@Lord High Admiral Spire
Read "Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery" by Richard Striner. It addresses a lot of what you say here. He was unequivocally opposed to slavery morally, at the very least, and stated it long before he became president. Lincoln might not have wanted an immediate emancipation, but he was absolutely committed to slavery's extinction:
March 1, 1859: Speech at Chicago, Illinois
I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.
I never said Lincoln was totally anti-slavery, I said he was willing to compromise on slavery if it meant keeping the Union together.
The reason he considered equality impossible is because America, both North and South, was racist as hell, and even abolitionists were not necessarily pro-black suffrage.
This is true- in fact from many of his own statements you can see he may have himself been pro-abolition but not pro-suffrage.
An excerpt from a speech he gave at one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (I know you mentioned it in your comment, I'll address that below, just including the actual text for those who might not have seen it)
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, [applause]-that 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 living together on terms of social and political equality. 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing.
www.nps.gov
To persuade radicals that he took seriously their concerns that abolishing slavery was not enough and that more needed to be done, Lincoln publicly embraced limited black suffrage:
“It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, ‘Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?’ ‘Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?’”
Lincoln had previously supported black suffrage in a private letter to Louisiana’s Governor Michael Hahn written in March 1864. Now he publicly endorsed the step. John Wilkes Booth was among the crowd who listened to Lincoln’s address. Hearing the call for limited black suffrage, Booth declared “that is the last speech he will ever make.” A conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln was already afoot. But Lincoln’s speech on 11 April, and his call for black suffrage, led to the tragic event of 14 April when Booth made good on his word.
The whole reason why John Wilkes Booth shot him is because he was willing to give intelligent blacks and soldiers the vote.
And was his willingness to give them the vote out of genuine belief in equality? Or was that political pandering designed to create a new loyal voting bloc? Before answering, keep in mind Lincoln (as you said yourself) was a politician first and foremost.
The quote where Lincoln talks about not desiring equality stems from his opponent Stephen A. Douglas trying to bait him into saying that he supported racial equality, precisely because it would alienate him from the majority of abolitionist northerners, who were incredibly racist.
I will say this in the most respectful way possible.
Excusing Lincoln's statement by saying he was "baited" or was "trying not to alienate voters" is a cope, and, with all due respect, a rather stupid cope.
As a comparison, you will never see a pro-Lincoln acolyte say that Jefferson Davis was "baited" into giving the Cornerstone Speech because someone asked his opinion, or that he had to say it to "not alienate voters" in the South.
This is not an attack on you specifically, but on the Lincoln revisionists in general. The level of excuses revisionists use to explain away Lincoln's racist statements is never applied to other figures who said racist things while opposing Lincoln- showing that such excuses are not made in good faith but are ideologically driven by a desire to sanitize Lincoln's image.
This is a microosm of what grinds my gears about the pro-Lincoln narrative.
It was a public political debate, Douglas asked a question about racial views, and Lincoln clearly answered it. Just because his answer is not in line with modern sensibilities doesn't mean he was "baited" or that he was "trying not to alienate voters". (the latter excuse being particularly absurd given his abolitionist views already alienated many voters). Those are excuses applied long after the fact.
As you pointed out, abolitionsim was popular in the North, but the North was also quite racist. Lincoln being a Northerner would be aware of this, and possibly have this attitude himself. Therefore, if Lincoln was making a speech to a Northern crowd, and said both pro-abolitionist stuff and racist stuff, it would be logical. But that's not what the revisionist Lincoln narrative claims- the revisionists assume, based on modern sensibilities, that Lincoln only believed the abolitionism but not the racism. Which is a patently inconsistent standard that is allowed to persist for the sake of pro-Lincoln revisionism.
Here's the entire quote where Lincoln says his main aim isn't to destroy slavery
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
So he claims to be personally abolitionist, while also claiming he would willingly allow slavery to continue (presumably indefinitely) if it meant preserving the Union? That's both self-contradicting, and a very "politician" way of putting things, trying to satisfy both sides at once.
The colonization of blacks abroad was most likely a political move done to assuage the fears of racist white Northerners in response to slaves freeing to Northern lines,
This may be one motive, but Lincoln also advocated deportation as a way to improve wages for white laborers in his 1862 State of the Union.
Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and very surely would not reduce them. Thus the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed—the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very probably for a time would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and consequently enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market—increase the demand for it and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor.
He put on a show of supporting it, because it's literally a politician's job to be deceptive.
This is a foolish line of argument- you could say the exact same thing about every single one of his pro-abolition statements. How do you know that he actually supported abolition, or suffrage, and wasn't just saying it to get northern votes and black votes? You're claiming all of his racist statements weren't his actual views but were just pandering to "racist northern" voters- but you're simultaneously claiming the opposite regarding the non-racist statements.
This is what bothers me about the whole revisionist idea of Lincoln as a "Great Emancipator"- the Great Emancipator myth was created by assuming that he meant some things he said, and didn't mean other things he said. And which things he actually "meant" is pretty much interpreted in whatever way makes Lincoln look good by modern standards. Its an incredibly dishonest way of presenting an already complex individual.
Also, as an aside- saying that Lincoln was a typical "deceptive" politician is 100% true. I'm glad you said that because that very statement contradicts the sanitized "Honest Abe" image that is so often presented in the pro-Lincoln narrative.
While Congress appropriated $600,000 for colonizing blacks, less than 7 percent was actually used for it.
Here's a good article discussing it.
Not sure how this in particular pertains to Lincoln, but it sounds like an interesting read. The site you linked to isn't loading for me, so I'll give it a try later. Wonder how much the money was being misspent/embezzled, and if would validate the old adages about Congress being useless.
After his visit to the White House, Frederick Douglass said of Lincoln: “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.”
And in his eulogy for Lincoln:
This is literally the classic "he had a black friend who likes him, so he isn't racist" argument
Was he perfect? No. Was he racist? Quite possibly so. But so was just about everyone in the 1800s, apart from fringe radicals.
Two responses:
1) that sentence directly contradicts the claims you made earlier that Lincoln wasn't racist and supported equality
2) That sentence roughly sums up my point in my original comment. Lincoln wasn't some outstanding moral crusader- he was a northerner who expressed typical northern views on race and slavery. He was also politician who said things as neccesary to get votes. His assassination made him into a perceived martyr, and because of his martyr status he became a disproportionately lionized figure. As a result his legacy and personal image were heavily revised after the fact to hide/downplay inconvenient elements.
On a separate note, I think the worst case of historical revisionism is the idea that religion is the root of all the world's evil, when it's directly responsible for less than 7 percent of all wars, and less than a century of rule by atheist governments saw mass murders that make the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre combined look like a kindergarten playground scuffle.
That is a valid point.
It's also dumb because national reconciliation after the War basically ended the sectarian conflict. Lee and Jackson were American icons just like Grant and Sherman.
I feel like anyone who is assmad about something that happened 160 years ago (many of whom were not even in this country at the time, myself included) need to take a step back and consider what they are doing with their lives.
Very true, especially the second sentence. Its especially bad online with historically illiterate zoomers, half of them just robotically repeat lyrics to "Union Dixie" ad infinitum and spam the same exact Sherman memes, combined with insuffereable moralistic grandstanding. The other half get unironically MATI over the March to the Sea and are insufferably uptight about anyone criticizing a Confederate figure while treating the Antebellum South with absurdly rose tinted goggles. And neither side can tell you anything about the actual war or battles or tactics or economy themselves because, again, historically illiterate retards.
There is value in actual fact-based academic debate on the topic. But you put it perfectly- being assmad (on either side) about shit that you never experienced is dumb and pointless
