Douglas and Lincoln: slavery?

[TommyC1776]

I forget.  but out of all of the 4 candidates in 1860, weren't Abe Lincoln and Stephen Douglas close on their slavery positions?

[Gabu]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

[minionofmidas]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

[True Democrat]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was in favor of a constitutional amendment to guarantee the existence of slavery in the Southern states.  However, it wanted it banned in all the territories (although if a free territory wanted to be admitted as a slave state, he would concede that).  Douglas was in favor of popular sovereignty, where voters in a territory, either through a direct vote or through an elected legislature or through the formation of a state constitution, would either become slave or free.  However, this pissed off the South who felt slaves should be able to brought into any state (Dred Scott).

[Verily]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

[??????????]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Actually the abolition movement was a very small margin compared to all the moderate Republicans and Democrats up north. Its' been estimated that no more then 10% of the Republican party was actually and truly abolishionists and even those that supported abolishion many supported 'deporting' slaves back to Africa in the experiment called Liberia.

[TommyC1776]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

What does that mean?  half-heartedly mean?

[TommyC1776]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Can someone explain this?

[Gustaf]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Can someone explain this?

You don't know the meaning of the word half-heartedly? Because in that case, it means that one is not fully dedicated, does not have one's whole heart in it, so to speak. I don't see what else could be unclear.

[Dr. Cynic]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Can someone explain this?

You don't know the meaning of the word half-heartedly? Because in that case, it means that one is not fully dedicated, does not have one's whole heart in it, so to speak. I don't see what else could be unclear.

He might not speak english, or understand the phrase?... I dunno anything about him, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

[Verily]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Actually the abolition movement was a very small margin compared to all the moderate Republicans and Democrats up north. Its' been estimated that no more then 10% of the Republican party was actually and truly abolishionists and even those that supported abolishion many supported 'deporting' slaves back to Africa in the experiment called Liberia.

ROFL. The Republican Party was based on an anti-slavery platform; that was it's most distinguishing characteristic. Are you trying to tell me that the 10% the Free Soil Party got in 1848 were the only people opposed to slavery in the entire country?

10% as radical abolitionists willing to actively and illegally free slaves in the South as vigilantes, maybe, but 10% in favor of abolition? Ha!

[jokerman]

Not many people believed in total abolition.  The Republican Party's platform in 1860 only professed belief in preventing the spread of slavery into the territories.  There were many moderates within the party, and there were plenty of know-nothings and old fashioned whigs to complement those who joined the party purely because of the issue of slavery.

The movement of the public belief towards abolition was very gradual, and essentially occured during the civil war, not before it.  Lincoln understood this and adopted an incremental approach to his own path towards being publically abolitionist.

[??????????]

Correct again Preston, read up verily.

[TommyC1776]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Can someone explain this?

You don't know the meaning of the word half-heartedly? Because in that case, it means that one is not fully dedicated, does not have one's whole heart in it, so to speak. I don't see what else could be unclear.

That was it.  Thanks..

[TommyC1776]

What does adamantly mean?  Sorry sometimes I don't understand certain words.

[KEmperor]

What does adamantly mean?  Sorry sometimes I don't understand certain words.

http://www.webster.com

[TommyC1776]

What does adamantly mean?  Sorry sometimes I don't understand certain words.

http://www.webster.com

I went there and I still don't get it.  sorry.

[jokerman]

You've got to be kidding.

[TommyC1776]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

[??????????]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

Ah, may I recommend a new avatar then :

[minionofmidas]

If I recall correctly, Lincoln was in favor of abolition, while Douglas was in favor of leaving it up to the states.

Lincoln was not (publicly) in favor of abolition. He was in favor of banning it in DC and the territories, though. Douglas was in favor of allowing the residents of a territory to ban it, which amounted, in practice, to the same thing. As everybody knew.

More important was that Lincoln's Republican supporters were adamantly anti-slavery while the Northern Democrats (though not necessarily Douglas specifically) were only half-heartedly anti-slavery.

Actually the abolition movement was a very small margin compared to all the moderate Republicans and Democrats up north. Its' been estimated that no more then 10% of the Republican party was actually and truly abolishionists and even those that supported abolishion many supported 'deporting' slaves back to Africa in the experiment called Liberia.

ROFL. The Republican Party was based on an anti-slavery platform; that was it's most distinguishing characteristic. Are you trying to tell me that the 10% the Free Soil Party got in 1848 were the only people opposed to slavery in the entire country?

10% as radical abolitionists willing to actively and illegally free slaves in the South as vigilantes, maybe, but 10% in favor of abolition? Ha!

Free Soil's ten percent include people who simply loved Old Kinderhook.
And even Free Soil was (at least technically) only against any further expansion of slavery, not abolutionist.

[minionofmidas]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

Ah, may I recommend a new avatar then :

That's Nym's avatar... DWDL's avatar would be more fitting, wouldn't it?

[TommyC1776]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

Ah, may I recommend a new avatar then :

ARe u saying that only the Dems care about ppl with learning disabilities?

[minionofmidas]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

Ah, may I recommend a new avatar then :

ARe u saying that only the Dems care about ppl with learning disabilities?

No, he's saying that Dems ARE ppl with learning disabilities.

He was joking.

[Gustaf]

You've got to be kidding.

Hey I'm special Ed sometimes I don't understand things.  I have a learning disability.  sorry.

Ah, may I recommend a new avatar then :

ARe u saying that only the Dems care about ppl with learning disabilities?

No, he's saying that Dems ARE ppl with learning disabilities.

He was joking.

...or was he?!?!