Abe Lincoln

[rational thinker]

You know, I've been noticing lately on T.V. shows and the media that when you dislike Abe Lincoln, it is the equivalent of endorsing slavery. I know Ron Paul himself got hit hard by his expressed dislike of Lincoln, but have we been so conditioned as children to believe that he was the savior of all America that any valid criticism of him is the equivalent of justifying what he fought against?

I'm writing this because I was watching Family Guy last night and it was the episode where the Griffins have to move down South under the witness protection program and while down there, there was a reenactment of the Civil War and the South won it in the reenactment and when Peter said otherwise, they all got rowdy and called them "Lincoln lovers!" for hating slavery.

Anyways, I get the feeling that many people see us Ron Paul supporters, when we are critical of Lincoln, as against progressive ideals of freedom and all that blah blah blah. In fact, my friend (who is a big time liberal/progressive) was saying that the problem he has with Ron Paul and his supporters are that they support ideas that tend to be supported by racists and nationalists. Like being against amnesty tends to be a trademark by a bunch of grouchy, Texas citizens who hate any form of diversity or change. I mean, look at this pic to get an idea of what I mean: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/dayinpictures?o=4&f=/g/a/2008/05/02/dip.DTL&type=dayinpictures

Well, just thought I'd let that off my chest.

[Theocrat]

You know, I've been noticing lately on T.V. shows and the media that when you dislike Abe Lincoln, it is the equivalent of endorsing slavery. I know Ron Paul himself got hit hard by his expressed dislike of Lincoln, but have we been so conditioned as children to believe that he was the savior of all America that any valid criticism of him is the equivalent of justifying what he fought against?

I'm writing this because I was watching Family Guy last night and it was the episode where the Griffins have to move down South under the witness protection program and while down there, there was a reenactment of the Civil War and the South won it in the reenactment and when Peter said otherwise, they all got rowdy and called them "Lincoln lovers!" for hating slavery.

Anyways, I get the feeling that many people see us Ron Paul supporters, when we are critical of Lincoln, as against progressive ideals of freedom and all that blah blah blah. In fact, my friend (who is a big time liberal/progressive) was saying that the problem he has with Ron Paul and his supporters are that they support ideas that tend to be supported by racists and nationalists. Like being against amnesty tends to be a trademark by a bunch of grouchy, Texas citizens who hate any form of diversity or change. I mean, look at this pic to get an idea of what I mean: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/dayinpictures?o=4&f=/g/a/2008/05/02/dip.DTL&type=dayinpictures

Well, just thought I'd let that off my chest.

Do you remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSZGfwwkHtQ) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkTJhsHp6kM)?

[LiveFree79]

No but reading a couple of Anti-Lincoln books (Lincoln Unmasked, The Real Lincoln are a few most commong among Ron Paul supporters) does not make you an expert on anything civil war related nor Lincoln related. Abraham Lincoln was a great President in a lot of ways. He had his faults like most. And anyone who's knowledgeable on the Civil War knows it was more a war of secession and slavery was a side effect. However, Paulites love to criticize everyone without usually acknowledging their positive contributions. Like I said before Lincoln did with Greenbacks what FDR did with the New Deal. Difference is Lincoln didn't go into debt to the private banking cartel like FDR did. Lincoln actually used the power of congress to "coin money" under the Constitution. Most RPer's forget this. He set up the Land Grant College system and a host of other great public bureaucracies that however outdated and despised by libertarians today, served a very important purpose back in 19th century.

[LiveFree79]

In fact I would assume "Dr." Paul seems to get a lot of his opinions from Lincoln from books like The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo.......even Dr. Paul should admit that this book is far from being any kind of authority on Abraham Lincoln. It's filled with erroneous revisionist, fictional or taken out of context information for the sole purpose of fueling one person's interpretation and historical agenda. I mean how many of you that despise Lincoln have even read these two books and cross referenced his sources? Probably not one. Even Lew Rockwell doesn't seem to have his frickin facts straight. Ron Paul is one man....he's not god people. Not everything he says is as good as gold :)

[sratiug]

In fact I would assume "Dr." Paul seems to get a lot of his opinions from Lincoln from books like The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo.......even Dr. Paul should admit that this book is far from being any kind of authority on Abraham Lincoln. It's filled with erroneous revisionist, fictional or taken out of context information for the sole purpose of fueling one person's interpretation and historical agenda. I mean how many of you that despise Lincoln have even read these two books and cross referenced his sources? Probably not one. Even Lew Rockwell doesn't seem to have his frickin facts straight. Ron Paul is one man....he's not god people. Not everything he says is as good as gold :)

Face it, no matter what good Lincoln did, no matter how brilliant (imo) he was, one war killing 600,000 Americans and leaving the South in ruins with an unjustifiable motive (slave nation invading slave nation to end slavery? or forcibly preserving a voluntary union?) makes a disatrous presidency. I have read no anti-Lincoln books. The history is plain. Slavery was legal in the Union. Lincoln did made great speeches about slavery. As did Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The great failure of both men is that they were not able to end slavery until so many men died in a war over secession and tariffs that the nation was forced to end slavery to morally justify the slaughter. Thus a good thing came from something terrible.

The only way to make our point clear is to make that clear. The Union was a slave country. Abraham Lincoln was a slave president who did nothing to free the slaves, and said that it was not his purpose to free the slaves, and that white and black people could never live together, and blacks should all be sent back to Africa.

It's a lot like today. Bush invaded Iraq to spread democracy now, but that's not what really happened, and we know that. And we know that Bush stole his own election, so it was a dictatorship invading a dictatorship to end dictatorship, just as the civil war was a slave country invading a slave country to end slavery. A ludicrous proposition in both instances. Both wars were/are over money.

[LiveFree79]

Face it, no matter what good Lincoln did, no matter how brilliant (imo) he was, one war killing 600,000 Americans and leaving the South in ruins with an unjustifiable motive (slave nation invading slave nation to end slavery? or forcibly preserving a voluntary union?) makes a disatrous presidency. I have read no anti-Lincoln books. The history is plain. Slavery was legal in the Union. Lincoln did made great speeches about slavery. As did Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The great failure of both men is that they were not able to end slavery until so many men died in a war over secession and tariffs that the nation was forced to end slavery to morally justify the slaughter. Thus a good thing came from something terrible.

The only way to make our point clear is to make that clear. The Union was a slave country. Abraham Lincoln was a slave president who did nothing to free the slaves, and said that it was not his purpose to free the slaves, and that white and black people could never live together, and blacks should all be sent back to Africa.
It's a lot like today. Bush invaded Iraq to spread democracy now, but that's not what really happened, and we know that. And we know that Bush stole his own election, so it was a dictatorship invading a dictatorship to end dictatorship, just as the civil war was a slave country invading a slave country to end slavery. A ludicrous proposition in both instances. Both wars were/are over money.

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.

[apropos]

have we been so conditioned as children to believe that he was the savior of all America that any valid criticism of him is the equivalent of justifying what he fought against?

That seems to be the case.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You know, I've been noticing lately on T.V. shows and the media that when you dislike Abe Lincoln, it is the equivalent of endorsing slavery.

A positive government like we have in the United States has a "self evident" agenda to free the slave and to bind the master. Abraham Lincoln had to bind the master class in order to free the slaves.


I know Ron Paul himself got hit hard by his expressed dislike of Lincoln, but have we been so conditioned as children to believe that he was the savior of all America that any valid criticism of him is the equivalent of justifying what he fought against?

Let us say that Ron Paul is the king and that his words are rational. Not rational in the sense that his words are right or true but in the sense that you better agree with him or else. This is how we used to live under the rule of the chief or king in the primitive caste system when societies ate seperately at master and slave dinner tables.
The Civil Purpose of our posivitive government in the United States is to sit the master and the slave down at the same table. Of course, there is going to be tremendous pressure resisting this form of government by all involved even to the point of occasional violence. So, it becomes necessary to be ever vigilant to free the slave and to bind the master as Abraham Lincoln did.
We don't go so far as to metaphorically reject the rule of King Ron Paul in this positive government we have set up in the United States. Instead we allow him to sit down as our necessary authority but at a table owned by us. In other words, the state or public property in the Unites States is owned by the people.


I'm writing this because I was watching Family Guy last night and it was the episode where the Griffins have to move down South under the witness protection program and while down there, there was a reenactment of the Civil War and the South won it in the reenactment and when Peter said otherwise, they all got rowdy and called them "Lincoln lovers!" for hating slavery.

In order to belittle the United States, a European must first divide the nation into a protagonistic north against an antagonistic south. Abraham Lincoln had a policy which appeared to isolate the south as the flesh and blood enemy but as soon as each southern state was defeated it entered the door immediately to become part of the Union against a principality and power. Although this scheme didn't happen as purely as Lincoln desired it to, it still allowed him to save the Union.
As I have already pointed out in here, very little is taught in American history about how the Loyalistic colony of New York was made to suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of the American Patriots during the revolutionary war. Didn't the colony of New Hampshire later choose to side with the British during the war of 1812 and have to suffer likewise?
As most of us have had to suffer on the losing side in creating our great nation, the Civil Purpose for which we fought and died was to sit master and slave at the same dinner table.


Anyways, I get the feeling that many people see us Ron Paul supporters, when we are critical of Lincoln, as against progressive ideals of freedom and all that blah blah blah.

There are supposed to be truths in the Constitution which are "self evident" and "inalienable" even to the point that their meaning reduces down to be understood equally not only by both liberals and conservatives alike but by the conscience of every living soul on earth. This Civil Purpose in the Constitution should be our primary concern while the issues created by the secondary concerns of legal precedents should be understood as a threat to the very sovereignty of the Constitution itself.


In fact, my friend (who is a big time liberal/progressive) was saying that the problem he has with Ron Paul and his supporters are that they support ideas that tend to be supported by racists and nationalists.

There is a subtle difference between the menial prejudice that people exhibit while sitting together at the same dinner table and the racism that people exhibit as they bicker and argue that we should all sit at different tables. Such bickering divides us back into the primitive caste system while the business of a positive government is to consistently free the slave and bind the master. For us to live again as master and slave would take no work or effort at all because tyranny naturally erodes us to such a state.


Like being against amnesty tends to be a trademark by a bunch of grouchy, Texas citizens who hate any form of diversity or change.

Our government is supposed to serve the best interests of its people. However, when we choose to sit at different dinner tables as a master and a slave class, we tend to concern ourselves primarily with the table of the master class. In the meantime, our society is becoming more and more like a primitive caste system, as the table of the middle class continues to erode further and further into either a master or a slave class.

[llamabread]

Face it, no matter what good Lincoln did, no matter how brilliant (imo) he was, one war killing 600,000 Americans and leaving the South in ruins with an unjustifiable motive (slave nation invading slave nation to end slavery? or forcibly preserving a voluntary union?) makes a disastrous presidency.

The only way to make our point clear is to make that clear. The Union was a slave country. Abraham Lincoln was a slave president who did nothing to free the slaves, and said that it was not his purpose to free the slaves, and that white and black people could never live together, and blacks should all be sent back to Africa.

The Union was not a slave country. Vermont outlawed slavery in 1777. By 1860, only the border states still held slaves (Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland). The conflict came over the spread of slavery into the territories. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 only put off the inevitable conflict over slavery, since the Constitution is incredibly vague on the subject (it had to be for the South to accept it). There was a precarious balance of power between Slave and Free States, and when Abraham Lincoln was elected, South Carolina felt that the balance was gone. Not because Lincoln would outlaw slavery, he said he specifically wouldn't, but because Lincoln wouldn't allow the spread of slavery into new territories. Lincoln did an incredible job to win the Civil War, and even more incredible, keep the Border States within the Union and Britain and France away from the Confederacy. He took actions that he felt were necessary during war time, such as suspending Habeas Corpus, but he is not as bad as some Paulites believe, but defiantly not the God that we teach kids about either.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Face it, no matter what good Lincoln did, no matter how brilliant (imo) he was, one war killing 600,000 Americans and leaving the South in ruins with an unjustifiable motive (slave nation invading slave nation to end slavery? or forcibly preserving a voluntary union?) makes a disatrous presidency. I have read no anti-Lincoln books. The history is plain. Slavery was legal in the Union. Lincoln did made great speeches about slavery. As did Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The great failure of both men is that they were not able to end slavery until so many men died in a war over secession and tariffs that the nation was forced to end slavery to morally justify the slaughter. Thus a good thing came from something terrible.

The only way to make our point clear is to make that clear. The Union was a slave country. Abraham Lincoln was a slave president who did nothing to free the slaves, and said that it was not his purpose to free the slaves, and that white and black people could never live together, and blacks should all be sent back to Africa.

It's a lot like today. Bush invaded Iraq to spread democracy now, but that's not what really happened, and we know that. And we know that Bush stole his own election, so it was a dictatorship invading a dictatorship to end dictatorship, just as the civil war was a slave country invading a slave country to end slavery. A ludicrous proposition in both instances. Both wars were/are over money.

I will agree with you that Lincoln was a vile, filthy soul; an incredible wicked man without a conscience; a liar, a scoundrel, a cheat and a warmonger. I will admit to all of this if you will admit he was 10 times greater than any living American today.

[Acala]

Just the undisputed facts make Lincoln a villain in my opinion.

He was elected on a platform of support for protectionist tarrifs that favored northern industry at the expense of the southern agrarian economy. This, as much as the slavery issue, forced the Southern states to secede. Didn't they have a right to secede? How can the Constitution be interpreted to deny a State the right to leave the Union? Joining the Union was voluntary. Why would leaving the union not be voluntary? Is it the Mafia or a free country?

When the South seceded, Lincoln said he would continue to collect tariffs on shipments into southern harbors (showing what his real concern was) and to that end left US troops in Fort Sumpter. Where in the Constitution is a President authorized to use troops to collect tariffs in a foreign land?

After the South tried to expel union forces from southern territory, a right every sovereign nation has, Lincoln invaded with the intent of subduing them and forcing them back into the union. Where in the Constitution was forcing states into the union authorized?

Ironically, Lincoln imposed an income tax and a draft, two forms of slavery that are still with us today.

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, jailed political opponents, shut down newspapers critical of the war, sent troops into maryland to chase anti-Lincoln voters away from the polls during the election, ordered the Navy to shell New York City to put down anti-war riots, etc.

But he freed the slaves so he is a hero, right? Well, not exactly. He freed SOUTHERN slaves, but not NORTHERN slaves. Hahahahaha! The Great Emancipator! I wonder what the Northern slaves thought about that.

But the worst thing he did was to destroy the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Once the threat of secession, which had been used several times before to check the Federal government, was eliminated by Lincoln's unconstitutional war, the federal government was largely unfettered and the states were captive. Lincoln destroyed the most effective check on federal power and liberty has been eroding ever since.


So what were all the great things he did to counter-balance this horror?

[sophocles07]

Do you remember this and this?

Man these news reporters don’t know what they’re talking about.

[DealzOnWheelz]

THANKS ACALA

+1776

He basically set the precedent for the fed to shut down states rights

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

"Did you say Abe Lincoln?"
"No I didn't say Abe Lincoln! I said "Hey Blinkin!" Hold the reigns man. ...damn.

[The One]

In fact I would assume "Dr." Paul seems to get a lot of his opinions from Lincoln from books like The Real Lincoln by DiLorenzo.......even Dr. Paul should admit that this book is far from being any kind of authority on Abraham Lincoln. It's filled with erroneous revisionist, fictional or taken out of context information for the sole purpose of fueling one person's interpretation and historical agenda. I mean how many of you that despise Lincoln have even read these two books and cross referenced his sources? Probably not one. Even Lew Rockwell doesn't seem to have his frickin facts straight. Ron Paul is one man....he's not god people. Not everything he says is as good as gold :)


"Dr." Paul???? What are the quotes for?

In the immortal words of sophocles07, am I going to have to skullfuck you?

[Kludge]

I will agree with you that Lincoln was a vile, filthy soul; an incredible wicked man without a conscience; a liar, a scoundrel, a cheat and a warmonger. I will admit to all of this if you will admit he was 10 times greater than any living American today.

Abe Lincoln isn't 1/10000 the man Dr. Paul is.

[sophocles07]

I will admit to all of this if you will admit he was 10 times greater than any living American today.

What are we basing this on? I like John Ford, but his Lincoln ain't thuh reyeal Leencuhn.

[nate895]

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.

Hmmm, if he was so pure in his intentions, why did he endorse a letter that referred to the purification of America from people of African Heritage (and it doesn't use a kind term to refer to them)? The letter was by General William T. Sherman and here is the excerpt I'm referring to:

(O.R., Series I, Volume XXX, p. 234-235)

As long as a doubtful contest for supremacy exists between the two races they cannot control their choice; but as soon as we demonstrate equal courage, equal skill, superior resources, and superior tenacity of purpose, they will gradually relax and finally submit to men who profess, like myself, to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of *******, cotton, money, or any earthly interest.

[UnReconstructed]

http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/abraham-lincoln-bw13-copy.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Abe Lincoln isn't 1/10000 the man Dr. Paul is.

I think Dr. Paul needs to address this Abe Lincoln thing.

[nate895]

I think Dr. Paul needs to address this Abe Lincoln thing.

He has done it satisfactory for me. He doesn't like him, neither do I.

[0zzy]

I think Dr. Paul needs to address this Abe Lincoln thing.

Ron Paul believes in States' Rights, as did Jefferson and most of the founding fathers. They believed people could peacefully leave the Union if they felt that their rights were violated.

Lincoln believed he was above the Constitution. He defied Supreme Court Justices when they said he couldn't suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Instead of a peaceful solution of ending slavery he decided hundreds of thousands of deaths (including women and children) was the answer. He stated publicly that if he could save the Union with slavery he would (or without it). He was a white supremacist who didn't believe African-Americans had the same rights as Americans and believed they should have been shipped to Africa (so the War, again, was to "save the union").

etc.

[sratiug]

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.


I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man. Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

[sratiug]

Sounds like you haven't really read any books on Lincoln or the Civil War. Again this is a stupid quote to prove your any point. This is a very subjective interpretation of what Lincoln meant. Hell for all we know he could have meant most slaves would be happy going back to live in their continent of Africa where they came from.


I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Lincoln's Inaugural Address


We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters.
When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter.

I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.

The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.
Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ron Paul believes in States' Rights, as did Jefferson and most of the founding fathers.

After American movements served their purpose by creating agendas to reestablish and strengthen the Constitution, the measures aged quickly to become out dated legal precedents that endangerd the Constitution. As the 2 party system worked for a time in favor of the people, so did States' Rights, the Whig Party, the creation of a robber baron economy, the American movement called transcendentalism, Unions, New Deal Economics, the Civil Rights movement, amongst others. These assorted movements of the past need constant refurbishment into becoming parts of a fresh new movement, rather than their being reused as old, can - of - worms legal precedents as was the case during the false movements of the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations when they dug up old, can-of-worm legal precedents from the Civil Rights and Reagan years respectively.


They believed people could peacefully leave the Union if they felt that their rights were violated.

Why would one leave a system of "self evident" truths written "inalienable" on the conscience of every human soul? Just because a portion of a nation leaves peacefully doesn't mean that it won't have to suffer being subjected to that nation later on economically speaking -- as Mexico is subjected to the economy of the United States.
The Africans in Western Africa lived peacefully together within their primitive caste systems with the master and slave classes sitting at different dinner tables. The problems with such tribalism though is that each chief in each caste system fought with the others for control. This fighting would devalue each member of the slave class if they were captured by the opposing tribe to become slaves to the slaves and untouchables or outcastes to the master class.
So, these old primitive caste systems in which our ancestors governed themselves were quite peaceful internally with the master and the slave sitting at different dinner tables.
The Civil Purpose of our "positive" constitutional government was to bring us all together to sit at the dinner table. Such a government is constantly under pressure even to the piont of violence because such Democracies when deceived by tyranny erode naturally back to the old caste system.


Lincoln believed he was above the Constitution.

President Lincoln didn't expand Presidential powers beyond the Constitution but above the paradoxical precedents set by President George Washington. As the Administrative part of the 3 branches was created by our founding fathers to be a powerful position, the greatness of George Washington was that he didn't desire to expand those powers. So, Abraham Lincoln, America's equivalent to Gandhi, expanded Presidential powers to keep the master and slave classes sitting at the same dinner table.


He defied Supreme Court Justices when they said he couldn't suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court Justices defined themselves when they began sitting over the Constitutionality of laws. Before then they started off just writing Writs of Mandimus. The way the President and Congress can keep the Supreme Court from making judgements that keep us all from sitting at the dinner table is to
control the limits of their numbers. The fact that the Supreme Court has 9 members and sits over in judgement of the Constitutionality of laws are just legal precedents that have been set. If it were decided that the best interests of the people would be best served by expanding the numbers of the Supreme Court to 500 members, so be it. It is my feeling that the Supreme Court would function better for the people if they would adopt a new legal precedent of judging only over matters dealing with the Civil Purpose of Constitution -- the agenda to sit master and slave at the same dinner table. the Constitution that the master and slave sit at the same dinner table, so be it.


Instead of a peaceful solution of ending slavery he decided hundreds of thousands of deaths (including women and children) was the answer.

We would rather live violently as Americans while sitting at the same dinner table than live peacefully as masters and slaves eating at seperate tables. This is the "self evident" and "inalienable" Civil Purpose in the Constitution. Talks of legal precedents, mindless liberty & freedom and the spread of world wide Democracy has only served to get our nation into places like Vietnam and Iraq.


He stated publicly that if he could save the Union with slavery he would (or without it). He was a white supremacist who didn't believe African-Americans had the same rights as Americans and believed they should have been shipped to Africa (so the War, again, was to "save the union").


The enslaved Africans brought to and sold into freedom in America were more racist than the white people who bought them as property. They were either owned as property or treated even less as captive property by tribes who later sold them for as little as 12 souls for a single horse.
To ideally sit the master class and the slave class down together at the same dinner table requires the painful process of both freeing the slave and binding the master. The process we tend to ignore is the part about binding the master. The southern plantation owners did lose their wealth during the Civil War as did the robber barons who were later propped up by the government to create new industries. These robber barons lost wealth to the "New Deal" economic measures set up by FDR during the Great Depression. Unions and the Civil Rights movement also worked to keep the middle of the dinner table from eroding away into seperate master and slave classes in our society.