You're viewing a single thread.
trying to make a clumsy analogy and accidentally venerating John Brown in the process (which is the correct position).
also as far as I know Karl Marx congratulated Lincoln on the 1864 election not the 1860 election. By 1864 Lincoln had become much practically anti-slavery compared to his initial platform in 1860. Lincoln repeatedly proclaimed his position was to contain slavery, not eradicate it, but the horrors of the civil war probably changed his mind once he saw the stakes at hand. His 1864 platform included a proposal to end slavery by constitutional amendment.
what is this even supposed to be saying? That a vote for Kamala Harris is actually voting for a ceasefire in Gaza? Harris is currently responsible for a genocide and her platform is to continue support for genocide. She isn't even proposing to limit, contain, or pressure Israel into stopping. She just had a meeting with Netanyahu and shook his hand like three weeks ago. A better analogy would be an alternate reality 1860 Lincoln as a southern democrat with a lifetime of lending aid to slave states, then ran for president in 1860 and said some wishy washy things about how he'll wag a finger at slave owners. But he's been personally selling whips, chains, and plantations to slave owners for decades. Then he invited the largest slave owners of every southern state to a big banquet and shook all their hands. And then I'm told by the 1860 version of Va*sh that Lincoln is actually an abolitionist, or that we can't worry about slavery right now because of other things going on.
i wish these liberals would just come out and say they do not care about Palestinians. Like you could at least say Lincoln was proposing to limit slavery's expansion, and he foolishly believed this would end slavery. Harris and Biden have no proposals whatsoever about Palestine other than give Israel more weaponry and aid. They're not even pretending, they're fiercely pro-Israel in a way that can't be compared to Lincoln's tepid, flawed incrementalism.
Also he wrote it before 13 amendment was implemented so he probably imagined US abolition to be standard but alas.
Yeah the Republicans were definitively the antislavery party but they knew they couldn't legally end it under American federalism. At best they could limit and constrain the spread of slavery and chip away at it at the Federal level, which they knew when running. They were sort of feckless liberals unwilling to break or move outside of the system. Once Sherman had his march to the sea to show the norths resolve and the south was fully militarily occupied then slavery could be abolished fully in the union with the 13th ammendment.
Anyway, the analogy holds no water unless you're politically illiterate.