At the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, held in Charleston, South Carolina, the “Great Emancipator” began with the following
“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to 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. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”
And yet the Emancipation Proclamation went through. I would suggest you read Cynthia Chung's article 'What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July' which I am certain goes through a section of American history that you are not familiar with. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen. In case you have not noticed, in the course of history, drastic change can almost never occur immediately resulting in a better rather than worse outcome, especially during a period where there was such an upheaval of disagreement over what would be the future course of the United States. The problem of slavery had been introduced and enforced by Britain, via the Royal Africa Company, into the thirteen colonies despite a great deal of resistance by many of the colonies. (Cynthia's article goes through this). In addition, the situation of the civil war was being fanned on both sides (the Abolitionists in the North and the Confederates in the South) by those who wished to break apart the country and was spurred by Britain in favor of separating the Confederates states from Lincoln's Union. The Confederate states were an integral part of Britain's cotton trade reliant on slave labour and the trade of opium (see Cynthia Chung's article "‘The Special Relationship’: How the British Reconquered the United States and Established an Anglo-American Empire" for details on this https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-special-relationship-how-the. Lincoln was for the abolishment of slavery, but not at the cost of the Union of the United States. This, contrary to what so many claim, did not mean he thus had no intention of ending slavery (which he did by the way through The Emancipation Proclamation!) but rather, that he was not going to end slavery at the cost of the union of the country. That is a very different thing my friend. Lincoln was not only able to keep the country whole and defend it against a foreign aggressor (again see Cynthia's article 'The Special Relationship' for details on this) but he also succeeded in abolishing slavery. Then he was assassinated at the very start of his second term and you say, that he had not accomplished enough for his country and that the United States would be better off if he had died sooner?!? If Lincoln had died sooner, the United States would have been broken up into pieces. Yes politics is about saying things you don't mean at times, it has been that way since the beginning of civilization, what speaks more to a statesman's character are his actions, and Lincoln's show that his was a true patriot for his country and all its citizens and opposed to slavery and successfully ended it through the Emancipation Proclamation. If you are troubled by the double talk you need to grow up, because until the world is run by good men it is impossible to transparently announce everything you plan to do and expect to succeed. Lincoln measured up in every way as a defender of freedom and liberty and he would have accomplished a great deal more if he had not been killed. It is sad that you know so little of this history, and write such jaded commentary in defense of the very people who wished to tear the better part of the United States down.
Too bad he wasn't taken out of the picture sooner. Our country would have been a lot better off. Typical doublespeak politician...
Good ol' Lincoln....
From https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm
At the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, held in Charleston, South Carolina, the “Great Emancipator” began with the following
“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to 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. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”
And yet the Emancipation Proclamation went through. I would suggest you read Cynthia Chung's article 'What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July' which I am certain goes through a section of American history that you are not familiar with. https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen. In case you have not noticed, in the course of history, drastic change can almost never occur immediately resulting in a better rather than worse outcome, especially during a period where there was such an upheaval of disagreement over what would be the future course of the United States. The problem of slavery had been introduced and enforced by Britain, via the Royal Africa Company, into the thirteen colonies despite a great deal of resistance by many of the colonies. (Cynthia's article goes through this). In addition, the situation of the civil war was being fanned on both sides (the Abolitionists in the North and the Confederates in the South) by those who wished to break apart the country and was spurred by Britain in favor of separating the Confederates states from Lincoln's Union. The Confederate states were an integral part of Britain's cotton trade reliant on slave labour and the trade of opium (see Cynthia Chung's article "‘The Special Relationship’: How the British Reconquered the United States and Established an Anglo-American Empire" for details on this https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-special-relationship-how-the. Lincoln was for the abolishment of slavery, but not at the cost of the Union of the United States. This, contrary to what so many claim, did not mean he thus had no intention of ending slavery (which he did by the way through The Emancipation Proclamation!) but rather, that he was not going to end slavery at the cost of the union of the country. That is a very different thing my friend. Lincoln was not only able to keep the country whole and defend it against a foreign aggressor (again see Cynthia's article 'The Special Relationship' for details on this) but he also succeeded in abolishing slavery. Then he was assassinated at the very start of his second term and you say, that he had not accomplished enough for his country and that the United States would be better off if he had died sooner?!? If Lincoln had died sooner, the United States would have been broken up into pieces. Yes politics is about saying things you don't mean at times, it has been that way since the beginning of civilization, what speaks more to a statesman's character are his actions, and Lincoln's show that his was a true patriot for his country and all its citizens and opposed to slavery and successfully ended it through the Emancipation Proclamation. If you are troubled by the double talk you need to grow up, because until the world is run by good men it is impossible to transparently announce everything you plan to do and expect to succeed. Lincoln measured up in every way as a defender of freedom and liberty and he would have accomplished a great deal more if he had not been killed. It is sad that you know so little of this history, and write such jaded commentary in defense of the very people who wished to tear the better part of the United States down.