🇳🇱
Interesting fact of the day: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation **only** freed the southern slaves and kept the north slaves legal and enslaved. It was a sort "screw you to the south" more so than to abolish slavery.
Lincoln only supported and pushed through the 13th amendment once slavery was voluntarily abolished at the state level first.
@freemo 1. He didn't have the legal authority to unilaterally free slaves. He wasn't a dictator. He did it only in the south (where the vast majority of slaves were located) because they were in rebellion and had no means to challenge it. It was basically a psyop.
2. Presidents play NO role in constitutional amendments. The constitution assigns the power to congress and the states. The Senate passed it right away, when the House dithered, Lincoln stepped in and pushed and got it passed.
@Phil While you are right, they arent a dictator, they do still play a leadership role and can use their veto power for laws (didnt need to be an amendment) for example...
But yes he couldnt make the decision alone, he would have to simply promote a law or amendment, which he didnt even do that much at the time.
@freemo He did as soon as it became necessary. Initially it appeared that the northern states (the southern states had not yet been restored to the union) would pass it easily. As soon as it stalled, he pushed. He was very obviously in favor of the abolishment of slavery and it was his insistence that got the amendment added to the republican platform prior to his re-election. so making it seem like he was disinterested is deceptive.
> He did as soon as it became necessary.
Thats a funny way of saying "once it is pointless"... He only abolished slavery at a federal level once every single state abolished it... That reeks of insincerity and necessity.
> so making it seem like he was disinterested is deceptive.
Like I said, actions speak louder than words... If he really cared to push anti-slavery views his emancipation proclemation would look very different.
Even post slavery Lincoln was quoted saying he didnt beleive in giving blacks voting rights except for the few exceptional "intelligent ones" which is wording highly suggested was a rarity..
Politicians say what gets them elected.. gotta judge them on their actions, not their words.
I think your judgement of him is absurd and twists the history and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the times.
@Phil ditto
The question is if either of us wants to invest the time and energy citing sources, and if we do will it even matter if we agree on the actions taken.
Seems we agree ont he actions themselves. So good enough by me.
For what its worth it may help you recognize my position if you understand as someone who is native american myself I think about a lot of aspects people dont talk about... There is a reason you know that the NAtive Americans, almost all sided with the south. Its because of the two the north was far more abusive in murdering us to extinction... So excuse me if i find the "they are the good guys" narrative a bit one-dimensional
@Phil Thats certainly true.. but in this case its not just muddled... its evil in specifically the treatment of minorities in fairly balanced ways... I mean sure the south is worse on blacks.. but much much better on native americans than the north, for example Asians were also more often abused/enslaved by the north (re: railroads) than the south
Point is when it comes to the treatment of minorities and their rights to autonomy both sides were bad and good in ways that kinda balance out.. plenty of evil on both sides, no one side the clear good guy
@freemo Indeed and the native Americans were't angels either.
@Phil Well since most of them are dead, they are now...
But yea native americans werent perfect people who lacked injustice, even before first contact.
@freemo never is anybody all good and all bad, its always muddled.