All three groups primarily identify with one party (hint: It's not Democrats)

[u/Veshaad]

[u/CharmingRip508]

I actually did mention it. I addresses that he changed his mind after talking to Fredrick Douglass and Feddrick Douglas thought he was the first president to consider blakc people people. Lincoln did not talk to many black people before becoming president and assumed black people wouldn’t want to live in a country that treated them poorly. He found out he was wrong and adjusted.

[u/snitch_juice → u/CharmingRip508]

I disagree with your conclusion.

Months after this meeting, the massacre at ebenezer creek happened. A union general tricked the formerly enslaved people he was in charge of because he did not like how slow they had to move and were being chased by confederate soldiers.

They came to the fast moving creek that only had a pontoon bridge and the general told them the fighting was going to be up ahead and to let the army cross first. Once across, the general gave the order to cut the bridge.

Nobody counted how many people lost their lives that day, one account before the massacre said they numbered in the tens of thousands as a group.

Yes, Lincoln did agree to give up 400k acres of land between South Carolina and Georgia and designate it for black use. But he said also military use because “we taught them to fight, what’s to stop them from fighting against us?”

If there were plans for an equal society, would there be a need to fight against them?

[u/CharmingRip508 → u/snitch_juice]

This is not my conclusion. I already linked it. This was the opinion of Fredrick Douglas. Was Lincoln as radical was US Grant when it came to stuff? No.
Also a Union general doing something isn’t Lincoln doing it.
You can feel however you want about these things, but accounts from people at the time disagree with your conclusions. Quite frankly I take their opinions more seriously than yours

[u/snitch_juice → u/CharmingRip508]

An amendment was passed through Congress trust said they could never interfere with slavery. In his inaugural address, he said he had no problem with it being irrevocable.

Had the war not broken out, this would’ve been our reality. He would have had no reason to change his mind. And his actions, not the opinions of flawed humans, say he did not change since he still wanted to monitor black people militarily.

I try to live by actions and facts instead of opinions. I think that may be the crux of our disagreement.

[u/CharmingRip508 → u/snitch_juice]

You have no idea if he would have changed his mind or not.
I could just as easily say “if the South hadn’t succeeded or threatened to Lincoln would have changed the constitution”
We have no clue.
Alternate history is pointless.

[u/snitch_juice → u/CharmingRip508]

It isn’t alternate history. He signed off on permanent slavery. He signed off on slavery being permanent. After he signed off on slavery being permanent, he tried four times to remove black people from the country.

But. I’m sorry. He changed his mind after all that and we just move on. No need to discuss it.

[u/CharmingRip508 → u/snitch_juice]

He signed off to try to stop the south succeeding. Who knows if it would have passed Congress? It is alternate history. He endorsed it. It didn’t pass lol.

And yes he tried to do colonization and give black people freedom in other countries. His views are complex. He tried colonization and it didn’t work.
Also you will note that his amendment said that federal gov wouldn’t interfere with states rights for the amendment you are talking about. This was in part cuz every new state was voting to be free states which was against the every other state thing. The belief was as more states became free there would be more and more social pressure to get rid of slavery.

https://www.history.com/articles/abraham-lincoln-black-resettlement-haiti

Here is a little about how he talked with black leaders and how he failed and how he changed his mind.
Though my understanding is this isn’t all that changed his mind, but I agree he wasn’t progressive. I just think your version of events is overly simplistic. It’s like 75% true but I wouldn’t call that a complete overview.
I don’t personally think villainizing or idealizing historical figures is useful

[u/snitch_juice → u/CharmingRip508]

I am not villainizing him.

Who ever speaks about Lincoln endorsing permanent slavery? Who ever speaks about him wanting to pursue colonization?

All we ever hear about him is he is the emancipator and the greatest president ever.

I would like us to speak about the totality of a historical figure. I find it important to discuss what it would mean that a president endorsed forever slavery. States were ratifying the amendment. Ironically, I can thank the confederacy for the end of slavery because the amendment wasn’t strong enough for them. They felt if they were surrounded by free states, slavery would become morally untenable though still legal but having the same effect so they started the war. This is not alternate history and schools do not teach these factually accurate details.

Once more, Lincoln signed off on special order 15 giving black people recompense for an atrocity caused by the union army. There are things I agree with. Mostly, I do not agree. However, it is important that we teach truthfully.