What did Abraham Lincoln think about slavery?
481179
Actually, Lincoln said while he felt whites were superior to blacks (this sounds awful now, but remember that even as late as Harry Truman this was considered a legitimate statement), this did not give any justification for blacks to be slaves to whites. He said there was no justification to keep a black man from enjoying the fruits of his own labor. Further, he felt that black slavery was a burden that stifled free labor, which led into one of his more famous sayings was that "A house divided cannot long stand," meaning that the two separate systems could not be at peace because slave labor was a constant threat to free labor, just as we are seeing today when jobs that used to be done by Americans are now being done by Chinese political prisoners, or how employers here are luring illegal workers because they will then be at the mercy of whatever the employer wants to pay.\n\nAt his inauguration, Lincoln had said that he wanted the end of slavery, but that he wanted to preserve the Union even more. "If I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that."\n\nThe Emancipation was certainly a generous act, and took a great deal of courage, but it was also politically calculated. He had intended to issue it for a while, but waited for a fairly successful battle (Antietam) to announce it. Because of the growing intolerance of slavery in Europe, emancipation combined with a federal victory would make it impractical for England or France to lend material assistance to the Confederate cause.
1033531
Strangely, there were some Blacks who were against Lincoln for various reasons, but they were in the minority (pun NOT intended).\n\nYou have to remember that Lincoln's original plans for freeing the slaves included sending them all to another country once they were free... he never intended for Black people to remain in the U.S. once they were emancipated.  Obviously, some of the Black people where would have been effected by this policy were against Lincoln's plans.\n\nYou also have to keep in mind that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over STATE'S RIGHTS... the Emancipation Proclaimation was used by Lincoln in an attempt to scare the southern states back into the union... when it failed... he freed the Slaves.  It's only been the people who have re-written history who have made Slavery the primary reason for that terrible conflict but the historical record says differently.
233370
It was probably different than most people think. Here is some examples: There social life was done this way to keep them slaves how else were they able to keep millions in slavery, well here how.\n\nADVICE FOR SLAVE MASTERS ON HOW TO MAKE SLAVES \nFROM ONE WHITE SLAVE PLANTATION OWNER. By Willie Lynch\n\nHe saw a problem with the slaves they ran away, they killed them, and they wasn't always taking care of their crops so he came up with a genius idea to control them, by lies and deception.\n\nHe said " I guarantee everyone of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years."...I shall give you an outline of action – but before that I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust, and envy is stronger than adulation, respect or admiration...You must also have all your white servants and overseers distrust all blacks but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us. \n\n"Our experts warned us about the possibility of this phenomenon occurring, for they say that the mind has a strong drive to correct and recorrect itself over a period of time if it can touch some substantial original historical base and they advise us that the best way to deal with this phenomenon is to shave off the brutes mental history and create a multiplicity of phenomena of illusions(LIES)\n\nThey would beat the male slave to the point of death in front of his family, so that there mom would see this and raise there kids in revese roles. Fearing for her sons life. So that would put the women in charge, in others words you will have men slaves with the spirit of women.
650404
ok, you have to look at what makes a great leader.  You have the core values, but you need to do a little digging.  What was his vision?...That slaves become free and what did that mean.  Being free didn't make slaves citizens.  \n\nWhat was he passionate about?  You can open any history book and find that answer to that.  life, liberty and pursuit of freedom.  Think about what was going on at that time.\n\nWhat decisions did he make and why were they considered good.  Look to the site below and critically think about what decisions were made.\n\nPlus, Abe could debate.  Think about leaders and think about how they do with pubic speaking.  Do we consider George W. as a good leader.  No. But he can't speak either.  Hitler was horrible man, but why did a whole country follow him.  He could speak and articulate ideas well.  This encourges followers.\n\nAbe was known as a moral man.  Think about the morals of the time.  You must remember thou.  Why was he percieved as an ethical man.  If slaves were not seen as people and he comes along to fight to give them rights and citizenship.  It means that more people percived him as ethical.\n\nHope this helps.
313435
Actually, Abolitionism was a major political force before the Civil War, primarily in the North but some in the South (where it was extremely dangerous because of lynching, etc). And, slave labor in the South was not free, there were huge costs entailed in housing and disciplining the slaves. There was also the huge moral and psychological cost of keeping slaves, as there is always at least some implied violence in the Peculiar Institution. In fact, because at the founding of the country there were so many people in the South who unilaterally freed their slaves, most Southern states placed huge financial disincentives against emancipation.\n\nAnyways, to finally get to the question at hand. Abolitionism got most of its support because it advocated the emancipation of slaves because of religious and moral reasons, and as such they tried to take the moral high ground from the Southern slave holders. People in the South tended to believe the propaganda that blacks could not take care of themselves, could not live in society, and would never be amenable to Christianity if not forced to live as slaves. This attitude from the Abolitionists to portray slavery as an indefensible and amoral evil practice made many people on both sides of the debate feel there was no room for argument. The radical fringe of Abolitionists also wanted to end the idea of governmental emancipation with federal compensation to owners and colonization of the freed slaves either to Haiti (with disastrous results) and Liberia (not much better). With absolutely no common ground from which to seek compromise, the two sides grew farther and farther apart until conflict was almost inevitable. In fact, when the Southern states were discussing secession, the congressional delegations from several Northern states suggested that a compromise could be reached if the Southern states would agree to even a rudimentary hearing to determine if black people seized as Runaway Slaves under the federal act were actually slaves at all, but because of the hard feelings the suggestion that a Southern gentleman could actually be mistaken about who was and was not a slave simply made the Southerners even more angry.\n\nMany people, myself included, see a corollary between Abolitionism and the tactics of the Pro-Life movement, who portray all abortions as indefensible murders of innocent children, thus allowing no meaningful debate on the issue at all.
441917
it was up to popular sovernty, if the majority wanted slavery then there would be. They voted and decided not to allow slavery in the utah territory.
411550
In the Civil War, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves under Confederate rule, along with limiting habeas corpus in cases where people protested against the new draft law that was put in effect.
461280
Here's a better question? Why is there a black histoy month?  Why not just study it with the rest of history for the whole year? Or let's give everyone else a history month too and not discuss history outside of those monthes.\n\nAlso, no one mentionedthis but it's a well known fact that Lincoln did freed slaves as a last resort.  It's like like the guy did it willingly, he did it beacuse he needed more men in the army and slaves are either going to desert, attack owners, or just have no morale otherwise, so he freed them.  Done deal.
1047767
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States.  He led the country during the Civil War and is generally given great credit for preserving the Union. He also signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in the rebelling Confederacy, although this was more of a political manuever than anything else.  He was assassinated shortly after the end of the war by an angry Southerner.  \n\nYou can find more information at the link I've provided below.
510708
Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address," 4 March 1865\n\n\nFellow-Countrymen:\n\nAt this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.\n\nOn the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.\n\nOne-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."\n\nWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting
238427
Okay, To let it be known, all things that happened in th past is brought up for a reason, to let us know what the deal was. If u havent noticed, history repeats itself in some way. Black slavery was the harshest outta all slaverys as most people have said. Yet, also, alot of other nationalities have been enslaved as well. Its just that ours were the worst. Yer bro-n-law is wrong by the way. U mite wanna educate him, and show him what the deal is, that it wasnt just blacks, it was everyone. Also, it really doent need to be brought up, unless its n a history class. \n\nHave yall seen the Dave Chappelle show, when he did the thing on Slavery Compensation. (i thought that was pretty funny) yet, if thats the case, shouldnt everyone else that was enslaved as well get paid too?? It wouldnt be fair. Ill honestly say that none of us (blacks) deserve to get paid. Paying us in money, for sumthin that has traumatized possibly the whole world is actually priceless. There isnt enuff money in the world to say, "oh its aight"\n\nFinal answers:\nWhy people complain?? Because it still hurts and its the most recent (sort of) Yer bro-n-law is wrong. Most races have went thru some type of slavey in some point of time.\n\nhope i helped
425732
The Prez:     Abraham Lincoln\nThe 3 Words:  Honesty Integrity Freedom\n\n\nThe Sermon:\nBack before the Reaganista coup, the Republicans used to be proud of the man who launched their party into the national scene. They called themselves "The Party of Lincoln". They reveled in the moral certitude "The Great Emancipator" conveyed upon their party.\n\nBut now the Repugnantans would just as soon sweep Lincoln under a rug; he interferes with their "Southern Strategy" (that is the two-word name of the strategy; the essence of the strategy can also be summed up in two words: "Embrace Bigotry"). There is certainly no place for Abraham Lincoln in a party like that. That is okay; we Democrats are more than happy to adopt him and everything he once stood for.\n\nAs for the "Southern Strategy," the Repugnantans are welcome to all the KKKers and neo-Nazis they can handle. Their short-term gains are on the verge of being washed away by the long term tide of public disgust.
420913
I think he was.  Yea, he was a racist, but so was Lincoln.  He had slaves, but who didnt?  Its easy to judge him now out of context, but he was born and raised in Va since 1807, it was the way of life,so you cant judge him using today's standards.  It takes extraordinary people to go against popular belief, but just because you dont, doesnt make you a bad person.
93390
The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, America's first Republican president.\n\n\nFour score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. \n\nNow we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. \n\nBut, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth.
110226
the reason is that Abraham Lincoln the man who freed the blacks from slavery has his birthday in February
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
1144591
First, it is true: Lincoln said he wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.  "My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia."  (Ottawa, August 21, 1858) \n\nThis is his words, check on his speech in Ottawa August 21 of 1858. But it was Monroe that actually sent some back.  LINCOLN did not send any slaves back to Africa.