Star
Anti. black.
Lincoln does not need to be a saint to have done enormous good for this country. He was enormously skilled and pragmatic - a lesser leader could have lost the war or let the Confederacy survive, and a lesser leader definitely bungled Reconstruction. He has also been a guide for leadership for pretty much every president since, including modern ones like Bush/Obama.
Rising Star
You. Are. Welcome.
First, Lincoln never owned slaves.
Second, you have to recognize the constraints he had. If he had added union and union controlled states to the emancipation proclamation, he likely would have lost the support of those states. Had he done that, the union loses. Had the union lost, no one is freed.
What would you have done? And what would the consequences be?
By historical accounts, Lincoln was abhorred by the slave trade from a young age. He may have been president, but that doesn’t mean he had all the power.
Adding on. Apparently Lincoln tired to emancipate slaves in Delaware but it was rejected by the state. Learn something new everyday
We can’t apply Todays standards to Lincoln, it’s ridiculous
Lincoln’s version of the 13th amendment didn’t free northern slaves, and he wasn’t ready for that. It adjusted after his death.
Even then, the “as a punishment for a crimes piece has continued to damage many, since prison labor is essentially free.
Frankly we over romanticize almost all of the "popular" presidents. Regardless of their flaws, they were "great" men.
LOL at Lincoln owned slaves.
Chief
Compared to Trump anyone would look like a saint.
Get over it
Pro
Lincoln only wanted to stop the spread of slave states when admitted into the Union. He was A-OK with slavery in states like Mississippi and Georgia. He figured it would die off at some point, but didn't really care one way or another. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation did squat. It only freed the slaves in KY and WV(?), whichever the two states were that wanted no part of the Civil War. Why those two states? Because slavery wasn't a thing in the North and the South belonged to the Confederacy so clearly they weren't about to follow laws passed by the Union. And furthermore, Lincoln only cared about preserving the Union, the slavery issue was an afterthought.
What a gross oversimplification. Anybody would tell you that the issues of slavery and preserving the Union were inextricably linked, and Lincoln, the Confederacy, and everyone alive at the time knew that. Don't dismiss the very fraught and contentious debates/compromises to win a potentially existential war as somehow meaning slavery was an "afterthought"in their minds.
It's Emancipation Proclamation, not declaration.