Talking on skype with my texan uncle

>talking on skype with my texan uncle
>he told me that the civil war wasn't all about slavery

Redpill me pls Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_GLcumolw
youtube.com/watch?v=f5xdgYLuFCk
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com.br/
civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
youtu.be/jEaEsmMapHc
youtu.be/yr5BQS79H7g
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It was more about States rights. Slavery is more of a revisionist history point to vilify the south. The original intention of the United rates was to have states with different laws and an agreement to mutual defend echother from domestic or foreign threats.

lincoln was a tyrant and a villian

was lincoln the biggest cuck or was he genuine?
History fags enlighten pls

Lincoln wanted to export all negros to Liberia

First post best post.

youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_GLcumolw

...

Essentially this, it was a culmination of things relating to states rights.

For instance, I don't think Lincoln got a single electoral vote in the South and was still elected. This really tilted the southern states, because they felt like they were being governed entirely by the North.

On top of that, the North had a very different economy compared to the South ; the north was industrial and the south was agricultural. The north was slowly choking the south's economy through tariffs and the like.

Plus, I also understand that the "slave owners" in the South were actually just leasing their slaves from northern slave owners who actually owned them. Not sure how true that is though.

youtube.com/watch?v=f5xdgYLuFCk

It was about states rights to defy the federal government. Slavery was just the issue

Reported.

The north had gained a majority in congress through the sucession of West Virginia, and southern interests were no longer represented in the federal government. Northern states imposed tariffs on southern goods and acted very tyranical to the south. Also the south had a largely different culture than the north at this point, and most people in the south wanted a Christian country as opposed to a secular one. Slavery is mostly to vilify the south and any successionist movement

Anyone know what year Lincoln said that? Pretty sure he toned down his black liberation shit in earlier years.

basically this. The south was getting screwed economically and was being disenfranchised by the northern state's combined voting power. Yes slavery was very much behind the south's economy and was openly stated as at least part of the reason why they were secede, but also consider the northern states was in solidarity against slavery either and the federal government chose to enforce laws that kept slavery going.

A good amount of Republicans were strongly against slavery on moral grounds but Lincoln was a moderate on the issue and cared more about keep the states in line than the moral issue of slavery. He only went fulling against it once the political winds were shifting that way and as a way of helping finishing the war.

>the northern states was in solidarity against slavery

*was not in solidarity

I remember being 19 fresh from the war in Afghanistan, and going to DC. At the Lincoln monument I saw this quote, and for me that was the first real red pill. I began to question narratives more and more.

It didn't start about Slavery, but it ended there. The south seceded because it was politically weak in the current system. Essentially if the north voted as a bloc it was impossible for the south to influence an election.

About 1863 the nature of the war changed and as more African American troops took the field there the narrative began to change and the maintenance of Slavery became the primary motivators for the governing actors in the south.

However, for the average member of an Army the war had nothing to do about any of that. To put it in framework of a quote "yer down here". Essentially the average front line conscripted southern soldier was fighting to prevent invasion.

For the north the motivation was restoration of the Union. However, the border states maintained a -large- population of Northern sympathizers and them being in another country put them at risk. This narrative didn't last but it was enough to get the ball rolling.

Saying the war was about slavery means:

>ignoring the upward trend industrialization in the North vs. lack thereof in the South
>ignoring the Southern interpretation of homestead laws as basically breeding dissent in the ranks of those who supported plantation farming
>ignoring the urbanization in the North
>ignoring the massive Irish and German immigration to the North
>ignoring that all immigration largely situated around the North
>ignoring the fact that most immigrants viewed slavery with disdain
>ignoring the fact that the Northern political affiliations underwent significant tonal changes whereas the Southern political depictions largely remained stagnant for half a century if not more
>ignoring that these political differences already tainted any Southern impression of the North's ideological basis at least 2 decades before the war, possibly more
>ignoring that politics in general was undergoing a widespread boom in voter participation effectively making it form of entertainment
>the split of the Protestant church into Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians, and Methodists all of which taking various stances on the matter
>ignoring the American land grabs in the early 1800s and the dispute on institutional slavery's expansion
>ignoring the Southern planter class' perceived loss of political sway
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence upon the lower classes due to technological advantage
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence up the lower classes by allowing them conditional social status elevation via overseer positions

By the time the war erupted, the North and the South were practically different countries occupying the same border in a sense. The trouble had been brewing for years. Slavery was more of a focal point emblematic of the Southern fear of progressivism and modernization than say the be-all-end-all cause of the Civil War. Turns out the war's cause more complex than given credit.

Ask me anything you want about the civil war i've been studying it for several (2) decades now.

Texanon here, it was states' rights combined with the larger economic reasons related to states' rights that slavery was just one part of. We and the other southern states our ancestors originally migrated West from were never very happy about more centralized government, and some wished for a return to something like the Articles of Confederation, which granted the central US government less control. This combined with the polarizing politics and social issues current around the time of Lincoln's election made it a tipping point from which there was no return - once many Southern states began to secede, the rest saw it as the only real choice left.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, it was primarily economic, but because of how important slavery was to the southern economy, the civil war was VERY MUCH about slavery. Specifically, explicitly about slavery.

So when people say that slavery was sort of an arbitrary or coincidental issue linked to the civil war, they're brushing over how important was to the south's entire existence.

I don't think that is actual quote. The first half seems to be drawn from speech in 1860 another part is a quote during the Sumter crisis.

>Texan uncle
>Posts from Brazil
Yeah, LARPer but w/e. The Civil War is the war of secession. Leave the Union and you will get your shit fucked up. Thats how it works, the rest are side issues

protip: It was
vid related shows the "rights" in question, and the written justification for secession all mentioned "enslaving the negro"
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

This is complete bullshit and you should kill yourself

spew some knowledge

And the south, interested as they were to maintain their entire way of life, were willing to mistreat blacks, consider them less than human, and keep them enslaved.

If I had a basement full of kidnapped children which I used for cheap labour, and some politician came into power saying that he will institute basement-searchers to try to reduce the kidnapped-child-labour issue, it would be disingenuous at best for me to claim that I care about children, while demanding the police show me a warrant for the basement search.

The south was on the wrong side of the history. But at least we understand it.

People try and make the war something small, to refine it into a few sentences you can't. It was too large and too big an event to make it about one thing.

Also the motivators for the average citizen is something completely different then the politicians. So when you say what was the war about the real question is " to who".

Most people didn't know the cost or the damage that would be done to the nation. They thought "because their local newspapers told them so" that it would be a short war filled with glory.

if you told them that 300,000 people would be dead and that some villages would lose a generation you wouldn't have had the turn out that you saw.

It was about tyranny and control.
Slavery was on its way whether the tyrants from the North did anything or nothing.
People who hate freedom and love control can't stomach the idea of others saying "this is dumb and we're not doing it".

You are fucking twit who doesn't know what you are saying . and you should never talk on this topic again.

It can be argued it was a conflict of state vs federal powers which Lincoln admitted he abused. The plantation model lost economic viability and the South so it became increasingly important that they hold onto state sovereignty.

Not to mention most of the North didn't give to shits about niggers, they just wanted to nation whole. If it meant peace they were willing to give up on freeing slaves but Lincoln allowed the war to drag on.

>people who hate freedom can't stomach the idea of "we keeping our slaves boy, fuck off"

If I can recommend a book it would be

"The world on fire".

Its about American British relations during the war and will provide a neutral observation point for learning the motivators of each politician during the war.

fucking this
u
c
k
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

Do you even read what you type?

The conflict wasn't over slavery.
Even if it had been (which it wasn't), it was unjustified, given almost the entire war was fought with conscripts who were impressed by threats into service.
Abolitionists were killing slavery. Its time was dwindling without any fighting being done whatsoever.

If you actually study the history of Northern-southern relations, you'd know that the civil war was the culmination of multiple events over the previous 80 years, each of which increasingly fucked over the South. Only the northern part of the nation was being represented by federal government decisions.

So you're saying that abolishing slavery was merely the final straw?

Just read the Articles Of Confederation, which is constitution for the southern states. That will give you a very clear understanding.

The ironic thing about the Brits getting involved -- which they did so late in the war due to their demand for cotton from the states -- was that they helped to finance the Louisiana Purchase, iirc.

You made a nonsensical philosophical argument that is in no way grounded in historical realities.

Your statement didn't further the conversation in any manner. If you believe that wax philosophical with generalized non-sense and get a pat on the back go-fuck-yourself.

you simply put don't know what the fuck you are talking about and as such should refrain from talking on the topic.

Lincoln was widely known as an abolitionist and supporter of tariffs, both of which were anathema to the South. As a result of this reputation, the South feared for what was to come from a Lincoln Presidency and the states began seceding approximately 10 weeks before he even took office.

In addition to being economically reliant on slavery and concerned about the ramifications of equal rights for freed slaves, the South was heavily reliant on exports of raw goods to Europe. The "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828 had previously led to the Nullification Crisis, which also began in South Carolina, due to the devastating economic impact it had on the South.

Between the two, Lincoln's support for tariffs was likely more feared by the South, but both contributed to secession.

The fact the South seceded well ahead of Lincoln taking office and before he could even attempt to implement any policies, and the fact the South besieged and attacked Fort Sumter before the North ever fired a shot are the reasons the South are considered by most to be responsible for the Civil War.

What I said is entirely true.
You dumb shits only care about subjecting people to your arbitrary whims, but when the sword gets turned around on you all you do is bitch and whine about injustice. Go fuck yourself you illiterate autistic cunt.

This isn't a terrible answer but it ignore some key points:

1) the south wasn't being wronged by the northern governments.

2) local newspapers ran "hate the north stories" to sell papers and it really didn't think there would be long term consequences. Firebrands as they were called played a serious and often understated role in starting the fucking war.

Listen you not even on fucking topic, i've typed several comments with my opinion's based on historical facts.

I'll tell you what go read a fucking book on the topic and then countermand me on a real point and we can talk.

You are seriously just blowing hot air out of your ass and expecting us to say " wow-deep" when in reality you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I tell you what if you are an expert on the civil war find the nick-name to Jefferson Davis plantation and tell me why it was called that.

If you can't maybe stop embarrassing yourself.

>It was more about States rights
This is false, the evidence of which is given in the South's support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, both of which denied the right of Northern states to shelter slaves who escaped the South.

The South supported "States' rights" when it meant the federal government would stay out of things the South wanted local control of, but opposed "States' rights" when it meant the federal government would intervene in a way positive to the South.

The most significant of the South's "support" for "States' rights" was on the issue of tariffs. The South strongly opposed them and considered them constitutionally illegitimate despite Congress explicitly being given the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

Mississipi:
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

South Carolina:
>We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

etc,
civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com.br/

They were explicit about it

Sure it was about state rights, specifically the state right to keep slavery legal. don't fall for the state rights shit user, the civil war happened because the aristocracy didn't want to have to end up paying workers, so they tricked the entire lower class of the south into thinking that slavery was important to the economy and committed treason to keep a couple bucks.

There are many confederates migrated to Brazil after the civil war.

The northern tyrants couldn't stomach the idea of not having political authority over southern people - fact.

Secession and nullification are not prohibited by the constitution in any way - fact.

Conscription was used and is entirely immoral and unjustifiable - fact.

You're a dipshit who doesn't know jack shit and can't formulate a coherent argument about anything - fact~

Can this settle this dumb argument once and for all?

civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
>Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union. The documents can be found in their entirety here.

>Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights. All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights. Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents. This article will present, in detail, everything that was said in the Declarations of Causes pertaining to these topics.

>Slavery
>1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.
>2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.
>3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.
>4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

>States rights
>1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.
>2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.
(i.e. they're against states rights when it fits them)

>Other grievances
>1) All of the states negatively mention Abraham Lincoln's election and his suspected abolitionist leanings.
>2) Georgia accuses Northern manufacturing interests of exploiting the South and dominating the federal government.
>3) Texas expresses dissatisfaction with federal military protection.

daily reminder that

>CSA was a Jewish trick concocted by the Rothschilds to weaken the USA enough to force the government to bow down to big banks, Lincoln was against big banks
>Abraham Lincoln viewed blacks as inferior to whites and planned to have them deported back to Africa and South America, but was assassinated
>Judah Benjamin, a Jewish lawyer and politician in the state of Louisiana, appeared on Confederate currency
>based Russia (who also hated the Rothschilds) sent two fleets over to American waters to prevent the Jewsh owned England from possibly intervening and turning the war in favor of the Confederates

>Anglocucks import foreign brown men to do their work

>Get told to stop by real white people who don't want any niggers here

>Anglocucks get pissy they can't own the guy that fucks their wife and go to war

>Anglocucks get stomped by real men who then rape/murder their way through Atlanta

>Anglo cucks inbreed for generations and still are salty

Slavery was important to most southern states and that was reflected in the documentation they produced.
No one debates that.

What is contested is the claim that the *main motivating factor* for the Civil War was simply that southerners wanted to keep utilizing slavery and the north wouldn't tolerate that.

About slavery specifically:
1)
Texas:
>The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified
Georgia
>That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
2)
Georgia
>We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it… or an equal participation in the whole of it. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.
Texas
>The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

3)
Mississipi:
>[Abolitionism] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

Pic related: word cloud of the 50 words used the most in the declarations of causes

etc, more on the site

...

They're the ones making it centerpiece in their declarations. Hard to read them and not come to the conclusion "well seems liek they really want to keep those slaves".
See also Attempts to deflect from this to economic effects, Lincoln being a tyrant etc all ignora that any economic loss they might suffer comes from losing the slaves (a few mention other stuff, but this is clearly central), and that the only state right that caused all this comotion was the right to keep slaves, as you can see by how they want northern states to forfeit their states rights to be abolitionist and keep black men who go there free, instead of sending them south

The South did nothing wrong.

We in MO were fighting years prior to Fort Sumter. For this region, it was over slavery and economics, particularly if Kansas would become a slave state. Look up border war and little Dixie as well as order number 11. Theres a reason Missouri had the third most battles.

They thought the north would try to - through the federal government - take away their slaves, which was foundational to their livelihoods (even though it shouldn't have been). Of course they talked about it. But there's no such thing as a 1-sided war. The northern states had their own reasons for engaging in the conflict, in which slavery was *NOT* a paramount issue. At all.

Cajun here.

The validity for the beliefs I'm going to share are questionable. But they are the beliefs of the majority here in Lousiana who feel pride in south heritage.

>The Civil War was never about slavery. Slavery was just the last straw that broke the camels back. The south was the source of industry and economy we made all the product and all the money. However, yankees who had never once stepped in our land were inventing laws to stifle us and steal money from us. They wanted to prosper from our work while not doing anything to support it. There was a long history of legal and political battle until the freeing of slaves (A hot issue) resulted in an absolute destruction of Southern economy. As a result when simply wanted to leave and make our own country where we wouldn't be stifled. however, the North did not allow it. And like whiny children they picked a fight with us when we wouldn't deal with their shit anymore.

Attention: White Brothers

National Action Speaks in Darlington

youtu.be/jEaEsmMapHc

what you have to understand is that since before the revolution, plantation owners had been the oligarchs of the country.

They really were the ONLY ONES who did not want a pure democracy and were the sole reason for the 3/5ths compromise, Senate having 2 reps per state regardless of population, electoral college, etc.

it was pretty corrupt.

The civil war was really about the powerful plantation owners who wanted states rights so they could protect slavery. They argued that free states/ the federal government should not be able to stop slavery.

Before the civil war we saw an extreme growth of the free states. They were industrializing and becoming far more populated than the south causing them to gain more political leverage.

What finally sparked the civil war was when new free states were forming in the west, they were voting against slavery causing the south to lose its majority in the Senate. When Lincoln, an open abolitionist was elected, they saw that they clearly were gonna lose slavery and that's when shit started

Source that shit you beta.

You know your shit bro. Fuck all these dixiecucks that dont realize it was all a jewish plan

RARE KNOWLEDGE

I just got through reading [x] excellent article about Lincoln. In it, he mentions that “Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France.”

Is this true?

A: Livingston’s article is indeed excellent, and if you have not had a chance to read it, I would recommend not only the fifth part of the article, cited here, but the other four parts, also at Mises.org. That said, the answer to the question is complex and deserves a thoughtful response.

Jefferson Davis was, as Livingston suggests, an “enlightened slaveholder.” He was well known as a kind master, even going as far as establishing a trial system on his plantation in Mississippi for punishment rather than resorting to the lash. He was not considered an ardent pro-slavery ideologue or a vehement “fire-eater” during the secession crisis in the months leading to war in 1861. As a member of the famous Committee of 13 charged with sorting through various compromise proposals in 1860, Davis suggested a policy of dual majorities for any proposal to pass. He supported the Crittenden Compromise, which would have preserved slavery in the South as well as extended the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but when Republicans on the Committee refused to support any compromise efforts, Davis voted against them. He wanted a compromise that was truly “national” in scope. Republicans chose Party over Union before, during, and after the War.

In 1864, Duncan F. Kenner, perhaps the largest slave holder in the South at the time and representative from Louisiana, approached Davis with a unique proposal.

In order to gain the recognition of the British and French governments, something that had eluded the Confederacy since the beginning of the War, Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments that the Confederacy would abolish slavery. No timeframe was discussed, and Kenner originally floated the idea of presenting the plan to the Confederate Congress. Davis asked Kenner not to do so and rejected the idea outright, thinking that the situation was not yet desperate enough to warrant such a move, but in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion. Kenner was given credentials and set out on a secret mission to Europe in January 1865. He arrived just weeks before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse and met with the two Confederate commissioners, James M. Mason (grandson of George Mason) and John Slidell, in Paris. Slidell at first refused to support the plan, but Kenner told him that such refusal would result in his immediate suspension.

The three men met with French Emperor Napoleon III, who agreed to recognize the Confederacy under these terms if the British would follow suit. The commissioners quickly sailed to London, where they met with the Prime Minister, Henry John Temple, who sternly rebuked their proposal, stating that Her Majesty’s government would never recognize the Confederacy under any condition. Lee’s surrender dashed any lingering hopes of continuing diplomacy, and this last-ditch effort to win international support died a swift death.

Davis would have needed approval from his Cabinet to send such a mission, and Kenner’s other task relating to a proposed joint British-Confederate bank with cotton used as operating capital certainly would have had input from the Confederate Secretary of the Treasury, George Trenholm, and Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin.

Yet, such a plan would have required a commitment from the Southern states and a constitutional amendment, something they did not yet have but perhaps could have obtained if independence was secured.

Kenner’s tale was recorded in 1899 by the historian William Wirt Henry, grandson of Patrick Henry, and is legitimate. The Library of Congress admitted its validity in 1916, and referenced the Joseph Brent Papers, now housed at Louisiana State University, as evidence. Brent married Kenner’s daughter after the War, so he would have conclusive proof.

the north was using it's political domination in the congress to railroad through tariff and tax laws that crippld the largely agricultural south's economy, forcing them to buy manufactured goods (particularly plows and machinery) from the industrialized north

the south was slowly becoming a vassal state to the moneyed interests in the north

slavery was not the issue, it was the demarcation line.

states that had abolished slavery were industrialized, while those that continued the practice were agricultural.

the attempts to prohibit slavery (and thus agricultural self-sufficiency) in new states and territories was designed to further destabilize the economy of the south, and expand northern political dominance

secession was a proper move, as the south and north were incompatible as a single nation due to conflicting traditions, world views and economic standing (like mexico and the US would be)

the north instigated the war by refusing to allow the south to secede, because they didnt want to lose their political whipping boy and the agricultural base they depended on, despite their disdain for southerners

just like modern leftists, the north hated the southerners, depicting them as backwards ignorant brutes, even though without the south, the north would starve.

what he and most people refer to is the battle of pro slave democrats vs anti slave republicans
but that was only part of it
the vast, vast majority of confederates didn't own slaves
it amounted to self determination and freedom from a distant bureaucracy, the same reasons why the revolutionary war was fought
back then, New York was the capital and it was seen basically as a distant foreign governing entity by the confederates

Banks owned the south, impeded development then used the north to reclaim the dept after the south said "fuck off".

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
A. Lincoln.

see

Spencer vs niggers

youtu.be/yr5BQS79H7g