MAKE A LABORATORY ANIMAL NEUROTIC THE CASE OF LINCOLN THE THREE SIDED CONTRADICTION

Let's just review the contradictory views he held on the subject. 
I will add that we are not dealing here with what is usually called simply contradiction. 
We are dealing with what should be described, I guess, as logically inconsistent positions, each of which may be considered to contradict both of the others at the same time. 
It is much more vicious, and more complex, than a mere binary contradiction, which is already quite vicious enough, standing alone, frankly:

Thursday, March 23, 2017

LINCOLN THREE TRICK PONY THE LINCOLN FALLACY

House Divided cannot stand. 
All men are created equal.
No racial mixing, anti conspiracy to nationalize.

Do you begin to see any inconsistencies?

Conceptual (not rhetorical) problems with Lincoln's position:

If the South really secretly wanted to nationalize slavery, as Lincoln had repeatedly claimed, why then did they take measures to secede, even before he took office? 

If one seceded, how then could one carry out a conspiracy to nationalize slavery? 

Only in the South? That was not what nationalization meant to them then. 

If slavery was then only in the Confederacy, why then should Northern white racists, who had supported Lincoln, object to a divided house? That would solve the slavery nationalization bogey, which Lincoln himself had also sold them.

If the argument were to liberate black slaves, certainly northern white racists did not want them staying in the South, the very thing Loncoln's emancipation did.

They certainly had no idea of them ever moving to the North. Wasn't that, after all, the main reason they elected Lincoln, to get rid of the slaves? That was certainly how many of them viewed it. 

Very few of them, certainly, took the Declaration of Independence argument literally. Certainly Jefferson himself hadn't.

Call it: The Lincoln Fallacy
It is huge, really.

Here is my comment on DK's current post:

Professor

This is a very informative and engrossing post. There is one point I want to discuss briefly, since you still think that most white racists have always been in the South.

You appear to say that they were in only the Democratic Party, in the South, as they are seemingly now only in the Republican:

"...Given that we have certainly not eliminated white racists from American political life, is it really better than virtually all of them now vote for one party? That is also what happened on the eve of the civil war, and it is very bad for America...." DK

This seems to be what most people, not just you, in the US, have been taught since the Civil War itself and still think as an article of faith.

That was not at all the case, back then, even if it is more so, perhaps, now.

One can look, for example, at the fine book, "The Unexpurgated Lincoln-Douglas Debates". 

Lincoln made extensive use of Northern white racism, white racist fear, worse even than Southern white racist fear of emancipation, based on a supposed conspiracy to nationalize slavery,to get elected, although he lost the senate election, the subject of the debates,to Doublas. 

Look especially at the Index, Slavery, Conspiracy to Nationalize. It was this fear among Northern whites, of racial mixing, stirred up by politicians and preachers like Lincoln, probably more than anything else, that later got him elected President. He literally traded on and won the Presidency based on Northern white racism.

All the best