Thanks. My objective is not simply to show that Lincoln spoke the same language as every other American at that time ( language that many thought was acceptable and in no way derogatory). It is to find out how the language is evidence for the assertion that "Lincoln was a firm believer in slavery."
But so did most everyone else of that time period. So we in my mind must judge according to this question: did Lincoln advance or hinder the welfare of African Americans, and did he contribute to the end of slavery? I'd say the answer to both these questions is an emphatic yes.False. I'm in my personal library. As to what it proves, it proves that Lincoln was an unabashed white-supremacist who used grotesque and dehumanizing language to describe African-Americans.
In your case the language was "most every other person in the 19th century". Now please show me a source which supports the claim.
Thanks for your response.You have asserted that every American used the "n-word". Please show me a source which supports that claim.
Thanks for your response.
No, I said that the term was "language that many thought acceptable and in no way derogatory".
But let's stipulate that Lincoln was a racist. How does that show that he "was a firm believer in slavery"?
Allow me to step in and lend a hand.
Here is the online Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.
Simply plug in the word in the simple search window and a number of usages will come up, including usages by Lincoln as well as his opponent, Stephen A. Douglas.
As to what it proves, it proves nothing except like most every other person in the 19th Century, Lincoln used the word.
He also said the following:
Lincoln Douglas 4 th debate
"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."
Well if we're talking on an expansion basis then yes Lincoln did abhor the institution however he understood at the time that legally speaking the Constitution sanctioned slavery and as stated in his inaugural address could not interfere (Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation: "But secession, Lincoln argued, would actually make it harder for the South to preserve slavery. If the Southern states tried to leave the Union , they would lose all their constitutional gurantees with it, P. 31) with it plus he was a politician and a pragmatic one at that since he already was born in a slave state (Kentucky) like his mentor and idol Henry Clay (the founder of the Whig Party) he knew that if he wanted to win he had to appease the border states of Kentucky and Missouri (slavery was on the decline in Maryland and Delaware and so secession sentiment wasn't that strong in these two states) in his own eyes losing the former and/or the latter state(s) would be losing the war for the Union as summed up by what he said "I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri" this was shown by when he had to overturn the famous explorer John "Pathfinder" Charles Fremont's emancipation order in Missouri even when he did change it a bit and with David Hunter's emancipation to those in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida the former had the potential to drive away Unionists and Union sentiment in MO and KY which was acknowledged by his followers and himself while the latter was when the Union had yet to adopt a formal emancipation policy towards their enemy and mostly avoided taking contrabands away in the cases of George B. McClellan and Don Carlos Buell.
Lincoln's initial plan for emancipation was less Emancipation Proclamation and more "colonizing" blacks back to Africa in the summer of 1862 which back then was a very popular concept endorsed by the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the late 18th and 19th centuries he like many American whites (Northern or Southern) believed there could be no way for them to coexist with American blacks and believed that they should be back in their original homeland he knew that they were "separate races" in a speech to a delegation of free blacks on September 22, 1862 just a week after Antietam it didn't involve arming blacks either and it was compensated emancipation rather than radical emancipation.
Even some of his members in the party hated him for his intial policies in 1861-1862 prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation and his planned reconcilitory Reconstruction policy to the Southern states (executed by Andrew Johnson)
there's a reason why the Radical Republicans decided that they didn't want to be part of Lincoln's National Union Party (comprised of War Democrats and Conservative/Moderate Republicans) in 1864 so instead they decided that they wanted to run for the presidency themselves under the label of Radical Democracy Party and nominated the aforementioned John C. Fremont as their presidential candidate only to drop out at the last minute, Benjamin Wade of Ohio for example denounced Lincoln as "poor white trash" for being perceived as too sympathetic to slaveholders while in the case of the Conservative Republicans (centre-right party members) they did not want to have emancipation because they wanted to appeal to some of the more anti-black Northern states such as Illinois and felt that doing such a policy would upset support there.
So in regards to Lincoln's policies on the peculiar institution it's pretty complicated to say the least.