would lincoln really have let the southern states keep their

File: Avatar_archer.jpg (7KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 184x184px

>>2308178
No, he'd ship them off back to Africa where they would belong.

Sadly Booth killed him before he could ever do that. It really surprises me how many liberals support the Union when it was literally more racist than the Confederacy if you think about it.

They should be burning Union flags instead of Confederate ones.

>>2308193
i dont see what's so racist about that

>>2308200
Well then you're not a liberal. Congratulations.

File: 1860 election.png (90KB, 660x356px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 660x356px

>>2308178
He let the slave states that didn't join the confederacy keep their slaves, so he may well have allowed the south to keep theirs had they not seceded. Lincolns freeing the slaves with the Gettysburg address was at the time interpreted as a desperation move to try to weaken the south by starting a race war. Lincoln got a lot of bad press globally for it since he did not free the slaves in the north and was considered to be vindictively trying to turn the south into another Haiti.

Lincoln and the the northerners who voted him in did want to free the slaves, many of them fanatically, but they were a vocal outsider group like Bernouts were, the plurality of opinion in the US didn't want to free the slaves. Even many who did want to free them only wanted to do so for religious reasons, as in equal before god, and didn't want them to be politically equal to whites. The civil war granting full control of the federal government to the new Republican party sped up the progress of the liberal agenda.

>>2308193
>No, he'd ship them off back to Africa where they would belong.

That's a myth. He wanted to establish colonies, yes, but he wasn't an idiot and therefore knew that deporting 4 million people would be logistically impossible. That was never the plan.

>>2308193
Even if this was true how the fuck do you interpret sending blacks back to Africa as more racist than keeping them as literally subhuman property

File: 1483363891241.png (194KB, 1067x930px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1067x930px

>>2308280
I didn't say ship them ALL off I said ship them off.

Keep in mind, I knew deporting them en masse all together was logistically impossible, did you really think I was that stupid, sir?

Heh.

>>2308283
Because the Confederates cared for them and if you shipped them back to Africa they'd be suffering more as independent beings (didn't know how to take care of themselves alone) than when they were in chains.

Africa was always a shithole, and still is today, they would not fare better over there.

>>2308285
>did you really think I was that stupid, sir?

Yes and I still do, since that's definitely what you meant.

>>2308280
Mass sterilization would had been a better option.

>>2308193
>more racist than the Confederacy if you think about it
I honestly think repatriation based on race was better than slavery

File: 1476596668374.png (20KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 555x555px

>>2308295
Proof?

>>2308297
See
>>2308293

>>2308299
>Proof?

Your post makes no sense at all otherwise. So whether you meant that or not you're a retard either way.

>>2308303
Yeah, but in a country founded on French ideals of Liberty slavery seems inherently wrong

>>2308293

This is pretty delusional.

File: 01b.png (39KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x400px

>>2308308
How does it make no sense? I literally said he wanted to ship them off. That could've meant anything, it could even mean what you said.

Therefore you will never know if I was stupid or not for making such a broad comment.

Stay salty, get btfo, and learn your lesson about this Internet argument.

>>2308310
>>2308311
And ironically these uneducated niggers would be worse off in Africa then when they were slaves.

It's like picking your poison tbqh.

>>2308316
>And ironically these uneducated niggers would be worse off in Africa then when they were slaves.
Nobody said freedom was free

>>2308320
For them, it definitely wasn't, even in both scenarios. They would be slaves to their masters in America, and then die as "freemen" in Africa.

I don't see any good options here, do you Anon?

>>2308327
>"freemen" in Africa
I know what I'd pick