Downvote away, but Lincoln was an actual white supremacist, in the sense that he believed white people were inherently superior to black people, and always would be. He believed that freeing the slaves and allowing them to stay here would lead to never ending conflict, which is why he promoted the creation of Liberia in africa, a country specifically made for freed slaves (thus the name).
He did free the slaves, which he deserves credit for, but that wasn't his original goal or the reason he launched the civil war. It was more a reason to sell the bloodiest war in American history as people began to grow tired of it. It turned a political and economic war into a moral war. By the way, I know many here love Lincoln, including Trump. It may be that the Civil War was the right move given the context etc, but at least acknowledge that it wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought to preserve the Union. The federal government was enforcing the fugitive slave act during the war, meaning that runaway slaves were being forcibly kidnapped and returned while hundreds of thousands of people were dying to free them? No. The slavery issue was part of the discussion, but it is revisionism to act like Lincoln was on a crusade to end it.
I don't know if any of the above is why they want to change the name of the school, but those are all facts.
A few quotes from Lincoln on race:
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality. I . . . am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.
. . . I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.
And yes, I understand he was a product of his time.
I think none of that qualifies strictly as a white supremacist belief. He may have espoused the idea, but those quotes don't support it strongly.
He says he doesn't intend to promote equality as it seems a fruitless endeavor (so he challenges the feasibility of the idea). 2. There is a physical difference: dark-skinned people fare better in sunny climates against burns (the increase in melanin concentration is an evolutive improvement). 3. He is in favor of his "race" having the superior position (which I don't think is false for anyone of any "race" wherever). 4. He stands for separation.
None of that is supported by a belief that white people are inherently superior due to genetics. The quotes don't say the superior position is "natural" or "owed" to white people. It may be instrumental.
It is entirely possible to have a stronger/smarter entity in chains, so long as you have the accidentals for it to happen; just as it is entirely possible for a stronger team to lose a game against a much weaker team. The status quo does not immediately imply the superiority. Sometimes it is just the first-mover advantage runaway effect and we are examining a too short time scale.
Everyone white was a white supremacist because nobody wanted to live under black supremacy.
They also knew that equality was a lie, and the races will always try and gain supremacy.
We however, proved ourselves much smarter than they. I mean, look around. Winning! It's obvious to everyone the massive contributions to American society blacks have made. They've basically made everything wonderful for us Anglo-Saxon whites. How could we live with out them?
For the most part what you're saying is pretty accurate, A lot of people look at Lincoln as a die-hard abolitionist that wanted to become president specifically to free the slaves, it's simply not true. The thing about Lincoln's quotes about ambivalence towards slavery could simply have been an appeal to moderacy at the time, it's hard to really know with politicians. I think back to Barack Obama's original stance on gay marriage, and how David axelrod said that he was faking that stance in order to appeal to moderate voters. This is a very common maneuver for politicians that are seeking radical change. Ie appear to be more moderate than you actually are.
Downvote away, but Lincoln was an actual white supremacist, in the sense that he believed white people were inherently superior to black people, and always would be. He believed that freeing the slaves and allowing them to stay here would lead to never ending conflict, which is why he promoted the creation of Liberia in africa, a country specifically made for freed slaves (thus the name).
He did free the slaves, which he deserves credit for, but that wasn't his original goal or the reason he launched the civil war. It was more a reason to sell the bloodiest war in American history as people began to grow tired of it. It turned a political and economic war into a moral war. By the way, I know many here love Lincoln, including Trump. It may be that the Civil War was the right move given the context etc, but at least acknowledge that it wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought to preserve the Union. The federal government was enforcing the fugitive slave act during the war, meaning that runaway slaves were being forcibly kidnapped and returned while hundreds of thousands of people were dying to free them? No. The slavery issue was part of the discussion, but it is revisionism to act like Lincoln was on a crusade to end it.
I don't know if any of the above is why they want to change the name of the school, but those are all facts.
A few quotes from Lincoln on race:
And yes, I understand he was a product of his time.
I think none of that qualifies strictly as a white supremacist belief. He may have espoused the idea, but those quotes don't support it strongly.
None of that is supported by a belief that white people are inherently superior due to genetics. The quotes don't say the superior position is "natural" or "owed" to white people. It may be instrumental.
It is entirely possible to have a stronger/smarter entity in chains, so long as you have the accidentals for it to happen; just as it is entirely possible for a stronger team to lose a game against a much weaker team. The status quo does not immediately imply the superiority. Sometimes it is just the first-mover advantage runaway effect and we are examining a too short time scale.
Everyone white was a white supremacist because nobody wanted to live under black supremacy.
They also knew that equality was a lie, and the races will always try and gain supremacy.
We however, proved ourselves much smarter than they. I mean, look around. Winning! It's obvious to everyone the massive contributions to American society blacks have made. They've basically made everything wonderful for us Anglo-Saxon whites. How could we live with out them?
Wakanda has been achieved bigot. Why won’t you submit?
https://thedonald.win/p/11PVts2025/daily-reminder-that-just-employi/
For the most part what you're saying is pretty accurate, A lot of people look at Lincoln as a die-hard abolitionist that wanted to become president specifically to free the slaves, it's simply not true. The thing about Lincoln's quotes about ambivalence towards slavery could simply have been an appeal to moderacy at the time, it's hard to really know with politicians. I think back to Barack Obama's original stance on gay marriage, and how David axelrod said that he was faking that stance in order to appeal to moderate voters. This is a very common maneuver for politicians that are seeking radical change. Ie appear to be more moderate than you actually are.
He wasn’t a white supremacist, just a realist, and guess what, he wasn’t wrong if you go by history, especially as of recent.
https://thedonald.win/p/11PVts2025/daily-reminder-that-just-employi/