No. It had to do with a perceived endgame for slavery in the US exemplified by outlawing slavery in the expanding territories.

"The first act of the black republican party will be to exclude slavery from all the territories, from the District of Columbia, the arsenals and the forts, by the action of the general government. That would be a recognition that slavery is a sin, and confine the institution to its present limits. The moment that slavery is pronounced a moral evil, a sin, by the general government, that moment the safety of the rights of the south will be entirely gone." -Judge Alexander Hamilton Handy

"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 assumed 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 the 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." -  Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina

"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.It tramples the original equality of the South under foot." -A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security," -Alabama's Ordinance of Secession

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Don't know what the no was about since I stated several times that it was about preventing slavery from expanding. That is quite a bit different from saying that it was fought to end slavery. Lincoln wasn't interested in eradicating slavery and he admitted as much. His interest was in preserving the Union. He went to war to preserve the union not end slavery. Lincoln believed that Union soldiers wouldn't fight if they believed that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That is how deep it ran.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

What is your favorite piece of Bernie Sanders legislation?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Except when it clearly became a win to end slavery in 1862. Lincoln was also a politician attempting to hold a coalition together. So he had to placate those friendly to slavery. His House Divided speech clearly shows he did not think keeping slavery around was sustainable.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

What is Sanders trying to hide? What's his end game? He is not rich. He was arrested during the Civil Rights Movement. Hilary literally sold out to Wall Street, yet Sanders is the charlatan? That's the bullshit.

John Brown- Abe Lincoln meets Eddie Munster?

He's trying to keep his government check. He's done well living off the government. A guy that never had a job until he was 40 went from dirt floors to multiple homes worth over $500k. Now he has an even greater following. Hopefully he'll try to accomplish something now.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

This line of thinking is truly amazing. You've got a guy who has clearly remained consistent in his thinking and his ideals for decades and who has fought for the lower class. You may say he didn't do a good job, but he has certainly remained consistent in what he believes. He gets a couple houses and he's a sellout. All the while, you crusade for someone who is undoubtedly crooked, has never given a crap about the lower class, and who has received tens of millions of dollars from her and her husband's careers in politics. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence that if she weren't so powerful, some of the things she's done would have landed her in jail. But here she is, retired as a multi-millionaire with more power than 99.999999999% of the Earth could ever dream of, and somehow Bernie Sanders is the fraud.

Beyond that, you are now criticizing the guy who freed the slaves because he was too pragmatic. In other words, you wanted an idealist who couldn't have accomplished anything.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Hillary Clinton's work on the Universal Defense Fund alone Trumps anything that Sanders has ever done. She does have history with helping the lower class.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

If you want to say Hillary has done things for the lower class, I won't debate you. But do we know what her true motivations were?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Your love for Hillary knows no boundaries. She gave us Donald Trump, which clearly overshadows her feeble accomplishments. I will never understand how someone whose biggest issue is equal opportunity for minorities is so against Sanders.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Super predator crime bill supporter, and a multimillionaire on the speaker circuit -- but she helped the lower class so that's fine.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Charlatan. Did it for political power.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

John Brown took a courageous stand against an issue that guys like Lincoln wouldn't have touched. John Brown didn't have any skin in the game regarding the issue but he took a stand based purely on his belief that slavery was immoral. John Brown made a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. He didn't simply talk the talk.

This line of thinking is truly amazing. You've got a guy who has clearly remained consistent in his thinking and his ideals for decades and who has fought for the lower class. You may say he didn't do a good job, but he has certainly remained consistent in what he believes. He gets a couple houses and he's a sellout. All the while, you crusade for someone who is undoubtedly crooked, has never given a crap about the lower class, and who has received tens of millions of dollars from her and her husband's careers in politics. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence that if she weren't so powerful, some of the things she's done would have landed her in jail. But here she is, retired as a multi-millionaire with more power than 99.999999999% of the Earth could ever dream of, and somehow Bernie Sanders is the fraud.

Beyond that, you are now criticizing the guy who freed the slaves because he was too pragmatic. In other words, you wanted an idealist who couldn't have accomplished anything.

Hillary Clinton's work on the Universal Defense Fund alone Trumps anything that Sanders has ever done. She does have history with helping the lower class.

Really what about his killing of people in Kansas?
Plus,you know the first person he killed in his raid was a freed black man so you know, he was a good man who did no wrong. Then he seized US govt property.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

He also didn't believe that blacks should go back to Africa.

Didn't Marcus Garvey also believe that?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I don't know, man. It sounds like he was against slavery...

Lincoln quotes on slavery:

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.

You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.

We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself.

Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again.

In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.

If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.

I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation.

Every advocate of slavery naturally desires to see blasted, and crushed, the liberty promised the black man by the new constitution.

You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

I was bashing Hillary when it wasn't popular. Stay focused. This is about Bernie Sanders. What piece of legislation has he proposed? When has he opposed the Democratic Party when they needed his vote? He's literally been all talk for 30 years. That works in Vermont.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

LTG, someone posted a block of quotes from Lincoln, all of which showed a man with a clear contempt for the practice of owning another human being, yet surprisingly I have yet to see you parse these quotes from the man himself over some phantom motivation which suits the narrative you want so desperately to be true. For reference, here are the quotes:

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery.

I was bashing Hillary when it wasn't popular. Stay focused. This is about Bernie Sanders. What piece of legislation has he proposed? When has he opposed the Democratic Party when they needed his vote? He's literally been all talk for 30 years. That works in Vermont.

What?! This thread is literally about presidents and has morphed into a referendum on Abraham Lincoln, America's greatest president who freed the slaves and killed the fuck out of vampires.

The only reason Hillary or Bernie is mentioned in this thread is because I pointed out your inconsistency in bitching about Bernie as an idealist and praising Hillary as a pragmatist while criticizing Lincoln as a pragmatist who didn't "believe" in what he did (the abolition of slavery and victory against the secession of the South) because he wasn't enough of an idealist. It's completely inconsistent, and I would love to hear why you think it's not inconsistent.

I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.

You are living in a different world than the rest of us. You are welcome to stay there.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This is true. Ending slavery helped him win the war and keep the union together but his primary goasl were keeping the union together and crushing the south. The bonus for blacks was their "freedom". If we're using America's grading scale (the poster) it took decades after 1862 for slavery to end.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.