“As long as blacks continue to live with the whites, they constitute a threat to national life.”“I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”“I have no purpose directly nor indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery.”
These are not the words of a man whose political ambitions were to abolish slavery. They are the words of a man whose soul has been misappropriated by fallacy when studying this war, and the entire white race's ugly past with colonialism, slavery, racial genocide, and attempts to struggle with the reality of that identity…
Abraham Lincoln, in spite of the elevation of bards into legendary status, was not immortal, he was not perfect, and he was not gifted with the undying desire to apply equality for all.
The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, was the nineteenth century equivalency of psychological warfare. The same kind of thinking that bode German soldiers to surrender to Americans or British troops before the Russians get him, by writing that message on placards, and dropping them by parachute directly upon his positions.
The facts that started the war were indeed about slavery. But they cannot boil down to this; no more than oversimplification might render any given individual into a collection of fluid and proteins, and starches; and justifying robbing them based upon that fact.
Linclon did indeed believe that slavery had already altered the natural course of democracy. But this was strictly due to the differences that slavery had caused as opposed to a nation free-of-black people, in general. He was engaging a clear direction towards expelling black people, slaves, and the entire dilemma into the continent from which it come.
And facts like this, as well as facts, like how George Tecumseh Sherman was actually a Southern sympathizer, remain lost to fallacy. It is a fact of exploitation that their generation lived with, lacking any such moral awarenesses that there was a monster of despicable resolve in the entire paradigm and mode of their existence. Even in the words they chose.
But for both sides, the soldier, the general, the widows and orphans gave, gave, and gave: and no generation bears the right, nor the divine assessment in which he or she might overturn their monuments, demolish them, and continue the dialogue of ignorance and arrogance for one distinct reason: they have bequeathed us facts.
We chose to allow “others”to alter those facts.
If we took away the symbols of their efforts, we are fulfilling the engagement to repeat the past, for we are intelligent people who write on Quora. We have no reason to flinch from the truth.
The Missouri Compromise: slavery is limited to areas below the green line.
The Kansas/Nebraska Act: Lincoln's concern was that the black race would be bondaged here from Africa, endlessly, and whether freed, or escaped, co-mingle among whites.
The Missouri Compromise
The Kansas/Nebraska Act:
The contradiction of itself Congress made by passing the Kansas/Nebraska Act, and a generally contemporary racist pursuit to exclude black people from entering the United States via slave-trade, or to seek sanctuary upon escaping the slave trade in states guaranteed to be free of slavery, were, are, and shall always be the actual causes of the American Civil War.
Slavery is in there…
Lincoln felt surrounded.
The Historians Burning Lies…
Lincoln's speeches, as well as his references to the Dred Scott decision in debates against Stephen Douglass, have recieved, helplessly, advocatelessly, and in ulterior motives; the burden of captor to the daily exorcisms of the entire country's unconfronted shame of racism.
The irresponsibility triggered a chain-reaction resulting in a nation irreconcilable to the ideals of the framers of the Constitution, not because of racism, but because of those whom cannot accept the truth guiding a delusion as to Lincoln's view of the Dred Scott case. He recognized that, at least temporarily, it would prevent the usage of courts as a methodolgy to engage escape.
It is that simple. Yet, historian after historian need to warn you, “translate”, and affix an artificial sense that, “his times were different…”, or, “watch out, (we cannot understand, either, but he condemns the Dred Scott decision, which he does, but…) he then praises colonialism”…as in Liberia.
The missing pieces to each of the Newberry, or Teaching Center search results, the ones where it is obvious that the historian is guiding you away from the obvious conclusion, each asserts a “conflict” which is uncanny. It isn't uncanny.
True, Lincoln despised slavery. But he saw no resolution for black people in America. It remains a signifigance above ridiculous that this man's soul must be made free in a truth that he would not deny.
But it also remains true that his racial conflicts shall never be resolved. And, for as long as fallacy of the single-fact, which is what we historians call the despicable practice of oversimplification, is allowed occupy places inside where we each should have had his courage, then when demolishing Confederate statues, next time, finish the job, start with his: because our struggle with racism will never be confronted, either.
Because each suceeding generation just deposits this turmoil upon the next.
|On Quora, this fact only got three views.|