:lamo
I see you're hard-headed. But, from your vantage point - as a blind, right wing ideogue - you have unwittingly just helped to ILLUSTRATE my point.
You see, my fake-news loving friend....Lincoln was the LIBERAL in that contest between him and Douglas. Lincoln would, if alive today, be a proud member of the Democratic Party, as the party he helped to create has become the party of the Steven Douglases and the Strom Thurmonds and the David Dukes and the Donald Trumps of the world.
So again, try not to confuse yourself with party labels when studying your own history as an American. It's about IDEOLOGY, not PARTY.
Got it?
I get that you are either incorrect or purposely pushing bs that is dispelled upon scrutiny.
Lincoln would roll in his grave if he knew you would try to group him in a role opposed to the founding fathers basic principles of freedom for all.
Lets look at how Lincoln saw the founding fathers in opposition to the arguments Taney made to justify slavery...(which interestingly enough are closely related to the arguments we see from democrats today)......
"Let us consider some key items of evidence that Lincoln adduces to show how the framers of the Constitution actually thought and acted with regard to slavery.15 At the Congress of Confederation in 1784, Lincoln noted, four future signers of the Constitution were asked to vote to prohibit slavery in the immense Northwest Territory that would come to include the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Of these, three of the framers voted to ban slavery.
Three years later, a similar Northwest prohibition came up for consideration and two more future framers voted for a ban. Then in 1789, at the first official gathering of Congress, presided by George Washington, all sixteen framers present—Lincoln methodically names each of them—voted unanimously to enforce the slavery ban of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
Again in 1804, Lincoln records, two framers were called upon to adjudicate similar restrictions in the newly acquired Louisiana Territory. Again, they voted for federal restrictions, including a ban on future importation of slaves from abroad. And in 1820, when Congress considered the Missouri Compromise, Lincoln points out that two surviving framers cast votes, one to ban slavery extension, one to allow it.
In the manner of a lawyer—which Lincoln was—summing up his case, Lincoln unveils his statistical tally, which he reminds his audience does not include any double counting.
He has twenty-three of the thirty-nine framers—“a clear majority,” he points out—voting on the question of slavery expansion, and of these he counts twenty-one, a near unanimity, placing themselves on the side of banning or restricting it.
Finally, in a kind of addendum, Lincoln considers the sixteen framers who left no voting record on the subject, including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris. With the exception of one, John Rutledge, Lincoln notes that all the others were confirmed antislavery men. So taking into account how they would likely have voted had the question been before them, Lincoln records his final tally of thirty-six to three, a decisive endorsement by the framers of the Republican position on slavery restriction.
Whatever one thinks of Lincoln’s algebra, he would seem to have decisively refuted Taney’s contention that the founders were unanimous in considering blacks to be so far inferior to whites that they were fit objects only for slavery. Moreover, Lincoln’s challenge to the Democrats to name a single person—not just a single founder but any single individual—of the founding era who claimed blacks were not included as men in the Declaration of Independence was never met by a Democrat of his time and has not been met to this day. Clearly there is something very wrong with the conventional wisdom, both about Lincoln and about the founding era." Dinesh Desouza-Death of a Nation:
Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party
Lincoln was called the "radical" by the opponents of his time when it was actually they who had had radically strayed from the principles that founded the country.
No sir. Those lies are
exposed in the light of history.
