# Heritage? Nah, just hate. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 12, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487 "2017-08-12T23:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/161 "2017-08-15T13:20:40Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Tokyo Rose was pardoned by a president, I believe and there seemed to be good evidence she wasn’t actually treasonous or a traitor, IIRC. > I listened to a podcast about her just the other day. > > I could be wrong (about her being a traitor), but I know I’m not wrong about her being pardoned, eventually, by Ford. You’re confusing Tokyo Rose as the radio personality with whatsherface who may have been wrongly convicted on charges of being Tokyo Rose. Feel free to substitute a statue of Lord Haw-haw/William Joyce in place of the Tokyo Rose one if anyone feels so compelled. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/162 "2017-08-15T13:35:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re confusing Tokyo Rose as the radio personality with whatsherface who may have been wrongly convicted on charges of being Tokyo Rose. Feel free to substitute a statue of Lord Haw-haw/William Joyce in place of the Tokyo Rose one if anyone feels so compelled. [http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619](http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619) There was no single “Tokyo Rose” but Iva Toguri was convicted of treason for her broadcasts. The story is not so simple, and with support from the Allied POWs that she helped during the war she eventually got a pardon from President Ford in 1977. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/163 "2017-08-15T14:01:34Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619](http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619) > > There was no single “Tokyo Rose” but Iva Toguri was convicted of treason for her broadcasts. The story is not so simple, and with support from the Allied POWs that she helped during the war she eventually got a pardon from President Ford in 1977. Great. Even more reason to put up a statute of her as a martyr. I anxiously await **Flyer** ’s return so he can affirm his commitment to ALL traitors, both real and imagined. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/164 "2017-08-15T14:02:37Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619](http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ford-pardons-tokyo-rose-jan-19-1977-031619) > > There was no single “Tokyo Rose” but Iva Toguri was convicted of treason for her broadcasts. The story is not so simple, and with support from the Allied POWs that she helped during the war she eventually got a pardon from President Ford in 1977. And just remember: traitor lives matter. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/165 "2017-08-15T14:38:58Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > It might be true that people have more information on the South but I doubt that this awareness is what changed the dynamics. I think what it comes down to is that black Americans, who for so long were just trying to be recognized as equals under the law, had other priority than tearing down confederate statues. When I was in school, the Civil War was presented as hinging on State’s rights, and the idea was that it was just sort of a conflict between people with different ideas. The texts we saw were post-war apologia for the Confederacy (no, history is not actually written just by the winners) and not original documents. While spending a few minutes reading the actual declarations of secession would settle the issue clearly, they weren’t anywhere readily available and that wasn’t part of our class work. I’m sure if I went to a library and asked a librarian they could probably find them somewhere, but likely not in a form I could just carry out. The fact that you can just toss a couple of terms into google or email someone a link makes it a lot harder to sustain the State’s Rights mythology to people who don’t really care a lot about it. It’s not going to slow down the hardcore racists, but it gives the much larger ‘whatever, it’s just a historical flag’ crowd pause. I think this is a major factor that works with what you mentioned, that black activists feel safe enough now to take on openly racist monuments. Before you had racists who loved the stars and bars, activists who would like them down but had bigger fish to fry, and people who were largely indifferent and could easily believe it was no big deal or ‘all about heritage’. Now you have both black activists arguing against CSA displays AND it’s a lot harder for non-racist whites to feel indifferent to the issue, so there’s not a groundswell of ‘default’ opposition like there was in the past. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/166 "2017-08-15T15:00:20Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > I think you’re right, how many times have you been at a family meal, or whatever and sat there listening to some family blowhard talk about how the war was about state’s rights? If you’re like me, too many times. The internet makes it easier to call bullshit. > > … > > I say all this to make the point that I have confederate street cred and I get it. I believed it, but it’s all bullshit. The good guys won the civil war. The bad guys lost and the more you know about Robert E. Lee, the more you realize he was a huge fucking asshole who didn’t punish rape of black girls or the lynching of black men when he was the president of a university and who didn’t stop atrocities against captured black troops when he was a general. Uh huh. I’ve heard some of that, and a smooth talker can make it appear pretty convincing. [ul] [li]It was about states rights (no it wasn’t)[/li][li]It was about control in Washington (no it wasn’t, except incidentally)[/li][li]It was about the conflict between the old ways of the agrarian South and the new ways of the rapidly industrializing North (no it wasn’t).[/li][li]Slavery was dying out anyway on its own (no it wasn’t).[/li][/ul] All bulllshit smokescreens to not look at the fact that it was rebellion and treason over slavery. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/167 "2017-08-15T15:05:22Z")
It was also about southern machismo. Slavery was never actually threatened, and the North was not determined to go to war to force the southern states to stay in the union. An intelligent southern polity could have achieved every plausible southern aim without war. They chose war because they wanted to show the effete yankees a thing or two. That’s my only problem with the “the war was about slavery” argument. On one hand it obviously was, but on the other, the institution of slavery was never threatened by the north. The south just believed it was. So sure, from the southern perspective, it was all about slavery. From the northern perspective though, it had little to do with slavery until more than halfway through. The victors themselvs argued that it had nothing to do with slavery, at least on their end of things. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/168 "2017-08-15T15:08:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It was also about southern machismo. Slavery was never actually threatened, and the North was not determined to go to war to force the southern states to stay in the union. An intelligent southern polity could have achieved every plausible southern aim without war. They chose war because they wanted to show the effete yankees a thing or two. > > That’s my only problem with the “the war was about slavery” argument. On one hand it obviously was, but on the other, the institution of slavery was never threatened by the north. The south just believed it was. > > So sure, from the southern perspective, it was all about slavery. From the northern perspective though, it had little to do with slavery until more than halfway through. The victors themselvs argued that it had nothing to do with slavery, at least on their end of things. The whole damn thing was completely unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/169 "2017-08-15T15:12:24Z")
At the time, but if you actually wanted to end slavery it was exactly what was needed. Without the Civil War, we’d be 100 years behind where we are now in term of racial progress. Slavery just wasn’t going to end in the 19th century without war. Perhaps sometime in the 20th? I would think so, but even after that we’d probably see pretty severe Jim Crow laws, and without the Civil War the federal government’s ability to enforce civil rights would be far less potent. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/170 "2017-08-15T15:52:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > At the time, but if you actually wanted to end slavery it was exactly what was needed. Without the Civil War, we’d be 100 years behind where we are now in term of racial progress. Slavery just wasn’t going to end in the 19th century without war. Perhaps sometime in the 20th? I would think so, but even after that we’d probably see pretty severe Jim Crow laws, and without the Civil War the federal government’s ability to enforce civil rights would be far less potent. Aside from slavery itself being illegal have we really made any progress? I’m not very sure we have. There are still places in this country where you don’t want to be after sundown if you aren’t “white enough”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/171 "2017-08-15T16:11:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It was also about southern machismo. Slavery was never actually threatened, and the North was not determined to go to war to force the southern states to stay in the union. An intelligent southern polity could have achieved every plausible southern aim without war. They chose war because they wanted to show the effete yankees a thing or two. > > That’s my only problem with the “the war was about slavery” argument. On one hand it obviously was, but on the other, the institution of slavery was never threatened by the north. The south just believed it was. > > So sure, from the southern perspective, it was all about slavery. From the northern perspective though, it had little to do with slavery until more than halfway through. The victors themselvs argued that it had nothing to do with slavery, at least on their end of things. Slavery was threatened, just not in the immediate near-term. If one believed that slavery was the most part of society and culture, then starting a war for it was entirely rational. Utterly monstrous, but rational, for those interested in preserving and perpetuating slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/172 "2017-08-15T16:45:06Z")
[Vice’s doc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg). It’s difficult to watch. The racists’ violent hatred is horrifying. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/173 "2017-08-15T18:18:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, the Civil War not being about slavery isn’t actually a lie. It’s a half truth. > > I just read a NY Times editorial from Apr. 11th, 1861 just before the war started, and they made the argument directly that “this has nothing to do with slavery”. The argument being that the North wasn’t threatening the institution of slavery in any way, shape or form and that secession was grounded in drummed up fears. And my reading of history says the same: Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery. > > Slavery had everything to do with the South’s side of the war, but little or nothing to do with the North’s. Aside from the most ardent abolitionists, northerners weren’t going to shed their blood to free slaves. And they were even willing to make concessions to lure the South back into the Union, such as better enforcement of the Fugitive Slave law. Sounds that you learned history by cherry picking a lot. When I did learn about the history one thing that noticed was that there was a lot of disagreement with taking on the south in places like New York. But the reasons are not mentioned by you or the south apologists. Besides the Irish and others protesting because they saw the would be new free slaves as competitors to their labor, big industrialists of the day in New York also had a lot of businesses to lose if war was made against the south. So I would take that \*\*opinion \*\*of the old NT times with a monumental grain of salt. Not to mention that nowadays the NYT would disagree with editorials like that of the past. Other editorials from then also recognized early that slavery was a big part of the issue and the south was going to get that taken away as a result of going to war with the north. > **[Union Men in the South. (Published 1861)](https://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/21/archives/union-men-in-the-south.html)** > [@](#): > > There cannot be the slightest doubt that the cry of Abolitionism has had more effect in arraying the South against the Government,than any other cause. The people of the Southern States have been taught and have been made to believe, that the Government has hostile designs against Slavery; and thousands in every Southern State who still love the Union, who look to it as the only source of security, and the sole condition of national prosperity and national greatness, feel impelled to take ground against it in the pending contest, because they think the fate of Slavery is involved in its issue. \*\*That impression will prove true, if they decide to make it true. \*\*Slavery may and will be exterminated in the impending war, if they make that war a war of sections. > [@](#): > > It has keen proclaimed on high authority that the Southern Confederacy rests upon negro Slavery as its basis and corner-stone. If the whole South rallies to that issue, the utter destruction of Slavery is a foregone conclusion, no matter by what horrors it may be attended. It is idle to blink the fact that there is already a growing conviction in the public mind that the fate of Slavery, though unconnected with the present contest, as far as the Government authorities can control it, is nevertheless involved in the result. One of the results of the events that have crowded the past ten days is the growth of a new public opinion on Slavery. The Abolitionists find their ranks swelled by an element which assuredly they could never have hoped to be able to use. Not that they approach the subject from any of the usual theoretical or moral considerations which influence the distinctively Anti-Slavery class; it is simply a hot desire to have done with what is felt to be the cause of all their woes – a fierce struggle in the body politic to free itself from the poison which is gnawing its vitals! This feeling – singularly blunt, at times, in its expression – has penetrated to the very substratum of society. The burning light reflected on it by recent events, has caused the whole question to assume an entirely new aspect. A touch of terrible reality has swept away the sophisms of generations. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/174 "2017-08-15T18:27:20Z")
The Rev. Robert Wright Lee, IV, the general’s great-great-great-great-nephew “People are dying because we have been complicit in our silence or in our action,” “It broke my heart to see a symbol of my family being used to allow such hate, all in the name of what my relative stood for.” “These statues have morphed into a symbol of racism, a symbol of bigotry, a symbol of the alt-right, a symbol of white nationalist movements, that is not okay and that can never be celebrated or honored in any way, whether you believe you should honor legacy or ancestors or not.” Take the statues down. It’s time. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/175 "2017-08-15T18:42:29Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [Vice’s doc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg). It’s difficult to watch. The racists’ violent hatred is horrifying. I just watched it. With almost no exceptions violence was perpetrated upon the racists by the “good guys.” Violence was instigated by the good guys. Vice - a decidedly far left news organization showed no attacks by the alt-right but violence by the left and instigation by the left. Until the car came. Then, afterward, when a member of the right attempted to speak to - likely - denounce the guy in the car - he was swarmed and attacked. I think that the alt-right are beyond wrong and I couldn’t disagree with them more. But a doc produced by a left-wing organization only managed to show the white supremacists acting in accordance with the law and the left regularly acting in violent opposition to the law. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/176 "2017-08-15T19:08:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It was also about southern machismo. Slavery was never actually threatened, and the North was not determined to go to war to force the southern states to stay in the union. An intelligent southern polity could have achieved every plausible southern aim without war. They chose war because they wanted to show the effete yankees a thing or two. > > That’s my only problem with the “the war was about slavery” argument. On one hand it obviously was, but on the other, the institution of slavery was never threatened by the north. The south just believed it was. > > So sure, from the southern perspective, it was all about slavery. From the northern perspective though, it had little to do with slavery until more than halfway through. The victors themselvs argued that it had nothing to do with slavery, at least on their end of things. In the aftermath of the American Revolution the USA was actaully toying with the idea that slvery should end. The Nat Turner rebellion actually gave the nation pause. But then when cash crops turned super profitable in the South (mostly thanks to the cotton gin the slave states set themselves up for the defense of the institution. ANd that made them stupid. This was a society that thought the actions of Preston Brooks was commendable, This was the society that was shocked that killing an abolitionist in a duel in California didn’t cause everyone there to rally to the slave-state side (the exact opposite, actually). This was the society that convinced itself that slavery was a better life than free factory workers (and they managed to convince a lot of idiots post-war) and never understood why factory workers didn’t rally to their banners. This is the society that thought firing the first shot in the war would make them look good in history and win them friends. This is the society that thought the best move in the war was to plant and harvest all the cotton (King Cotton) they could, even when the warehouse were bursting with cotton bales, the Union blockade was in place and the population desperately needed food. All of these things were caused by the South’s attitude that ‘Even when we are wrong we are right!’ that was borne out of their need to defend the indefensible. They defended slavery. Once you convince yourself that something that repulsive is fine you can pretty much accept that you aren’t making mistakes even as you are. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/177 "2017-08-15T19:15:46Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [Vice’s doc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg). It’s difficult to watch. The racists’ violent hatred is horrifying. I actually have to thank them for making their position abundantly clear, so that, based on their own words, there is no doubt that they are a clear and present danger to an orderly society. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/178 "2017-08-15T19:17:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, the Civil War not being about slavery isn’t actually a lie. It’s a half truth. > > I just read a NY Times editorial from Apr. 11th, 1861 just before the war started, and they made the argument directly that “this has nothing to do with slavery”. The argument being that the North wasn’t threatening the institution of slavery in any way, shape or form and that secession was grounded in drummed up fears. And my reading of history says the same: Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery. > > Slavery had everything to do with the South’s side of the war, but little or nothing to do with the North’s. Aside from the most ardent abolitionists, northerners weren’t going to shed their blood to free slaves. And they were even willing to make concessions to lure the South back into the Union, such as better enforcement of the Fugitive Slave law. Now this is bullshit. Answer me this: was Lincoln willing to go back on his platform that he’d run on, that slavery not expand beyond the 15 ‘slave states’ of 1861, in order to keep the South from seceding? I’ll save you the trouble: no, he wasn’t. Among other things, he was willing to go to war rather than see slavery expand beyond its 1861 boundaries. And if this willingness had faced widespread opposition in the North, it would have been evident that Congress would have refused to enact any such limit on slavery, and there would have been no need for the South to secede. So from the Northern side as well as the Southern, the war was about slavery. While it is true that, initially, it was not a war to free the slaves, from the get-go it was still about limiting slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/179 "2017-08-15T19:21:38Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > I just watched it. > > With almost no exceptions violence was perpetrated upon the racists by the “good guys.” Violence was instigated by the good guys. > > Vice - a decidedly far left news organization showed no attacks by the alt-right but violence by the left and instigation by the left. > > Until the car came. > > Then, afterward, when a member of the right attempted to speak to - likely - denounce the guy in the car - he was swarmed and attacked. > > I think that the alt-right are beyond wrong and I couldn’t disagree with them more. But a doc produced by a left-wing organization only managed to show the white supremacists acting in accordance with the law and the left regularly acting in violent opposition to the law. Really? I wasn’t able to watch it all. Because at 5:22 that sure looked like a shield rush (and every SCA fighter shakes their head because is was a really bad one). 5:38 they are stabbing a guy with flag poles, and I can’t tell what he did to them. These guys came with weapons, they came with torches, they came with shields. Some even did open carry. They came for a fight. If they were gonna denounce that guy who ran over the counter-protestors they were way too late and brought way too much fighting equipment to say they were sorry at that time. ---
**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487/180 "2017-08-15T19:24:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Now this is bullshit. > > Answer me this: was Lincoln willing to go back on his platform that he’d run on, that slavery not expand beyond the 15 ‘slave states’ of 1861, in order to keep the South from seceding? > > I’ll save you the trouble: no, he wasn’t. Among other things, he was willing to go to war rather than see slavery expand beyond its 1861 boundaries. And if this willingness had faced widespread opposition in the North, it would have been evident that Congress would have refused to enact any such limit on slavery, and there would have been no need for the South to secede. > > So from the Northern side as well as the Southern, the war was about slavery. While it is true that, initially, it was not a war to free the slaves, from the get-go it was still about limiting slavery. But Lincoln was happy to allow the Northern border states to retain slavery. He was certainly happy to assert that blacks and whites were most certainly not equal and he was happy to postpone the emancipation proclamation until such time as it was politically (and militarily) expedient to do so. Lincoln was not opposed, in a determined and meaningful way to slavery, he was opposed to the dissolution of the country and was willing to fight a war in order to prevent it. Lincoln is repeatedly on record saying that black people certainly had no claim to the same rights and freedoms as white people. Lincoln was an avowed white supremacist. So when does the Lincoln memorial get removed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-nah-just-hate/793487.md?page=10)