Did Lincoln really support Black people?

[political_Dem]

First of all, I am starting this post based on what galaxy21 asked in another thread:

4. Was Lincoln really that pro black people?

Obviously, he freed the slaves but if you look at various things he said throughout his life, he wasn't exactly for equality.Unless, he was just saying that for political purposes...

I think Lincoln would have been quite freaked out by the idea of black president, even though all these toons seem to to indicate he'd be thrilled.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7812303">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7812303

(hat tip and thank you to galaxy21 for bringing up this question. This post is owed to you. :) )

I agree. I don't know whether we can fully trust to look toward Lincoln at a time like this as a champion of Black people.


Here's why:

1) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,44563,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,44563,00.html:

(Lerone Bennett's view via Time Magazine)

Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning "darky" jokes. He supported the noxious pre-Civil War "Black Laws," which stripped African Americans of their basic rights in his native Illinois, as well as the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled the return to their masters of those who had escaped to free soil in the North. But Bennett's main theme is that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only "a ploy" designed to keep as many slaves in bondage as possible until Lincoln could build support for his plan for ending slavery: "colonization," a preposterous scheme to ship the black population either to Africa or South America. His fondest dream, Bennett writes, was of a "lily-white America without Native Americans, African Americans and Martin Luther Kings."

These facts are not new, of course, in part because other historians have responded to a furious anti-Lincoln article Bennett wrote for Ebony in 1968 by providing less heroic profiles of the 16th President. What's new is Bennett's emphasis. As he writes, even now some white scholars tend to consign the unflattering truth about Lincoln's racist ideals to "footnotes and asides."

2)http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDB173DF933A25751C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EFDB173DF933A25751C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

(Eric Foner's discussion in the New York Time regarding William Lee Miller's book):

Miller acknowledges that Lincoln opposed allowing blacks in Illinois to vote, hold office or intermarry with whites, and that he never called for repeal of the state's draconian Black Laws, which severely restricted the rights of the small black population. He points out in extenuation that most of Lincoln's racist statements were defensive responses to Democrats' far more overt and insidious appeals to racism. In the great 1858 Senate campaign, Lincoln's rival, Stephen A. Douglas, repeatedly insisted that blacks were not entitled to share in the inalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independence. To this, Lincoln responded that blacks might not merit political equality but that the natural rights enumerated by Jefferson applied to all mankind.

Miller makes clear Lincoln's deep hatred of slavery. Regarding race, however, his defense is not entirely successful. Having earlier praised Lincoln for moral independence, he explains that when it came to blacks, Lincoln ''acquiesced in the racial prejudice by which he was surrounded.''

Should we ignore Lincoln's racist tendencies for the largest picture? After all, he wasn't to enthused about signing the Emancipation Proclamation. He also had different designs on the Civil War other than it being a battle over slavery.

What do you guys think?

Is the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln a bad analogy to describe this watershed event of electing Barack Obama?

[babylonsister]

1. Fun fact?

This whole link is very interesting...

http://racerelations.about.com/b/2007/02/17/why-obama-wouldnt-be-the-first-president-with-african-ancestry.htm

snip//

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth U.S. President, had dark skin, course hair, and a heritage that included Melungeon or African ancestors. Hussein writes that "His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents."

[ej510]

2. NO! He wanted to save the union.

[babylonsister]

4. What does what I posted have to do with saving the union or not?

That's right, nothing. :crazy:

[Left Is Write]

9. I think that poster meant to reply to the OP.

[babylonsister]

13. Thanks. That was such a strange response, I'm sure that's what

he/she was responding to. I maintain my :crazy:!

[political_Dem]

17. Upon reading the post, I tend to agree.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. To discuss Lincoln's position on

race without discussing his position on slavery in the context of his times is to do history, race relations, and Lincoln's standing in relation to both, a major dis-service.

Saying Lincoln was a "racist" or other such malarkey is to commit the sin of "present-ism"(the tendency to judge the distant past by the standards of the present).

Racism (or, more properly, "racialism") as a cognitive category (the common forms by which one thinks about, and orders, one's daily life), much less as a moral taboo, did not really exist until late in the 19th century.

What better evidence is there than how black residents of Richmond greeted Lincoln on his visit to Richmond upon Richmond's fall in 1865? Would you substitute current morays for the actual perceptions of blacks of the times? Such seems to me presumptuous in the extreme.

[political_Dem]

5. Wow. That is interesting. Thanks for the link.

But I tend to wonder why if that was the case, why would people play up the "whiteness" aspect more than the other attributes of the Presidents who were featured.

Does this have to do with the "culture of whiteness", racism and privilege in America? This concept must be explored more.

[SweetieD]

43. I'm skeptical of the Abrahamus Africanus thing

The use of false ethnic smears in American political history is long standing. To suggest your opponent may have one drop black blood, was not a particular endearing or lovingly designed reference by a political opponent. Rather, the spreading of rumors that a person was black, was a smear, designed to get less people to vote for that person. I believe it was done as recently with Harding but had been also used in previous major US campaigns most of the time with success. I think Abraham Lincoln was a black as Obama is muslim.

[RoyGBiv]

88. Africanus ...

Lincoln was labeled many things referring to a black skin color. His party was sometimes called "Black Republicans." He was called "black" even.

It had nothing to do with his race. It was pejorative label used in much the same way as the "Muslim" label has been used with Obama.

As for his heritage, we don't even know what his heritage was with any certainty. One of the amazing things about Lincoln is that he was among the first "self-made" men to achieve the Presidency. Certainly this characterization has been overdone and is now the stuff of legend. He was, for example, a rather wealthy man by the time he sought the Presidency, contrary to a popular myth. However, he didn't begin that way. And what all that means in the context of the 19th century is that knowledge of his ancestry is difficult to find.

We don't even know for certain where his family originated. Claims are made that link him to the First Families of Virginia. Others put him in North Carolina. I even have run across a claim he is descended from New England merchants.

There is a hypothesis (it hasn't reached the level of theory and likely never will) that one line of his ancestry was connected to a black family. There is no actual record of this, however. It's speculative at best.

[liberalhistorian]

3. You have to understand that Lincoln was a man of his

time. He did not believe in slavery, did not believe blacks should be slaves. He was disgusted by the attitudes of the south and by slavery. That is, after all, why he was one of the founders of the Republican party, which basically started as opposition to the south and to slavery (my, how far they've fallen!!!).

HOWEVER. This does not translate into his being for complete equality of blacks and other races, nor does it mean that he believed that blacks were capable of being much more than servants. He did not believe they should be mistreated, believed they should be treated with dignity. But he believed in the ultimate superiority of whites over other races, and felt that, while blacks shouldn't be enslaved, they did have their "place."

Yes, he would have been freaked at the idea of a black president. But, again, he came of age in the early nineteenth century and, frankly, his attitudes were considered enlightened for that time.

[political_Dem]

6. If that is the case, why is Lincoln used now?

I think he's been (pardon the pun) white-washed in current events.

[JVS]

12. Because a flawed man who does great things is of greater value than a virtuous man who does nothing.

[musicblind]

76. Very well said.

[RoyGBiv]

103. I really like that ...

Sums it up rather nicely.

[H2O Man]

124. Key.

Even the greatest figures in human history were sad and weakly human.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Isaac Newton's sum knowledge of physics and mathematics was

nowhere near that of a bright modern 12-grader's. Adam Smith would be totally lost if he were shown a modern global supply chain. Charles Darwin didn't know a thing about DNA.

And yet they're held up today as great men of knowledge. Does that seem wrong-headed to you? If it doesn't, can you find a parallel?

[political_Dem]

24. No. Because white privilege plays into their status as "great men" in their respective fields.

[Occam Bandage]

25. ...

:eyes:

[political_Dem]

27. Too bad. It's true. I'm sorry you don't agree.

[Occam Bandage]

30. It isn't true; it's just bizarre. Of all the declarations of white privilege,

"Darwin, Newton, and Smith are only seen as great thinkers because they are white" is possibly the most aggressively and blithely counterfactual.

[political_Dem]

36. You can write Dr. Peggy Mcintosh about it. She's a white woman who studied white privilege.

She developed http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html">this theory which revolutionized "White studies", "Ethnic Studies", "Sociology" and "Cultural Studies". Take it up with her if you are so disgusted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Was Jonas Salk Only "Great" Because He Was White?

~

[political_Dem]

85. It depends on cultural and racial context--especially in terms of the historians

and the members of his chosen field who chose to examine his life, career and legacy.

I'll echo what SweetieD said in another post: history is always written by the victors.

[liberalhistorian]

16. Yes, he has been. But that is quite often the way

with such historical figures. I could fill a million volumes with examples, frankly.

However, I do believe he was the best president to get us through the civil war.

[undeterred]

22. I think you're right, but there was also so much to his personality.

I think Lincoln was a man of greath spiritual depth and he experienced a great deal of personal pain in his life. He felt the pain of this country more than any other president has, because he took it through a civil war. And in great contrast to our current president, he felt every loss and grieved every loss.

I think that he evolved regarding his view of blacks and slavery during the course of his life. He plainly said that he thought integration would never work, but he listened to Frederick Douglas, who told him it had to work, and he entertained the notion after that. Lincoln was no revolutionary, but he was a vessel through which change could take place in history- or if you will, someone through whom God could work.

[azurnoir]

7. I seriouslyn doubt Lincoln was an abolitionist

As to the Emancipation Proclamation it effectively put the "enemy" in the households of every slave holder. Never mind that it also put slaves in great peril, he signed it for sheerly political reasons. As to the civil war being about slavery nothing could be further from truth, the union army captured and held escaped slaves as "war booty".

[struggle4progress]

All of the Southern states at the time thought he was -- else they would not have seceded

[azurnoir]

97. there was more to it then that

the south wanted more slave states, they wanted new territories to allow slavery.

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".<53> He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.<54>

Alarmed at the loss, and in an attempt to prevent more slave states from leaving the Union, the U.S. Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on July 25 of that year, which stated that the war was being fought to preserve the Union and not to end slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[struggle4progress]

104. Confederacy formed and began seizing Federal sites in February 1861; Lincoln inaugurated in March.

It was not anything Lincoln did as President but the simple fact of the election of Lincoln, perceived as an abolitionist by the South, that led to the Civil War. Go back and examine the secession documents and you will find that preserving slavery was a major concern of the secessionists. The long prior fight of slave/free territory was of strategic interest to both abolitionists and slavers, only because it potentially affected the balance of power in Congress and the future of slavery as an institution.

[NOLALady]

54. the union army captured and held escaped slaves as "war booty

Not true in all cases. Some of my ancestors escaped to the Union troops and later joined the regiment. Many members of the Corps d Afrique were escaped slaves.



Octave Johnson

Interviewed, 1863, Louisiana Age: twenty-three

b. 1840, Louisiana

Enslaved: Louisiana

Deposition of Octave Johnson (Monde), Corporal9

Co. C. 15th Regt. Corps d'Afrique

," we escaped and came to Camp Parapet, where I was first employed in the Commissary office, then as a servant to Col. Hanks; then I joined his regiment.'

[Occam Bandage]

8. People are products of their times.

If we had access to a time machine, Lincoln would sound like a racist today, Jefferson would sound like a provincialist and a totalitarian, and so on. I'm not sure what value lies in judging the character of the heroes of the past using the standards of today.

[political_Dem]

11. Why not? Character is a part of judging a legacy. Warts and all.

Lincoln was a racist and not too happy about Black people. That's a fact.

[Occam Bandage]

20. And judging character stripped from context is a fool's game.

A man of the future might see carnivorism as monstrous. However, if that man were to assail FDR as a monster for eating meat, it would be evidence of nothing but his allowing the mores of his day to dictate his perception of the past.

[political_Dem]

26. No it isn't. It adds to an already conflicted and complex interpretation of a historical figure.

Furthermore, it gives a further explaination of why Lincoln is rather a controversial figure to use for Mr. Obama's election as the First African-American President of the United States.

Even in the comparison of education, Mr. Obama is far smarter than Mr. Lincoln. He had no formal education and still made it into the White House.

Context helps, but over all, there are certain facts that can't be swept under the rug.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Sure, it "adds" to it, but what it adds is entirely invalid.

The mere fact that imposition of an artificial standard makes a situation more complex is not in and of itself evidence that the standard is worthwhile. In fact, it's more often evidence of the opposite.

Oh, and saying "it's an explanation for it being controversial" is nothing but a tautology, as references to Lincoln are only "controversial" among those who adopt that viewpoint in the first place.

[political_Dem]

33. What it comes down to is this:

1)Lincoln held racist views.

2)Lincoln did deprive the rightd of Blacks while in Illinois.

3)Signing the Emancipation Proclamation didn't even immediately free the slaves. It changed the character of the Civil War, though:

(via the National Archives)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/">http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

4)Lincoln did what he could to preserve the Union, that's the ultimate reason of the Civil War.
He still retained his racist views of Black people. And he still felt that they were inferior.

It says quite a lot about how he treated people of color despite history placing him as a "storied and historical figure". Context is always used to "white wash" a person who has some pretty ugly character flaws.

[rzemanfl]

10. I thought Lincoln planned to repatriate the slaves. n/t

[RollWithIt]

15. Sigh, Emancipation Proclomation....

Gees people.

[theboss]

77. Which only freed slaves in the Confederacy

Border states KY, MD, and MO were excluded.

[Thothmes]

127. And DC

[endthewar]

122. The Emancipation Proclamation was used as an economic weapon against the South

[galaxy21]

18. I think Lyndon Johnson (more than any other president ) would have been over the moon

about a black president.

[political_Dem]

28. He paved the way in his pushing for the "Great Society".

Clinton? We'll see what he does in the future. ;)


Btw, galaxy21, thank you again for asking a wonderful question. :D

[SweetieD]

40. I'm not sure about that either. I think its common knowledge LBJ referred to blacks as N----s

I think he saw us more as a nuisance that needed to be contained.

And I'm no history scholar, but I was friends with a lady who knew LBJ and his family well.

[political_Dem]

47. I will not second-guess you. LBJ was from the South.

I've heard a lot of conflicting views from older black folks, including my own relatives.

[MtUpWithWngsAsEgles]

19. Lincoln and slavery

No he did not. Freeing the slaves had to be done in order to preserve the Union. The south had a slave economy. Without the slaves the south would not be able to fund itself. If the union could have been preserved without freeing the slaves he would have chosen that route.

Now I have read that eventually slavery would have died a slow death in the US regardless.

But the answer to your question is NO.

[Curtland1015]

21. I've seen lots of back and forth on this over the years. I tend to think the real answer is...

...somewhere in the middle. I know there are books out with "facts" that prove both sides. So I tend to think Lincoln was overall a "good" man with character flaws.

[political_Dem]

34. I think the answer is there as well.

But it is worth it to question the problematic tendencies of this man because it sheds new light of how to view his decisions--especially when it has to do with civil rights and the humanity of people of color.

[NOLALady]

23. No.

Lincoln supported the Union.

Like Barack Obama, Lincoln loved this country above all else. He did what he felt was necessary to keep this country from being destroyed.

[pretzel4gore]

31. I know Honest Abe

having read Stephen Oates biography of Lincoln, and Gore Vidal's wonderful story, not to mention Bruce Cattan's Civil War series, one can say boldly that lincoln wasn't a racist in that he believed he was superior to anyone. Lincoln was a brilliant man, with great ambition and a devotion to the public he served. America was racist, in the main, and Lincoln obviously fitted easily in society that was crude beyond our modern ken, yet his christianity reeked havoc with any racism he might have entertained. He was also mocked for his 'apelike' features, never to his face. Try imagine what would have happened to USA had not Lincoln been there in 1861. Nevermind speculating on his private opinions. The freepers hate lincoln.....google 'Clement Vallandigham' for some idea of what Abe was up against, instead of passing judgements based upon suspect premises.....

[brindis_desala]

32. Lincoln would be astonished but probably pleased.

During the civil war Lincoln selected the great Frederick Douglass to be an officer in the Union Army but was forced to withdraw the commission when the army's white officers threatened to rebel. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union all else was secondary.

However, not only did Lincoln's view become more enlightened over time, he came to respect Douglass greatly and view him as as a friend. A fact Lincoln himself acknowledged when he insisted that Douglass be allowed to attend the White House reception for his 1864 inauguration. So while he was ill-disposed to spend much political capital to help the black freedmen Lincoln was far from a bigot.

[redstate_democrat]

44. Yes, and even Lincoln's VP, Andrew Johnson, despised Frederick Douglass

When Douglass attended the reception, Johnson was overheard making crude statements about Douglass even being there. Johnson went batshit over it.

[ShadowLiberal]

37. For the times Lincoln was a moderate liberal, compared to people today he's conservative

The fact is people's social views of the rights of blacks have evolved over 150+ years since Lincoln's time. At the time Lincoln was around, in a much more racist nation, Lincoln was a man of the times. There were certainly some people who were very liberal for their times, who wanted to give blacks a lot to make things more equal for them after the war. Compared to the others though Lincoln was a moderate liberal.

The fact is at the time the war started Lincoln, and many in the north, had no intention of freeing the slaves, it was all about perserving the union. During the civil war however there was a radical shift in opinions in the north about slavery. Before people would worry that abolishing it would be too chaotic, since what would you do with all of the freed slaves? You can't just free millions of people used to depending on their white masters to survive and give them food and clothes they need and expect them to survive on their own. One of the solutions to this problem was like the topic started mentioned, shipping the slaves back to Africa or some other place. The government tried started colonies of freed slaves on some island during the civil war, but it failed miserably, and after something like 2/3's of them had already died the government abandoned the idea forever and brought the survivors back to America.

But back to my point, Lincoln was a moderate liberal, because he often changed his views to more liberal views when the public started to come around to supporting those ideas to, like taking away the slaves from the south. At the time the public never started to view blacks as equals, and Lincoln being a moderate of his times never started to view them that way either.

[mitchum]

38. He was a racist

[SweetieD]

39. He was racist plain and simple. No I DONT think Lincoln would be happy to see a Black man as presid

president. I doubt he would have thought a black man capable of handling the job. And quit with the bull of him being a "man of his time". He was an intelligent man who was a maverick and forward thinking in other ways but he was not for Civil Rights or Equal Rights for blacks. And it makes me sick seeing all this mulitculural revisionist history crap that "Lincoln loved black people" being revisited in these toons now that Obama has won.

[political_Dem]

48. Thank you. I was thinking the same thing when I saw the Lincoln political cartoons.

I don't really know if Lincoln could be the hero that people build him up to be.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[political_Dem]

51. Please Read Shadow Liberal's Post. #37. Thank you.

[Condem]

57. I ask you, political

Are you a Lincoln scholar? A Civil War Scholar? Your credentials, please. You're weighing in on a deep subject.

[political_Dem]

59. Are you?

[Condem]

62. I will say from your posts, that I know a hell of alot more than you.

What triggered the Emancipation Proclamation?

[political_Dem]

63. Whatever.

I'm going to be the peaceful one and turn my attention elsewhere.

[Condem]

64. Which means you can't answer the question.

Listen up, genius. If you are going to call Lincoln a racist, know your fucking facts. That's all.

[political_Dem]

66. Whatever.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cults4Bush]

144. Whoa!!!

Thats uncalled for! At the very least refrain from such vitriol.

[SweetieD]

67. Meanwhile you have provided no facts to the contrary despite being an "expert" on Lincoln and the ci

civil war. Enlighten us with your knowledge, instead of name calling.

[Condem]

70. Post #62 , sweetie.

The event, please?

[SweetieD]

72. I asked you to enlighten us. You are the one claiming to be a history expert and you think we are

stupid based on this knowledge only known to you. So enlighten me on what you know? Specifically, in reference to the original post, which examined whether or not the portrayal of Lincoln in these cartoons would have been accurate? I say no. You say yes, that I'm an asshole. And I want to know what information are you privy to that I am not?

[Condem]

73. The funny thing, sweetie

You're as racist as Lincoln was.

[SweetieD]

121. I will take that to mean you have no intention of supporting your arguments or do not have any

information that does support your arguments.

[SweetieD]

61. Did lincoln love black people? Was he for civil rights for Blacks? Would he be giving the US a

thumbs up for a Black president? That is what all these cartoons suggest. I am saying no. There is nothing to indicate he would. You can name call if you want. I too have read history books. History is written by the victors. And revisionist history, especially about the civil war and Lincoln, is common and used to make the characters and events more palatable to contemporary Americans.

[RollWithIt]

130. Agreed, a complete lack of understanding of history....

Kind of sad really, thankfully I took enough history classes in college or I'd be spouting off garbage like that I guess.

[Thothmes]

129. His views on race

parallell the majority opinions of black people of the time. Even the majorty of the abolition movement members had absolutly no desire to see political or social equality for blacks. They opposed slavery based on the view that it was a moral wrong. Not on the view that the black man deserved social and political equality. Lincoln was very pragmatic. To paraphrase one of his statements, if he could restore the union without freeing a single slave, he would do so. If he restore the union by freeing a few slaves he would also do that. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to meet his objective of restoring the Union, nothing more, nothing less.

[Dappleganger]

41. Read 'The Real Lincoln' by Thomas DiLorenzo

His argument was that Lincoln didn't have to drag us into an unnecessary war, that the slaves could have been freed in a far more civil manner, similar to how England did it.
He does not bow down at the alter of Lincoln as so many do.

IMO, he did have good character but was a man like anyone else in that time--a racist. There is significant evidence that he really struggled with that, however.
Historically we tend to idolize people like him, but we can learn important things from his many faults as well.

[struggle4progress]

45. Your summary doesn't reflect Civil War history: despite Southern claims that the war was

an act of Northern aggression, the South began the war by attacking Federal facilities and the Northern response was extremely slow

Since secession meant the Southern states were unwilling to recognize the authority of Washington, it is entirely unclear to me how legislation from Washington (on the British model) could possibly have ended slavery, if the South had seceded without further incident: the political history, over several decades during the antebellum period, does not at all suggest that the slave states would have been willing to see slavery abolished, and (in fact) a number of the secession documents make quite clear that secession was motivated by the desire to preserve slavery, in the face of the election of an anti-slavery President

Nevertheless, the original Northern stance was that the War was a fight over the indissolubility of the Union: abolitionists expended tremendous energy during the War to reframe the War as fight over slavery -- and without that reframing, there would have been no post-war amendments

[RoyGBiv]

90. DiLorzenzo is a nutjob ...

Without going into detail, I'll just say I've had a number of personal interactions with that individual.

He has a great command of every historical lie ever conceived surrounding Civil War political and social history and an astonishing ability to ignore every bit of documented evidence that contradicts his notions in favor of rumor and his own imagination.

[struggle4progress]

96. Thanx Roy! Glad to see you're still around: I used to see your posts regularly when I joined DU

but somehow haven't encountered you recently

:toast:

[RoyGBiv]

100. Howdy ...

:hi:

I've seen you. ;-) Funny coincidence: I used your screen name as a password for on of my computer systems for awhile. I don't remember why I did that exactly other than the easy-to-remember letter/number combo, but anyway ...

I've been around. I realized yesterday when I looked at my post count I somehow threw out about 1500 posts since August. Now I know why my kitchen sink has been granted an award by the National Science Foundation for providing a habitat for new forms of life. :-)

I was a 3-4 posts a day type of person during most of the primaries though.

Mention of DiLorenzo makes my blood boil. I've never met a more arrogant "scholar" with such a remarkable ability to be not just wrong but stubbornly so.

[struggle4progress]

106. My screen name is just a great slogan based on the famous Frederick Douglass quote,

so (except here at DU) it's public domain

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. 4 August 1857

[Condem]

55. If Thomas DiLorenzo wrote it , it must be true.

Whatever, Dapple.

[RoyGBiv]

89. No, do not ...

Thomas DiLorenzo is an idiot whose credentials in history don't meet the level of a college freshman.

He's a Libertarian economist who is convinced every evil of the modern "welfare state" is tied directly to Abraham Lincoln.

He also argues that secession was not only legal but explicitly claimed as a right by the Founding Fathers.

[struggle4progress]

42. Lincoln and Frederick Douglass met several times at the White House

Here's some info: http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=38&subjectID=2

Douglass, of course, was a man of great energy and towering intelligence -- and Lincoln seems to have recognized him as such

Parsing some of Lincoln's indisputably racist comments is difficult, because Lincoln was not only a master politician but also a deeply conflicted man: the unfortunate quotes might be read as political gaming or as evidence that Lincoln struggled against an interior racism with mixed success

[Morpheal]

46. Civil War, Lincoln And Emancipation of Blacks

I have never really believed in the myth surrounding the North, and Lincoln, truly emancipating
blacks. When you look at the causes of the Civil War you soon see that the North did not like
the economic progress of the south. The south had begun to industrialize and form new alliances.
The North saw blacks as cheap labour. Freed from "slavery" where slave masters typically followed
a code of ethics as to providing for the needs of their workers, the "slaves", blacks were plunged
into northern industrial and domestic service hell where nothing but an inadquate wage was provided
in exchange for endless hours of exhausting toil, often under extremely bad conditions. The black
worker was no longer "valuable property" to be cared for as such. The black worker was now free
from that and no longer as expensive to replace. There was a large pool of black workers available
from which to pick and choose. Working conditions of the time, in Northern factories, will tell you
the rest of the tale. What the wage could buy in terms of the necessities of life will also tell
you something of the truth.

Northern slavery or southern slavery ?

Lincoln simply drove the slaves north, into new enslavement to serve the northern industrialists.
There was no emancipation. No emancipation until the labour unions fought for it much later.
Lincoln was a slaver same as most others of his time. Changing the name of something does not
change what it is. Southern "slavery" changed to Northern "wage labour" does not say much about
what happens to the quality of life, and its basic conditions. That is what matters, not the change
in the wording.

Robert Morpheal

[cemaphonic]

146. This argument seems awefully loose with the timing

The big migration of rural Southern blacks into Northern industrial cities happened much later than the Civil War - 1920s - 1940s.

Plus, the Emancipation Proclamation was a late effect of the war, not a cause. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, and didn't enter office with the goal of freeing Southern slaves, so the notion that it was a conspiracy of Northern industrialist interests is pretty suspect.

[RoyGBiv]

165. It's loose with more than timing ...

Beginning right here: "When you look at the causes of the Civil War you soon see that the North did not like
the economic progress of the south."

What unmitigated bull ... It's one step from the tariff argument (the notion that the South seceded over a high tariff), which has been thoroughly and completely debunked.

When you look at the causes of the Civil War, what you see is that the labor systems of the slave states and the labor system of the non-slave states were incompatible. Since the non-slave economy was advancing far more rapidly than the stagnant slave states and thus acquiring more political and, lest we forget, moral clout, the slave states were feeling marginalized. As had been known for several decades (a lesson slavery adherents had learned from what happened with the British and French colonies in the Caribbean), to maintain the slave based system while sharing political ties with a non-slave system, the slave system had to expand or maintain independence, or it would be overwhelmed.

Lincoln's election ushered in a determination that the slavery system would not expand.

Thus, secession.

I know I shouldn't be responding to you really ... I just happened to notice this part of the thread.

It is troubling the level of Confederate apologia that has managed to creep into this thread, carefully shrouded in the language of objective assessment of Lincoln.

[cemaphonic]

168. Hey, you're agreeing with me, and as a near lurker, I like respones.

The civil was was primarily about slavery., at least from the viewpoint of the southern political elite that launched it. Says so right in their damn consitution, and the constitutions of all member states - it's amazing how much people grasp for other reasons. It's true that history is complex, and there were some other differences between North and South, but they were minor causes at best, and many of them were tied into the slaveholding economic system in the first place.

Lincoln wasn't a radical abolitionist by any means, but the more hysterical of the Cofederate leaders saw him as one anyway (a lot like the "Obama is a closet Marxist/Muslim/terrorist" argument from our paranoid right-wingers), and even the more sober ones realized that the success of the Free Soiler territorial agenda meant the eventual end of slavery.

[calmblueocean]

50. Lincoln treated blacks like Obama treats gays. Better, actually.

Look, I really like Barack Obama, but he is a political coward when it comes to standing up for the rights of gay people to get married in this country. His remarks about marriage being reserved exclusively for a man and a woman are exactly the same kind of pandering to bigotry as Lincoln's remarks about blacks not meriting political equality.

The major difference is that Lincoln, when cornered by events, did ultimately sign the Emancipation Proclamation. We won't see Obama making the same kind of stride on behalf of gays.

[political_Dem]

52. How do you know? He's only been President for two days.

[rebel with a cause]

56. Actually, he was just elected and is not sworn in as president yet.

and for anyone to be blaming him already for things that are happening is just stupid. He has no power to do anything yet!!

[political_Dem]

60. Thank you for that. He is the President-Elect.

[calmblueocean]

65. I base my opinion on his own words.

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

-- http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php

That's from his Senate website, but he's said similar kinds of things to crowds many many times. The fact that he wants it to be a state issue tells you that he's not going to make efforts at the federal level to legalize gay marriage.

It's not that I don't understand why he takes the position. Gay marriage is a political hot potato that burns most politicians who touch it. But it's still pandering to bigotry, and it's disingenuous to hold Lincoln to one standard and Obama to another.

[political_Dem]

68. Obama has a website now called Change.gov. Write to him about your views.

If you are so passionate about this issue, he deserves to know. Perhaps then, you might persuade him instead of commisserating about it here.

[calmblueocean]

74. Heh, I was just looking at Change.gov earlier tonight.

Honestly, as I wrote, I understand why Obama doesn't want to take on the issue of gay marriage. Politics is all about compromise, even moral compromise at times. Our country is in desperate straits, and Obama is expressing as much support for gay families as he feels he can without breaching his electability. I don't think politicians have to be perfect to be good.

It was the strident judgmentalism of the OP that drove me to point out that Obama is no saint, either. I'm still proud of Obama, though, and inspired by him, and I think one can feel the same way about Lincoln, too.

[political_Dem]

80. Exactly. The issue here is that Lincoln's entire history should be examined.

That entire history should added to paint a full picture of who the man was. My intention here was to ask the question (after I saw it in another thread) and initiate a debate. Lincoln's racism has been studied, documented and discussed in many historical circles. Therefore, I wondered whether the current events was taking a "mainstreamed" view of Lincoln.

There's a reason for that.

People view and describe the same events from different societal positions (Bahktin). I believe that people clash over such information because of that reason. But, there is the potential for people to understand various views that don't always gibe with the mainstream. It is important to have all this information out there for that reason. We need to know this information rather than simply believing the word of historians who mainstream a "white washed" version of a particular historical figure.

Some groups, due to a shared history, have a more nuanced view of a historical figure than others. Therefore, as a person of color, I have a different view of Lincoln than that of people of the dominant culture.

With that being said, I think we can take all of these things in context and still have the choice to admire a historical figure. This is something you and I can agree about.

As of Lincoln? Judging from what I've studied and read about him, I don't think he garners that respect yet. I'm sorry.

As of Obama: there are things I disagree with him about. But, I will be vigilant and watch how his views develop over time.

[NorthernSpy]

58. No, Obama proposes to round up gays and dump them on the continent of THEIR CHOICE!!!

Instead of just trying to ship them all back to where their long-ago ancestors came from, like that Lincoln character did. So no, much as you may resist believing it, gays really are just tiny bit better off than black slaves and freedmen were.


:eyes:


Sheesh. Melodramatic much?

[rebel with a cause]

53. I am not an expert on Lincoln,

but I would say that for his time Lincoln may have been a little progressive, but for these times he would have been seen as a racist.

About him wanting to send the freed slaves back to Africa, this was actually considered a fair idea at the time since the people had been brought here against their wills. In the book that helped fuel the beginning of the war, "Uncle Tom's Cabin", that was one of the ways that the freed slaves were helped. In fact, it was what some freed people wanted, and it was only after one African settlement by American freed people failed did this plan end being considered. There are also towns in the Caribbean that are populated by descendent's of escaped slaves and freed people. One town on the peninsula of Samana in Dominican Republic, Old English was still spoken by the people there due to the fact that they were descendent's of USA slaves. Only now is their original language (the one the people had when they settled there) beginning to disappear, being replaced by Dominican Spanish. A few years ago, the linguist were flocking there to do studies on the language before it disappeared all together.

Not all of the people that were brought here against their will, treated so wrong with years in forced slave labor, and then finally set free with nothing to call their own did not want to stay in this wonderful place. Go figure.

[IsItJustMe]

71. I always believed that it was political expediency that drove Lincoln to his position on slavery.

Slavery was legal in the South and was illegal in the North. That was only one issue of many in which the Civil War was fought over.

The South wanted to succeed from the North. Lincoln realized that to allow this would mean end of this country. One of the issues was slavery and he realized that in order to unite the country, slavery would have to end in the North.

So, when its all said and done, I can't look in Lincolns heart and know for sure, and words are cheap when they come from politicians, which he was.

[political_Dem]

75. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, September 18, 1858--Just FYI

Lincoln was examining the issues regarding slavery and abolition. He also described how he viewed Blacks within his rebuttal to Douglas. In my opinion, this is an example of his complicated views on race:

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2222:3.lincoln">http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2222:3.lincoln

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far as I know, the judge never asked me the question before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject.

I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States, if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it.

On whether the question of slavery and whether it would end (later in the same speech):

When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since until he got into a quarrel with the President about the Lecompton constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he didn't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down the Lecompton constitution. How is it over? That was only one of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation -- one of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting down of that constitution put an end to all the trouble?


Is that more likely to settle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas bill was introduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end, we may say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we are four years and a half nearer the end of the world; and we can just as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it, no way but to keep it out of our new Territories -- to restrict it forever to the old States where it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation.

I get the opinion that he had no intention of freeing the slaves, but saw slavery dying off. I also don't think he had a high opinion of Black people. Even in this speech, he spoke about the slaves and their condition in unflattering terms. I wonder how he would have felt about white indentured servants, for example?

[calmblueocean]

82. Wow. It's amazing how closely his answer on 'negro citizenship' parallels Obama's on gay marriage.

The "state's rights" argument is pretty clearly serving the same function for Abe as it does for Barack -- a way to avoid committing yourself to taking a politically unpopular position on a controversial issue. Conclusions drawn about someone's personal feelings based on words said in the volatile environment of a political debate probably aren't very sound, at least in my opinion. I don't believe Obama actually thinks marriage ought to be "between a man and a woman" either, frankly.

[political_Dem]

83. That's a very astute connection.

And yes, I also believe it is a cop out to use such a explanation.

However, in my view (regarding racial/cultural issues), it only adds to the deficit of Lincoln's attitudes regarding Black people. This debate makes him sound like an opportunist.

Now will that same fate befall Mr. Obama in terms of gay marriage? Well, that's up to the citizens. I'm sure he can be convinced to act by impassioned and reasoned protest.

Unlike in Lincoln's time, we have a real opportunity to make social change.

[RoyGBiv]

115. Pragmatist ...

... with a hint of opportunism.

The implicit assumption that "opportunism" is a bad thing, however, should not be taken for granted. Exploiting opportunities and making your own opportunities is how politicians do anything.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates are a very interesting study in how Lincoln worked. Notably, when the location of a debate was in Southern Illinois, which had economic and cultural ties to slave states, his rhetoric was far more conciliatory toward the question of slavery than when he spoke in places farther north. What's worse, what you read is a reporter's transcription of the debate and further the editorial slant placed on it. A Democratic newspaper and a Republican newspaper in the same town could print the entire debate and have two versions that varied in many important details.

One thing a person takes from these debates is that the individual debates taken out of the context of the entire breadth of them are pitiful bits of evidence of Lincoln's true positions.

[political_Dem]

116. Where should we look?

Where on-line can you access his private papers and primary documents? Can you provide links?

[RoyGBiv]

118. I still do books ...

I own a set of Lincoln's papers in which many of the different versions of the debates are reproduced.

Several versions of the L-D debates are online, but I don't know of an online resource for all of them.

This is a good book:

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text

OnEdit: Well, I do of online versions of several reproductions. You need a university account that allows access to certain databases.

There's also this at Google Books

[political_Dem]

119. Thank you for the information. I'll keep that in mind.

[tomg]

134. Just a quick aside:

Having spent twenty years working in archives, I truly appreciated your "I still do books," particularly as regards your use of primary documents. I am currently trying to explain to my students why they need to "do books" ( by which I actually mean vetted sources, primary documents, etc. regardless of delivery system). :toast:

[RoyGBiv]

145. You're my hero ...

I have a website that is mostly reproductions of primary documents. People (by which I mean the high school and college students that tend to find their way there during essay writin' season) ask me why I put up so much of that and not any detailed essays that explains what it means. (A sentence or two providing context is the most it generally gets.) Like I don't know what that question is all about.

A friend who does something similar for a larger subject got an e-mail from a history professor once who wanted to share the humor of the "essay" a student had submitted. It was copy/pasted from my friend's site, which is well known. Problem was, the words were written by someone in 1861 with a brief sentence at the bottom written by my friend (including date and initials) explaining where it came from and why it was written. Kid didn't even bother to read through what he was copying.

I know students in their senior years who've never opened a collection of papers and don't even know what old newspapers look like. It saddens me.

On the other hand, I think the people who have been responsible for digitizing images of so many old newspapers in the last several years should be granted sainthood. I do tire of microfiche.

Anyway ... I better stop before I put on the slippers and start chasing some damn kids down the street with a rolled up newspaper mumbling something about my lawn. :toast:

[IsItJustMe]

137. You may be right. It has been many years since I looked into the Issue. I remember doing some

research on this subject about 30 years ago and coming away with the feeling that political expeediency was foremost in his mind.

With that being said however, for his day, Lincoln was a visionary. I know that is hard to see from where we sit now. His motives can be questioned, but there can be no question of the result.

To put it simply, Lincoln knew what he knew, and he knew we had to get there for this country to survive.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

150. The best thing about Lincoln, is that he allowed himself to evolve.

His views in 1860 were not the views that he died with.

[marlakay]

78. Alot of politicians are not what people think

when i read the book Truman, there was a few chapters about FDR, where it said he drank alot, was prejudiced about middle and low class folks...he never spent any time alone with his wife. I was shocked to say the least about that. He used the "n" word too when playing cards with his friends.

So its weird to me why would the president who helped the people the most make fun of them? Did he do it just to get the economy back in line so he could make money again since he was rich?

[justiceischeap]

79. I remember reading Susan B. Anthony's Biography

by Kathleen Barry and for Lincoln it was a choice between ending slavery and Women's Suffrage. He wasn't too pleased to do either but according to Anthony's papers from that time, he felt that ending slavery was the lesser of two evils.

It seems to me that history tends to lessen lesser deeds as time goes by.

[hulka38]

81. I believe Lincoln has been held up to an impossibly lofty level

for a number of reasons. I prefer to judge him in the context of his time and the daunting circumstances facing him. He didn't just win the Civil War. His moral and legal arguments against slavery were done with eloquence, clarity and strength of conviction probably unique only to him. Fortunately, he was in a position to back up those words. Lincoln steered our country through it's darkest time. He willed America back onto a more righteous path. I'd like to believe he was visionary enough to see that what happened a couple of days ago was possible if this country held to its core principles that he helped establish. For that he's one of the greats.

[qwlauren35]

84. Black people were a PAWN in Lincoln's Power Play.

I thought everyone knew that. Lincoln is probably rolling over in his grave at the thought of a black president. I think it is far more likely that FDR could imagine it, than that Lincoln could. Keep in mind that Lincoln didn't even live to see the Reconstructionist Republicans who insisted on black representation in Congress.

Whatever comparisons a person wants to draw between Lincoln and Obama, and there are LOTS OF THEM, the racial issues don't fit.

They are both from the Illinois political scene. They both were trying to unite a divided nation.... historians could find other parallels.

But let's not stretch it beyond reality.

[Uncle Joe]

86. They're opposite faces of the same coin.

Lincoln's election was the opening of the national wound, whereas Obama's election represents the healing. You can't have one without the other.

The question is, without Lincoln's contributions would you have a President Elect Obama? Maybe, maybe not, possibly the South would have evolved to the point of eliminating slavery on it's own, but no one will ever know. Maybe we would be two nations instead of one as result, maybe Germany would have won World War 1 as result and Hitler would never have rose to power?

What we do know is "what is" Lincoln like all humans had his flaws, and while he may not be progressive to the point of meeting 21st Century standards, in some respects he was ahead of his time. The same can be said for most all of the founders of the nation and Constitution which in time served to propel Obama to the most powerful job in the land.

We all stand on the shoulders of past generations, The Wright Brothers could never have invented a flying machine without a motor coming first, compared to modern planes, the Wright Brother's plane is a joke, but they worked with what they had, as did Lincoln.

That shouldn't demean previous contributions by past generations to current society whether technological, social or otherwise.

[TheKentuckian]

87. Lincoln's overriding obligation was to the Union

and he rightly would have gone either way that maintained the Union.

The forest is always more important than any particular tree. Slavery was coming to an end either way within a generation due to industrialization.
I don't know where Lincoln's heart was exactly, though I tend to think he was all things being equal against slavery but his brain was going through the right process. Error to the big picture, if you must error.

[cooolandrew]

91. It could of been international pressure when a lot of nations had already ended slavery.

[RoyGBiv]

92. Lincoln evolved ...

I hate these discussions.

Others have pointed out that Lincoln was a man of his times and as such had opinions and beliefs that would be considered abhorrent today, and thus we shouldn't judge too harshly.

Be that as it may, Edmund Ruffin was a man of his times, as was Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest along with Horace Greely, the Grimke Sisters, and Thaddeus Stevens. They all had widely divergent opinions and beliefs that were shaped by the same time period.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln, like most people, evolved as a person throughout his life. He wasn't born an abolitionist, and for the majority of his politically aware life thought the best idea regarding the "slavery question" was to block expansion along the Free Soiler ideology and encourage emigration of former slaves and other free blacks to African or the Caribbean ... or anywhere else actually. But time and experience shaped him as it shapes everyone. His association with Frederick Douglass in particular caused him to re-evaluate his belief system and check his own prejudices.

He was, in fact, a racist by modern standards up to the end of his life. He had also evolved greatly to be one of the more advanced thinkers on the subject of race and race relations by the time of his death.

[EastTennesseeDem]

93. Lincoln quote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."



Slavery was all politics to the politicians and officers. To the soldiers, it was about so many things. My great grandfather's grandfather, for example, was an abolitionist who fought for the Confederate army. The vicious cycle created by secessionists, abolitionists, Washingtonians, and Richmonders, and southern aristocrats led to, influenced, and worsened the Civil War.

[political_Dem]

95. That's interesting.

But, the quote only goes as far to say that he was highly conflicted about his views.

I'd also add that slavery was about money as much as a belief of white superiority. If Black people were "humanized" by their white counterparts, they wouldn't be bred as cattle, beaten to death, lynched, burned, raped and segregated. Slavery was never thought of as a human rights issue. It wasn't thought of as a civil rights issue.

Because after the slaves were freed (despite Reconstruction), they were still treated as second class citizens and denied basic rights until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That should be noted as well.

[EastTennesseeDem]

101. I don't think he was very conflicted

I don't think the quote gives way to a debate regarding his conscience; it was merely a matter of strategy, written to abolitionist Horace Greeley. He landed on the middle option with the Emancipation Proclamation (which did very, very little) a month later.

[political_Dem]

108. Fair enough. But the use of strategy is one thing. Honesty is another.

If he were honest, he should have just said what he felt.

He did something, but in the end it didn't go far enough. And when he did act, it was to deal with different interests.

[RoyGBiv]

107. There was no conflict ...

... not in that statement anyway.

Lincoln's object was as he stated: preserve the Union. He and his supporters were being accused at the time he made the statement of being willing to let the Union self-destruct for a "bunch of darkies," to use a popular expression from the era. He had spoken at length on this question, but the words quoted above were merely a succinct expression of what he had been saying all along.

Southerners and Democrats "accused" him of being an abolitionist. (One needs to be aware of the distinction at the time between an abolitionist -- of which there were at least two varieties by the way -- an emancipationist, and those whose primary object with slavery was containment. Politically, Lincoln was of the latter variety until the war itself. Abolitionists were consider radical, and indeed many were.

Prior to the firing on Sumter, many abolitionists were quite willing to allow the separation of states to occur if it meant ridding the United States of the taint of slavery. (And that leads to yet another line of discussion about the true motives of abolitionists. Many of them only got really pissed off and ready to fight a war when *white* people got shot at.) Lincoln sought to distance himself from this view, and, in the context of these remarks, he sought to distance himself from "radical" Republicans who were in reality working in ways that made "Union" a much harder goal.

[political_Dem]

109. When you put it that way, of course. The Union had to be preserved.

But when it comes to his attitudes about slavery and blacks, he was conflicted. Ultimately, he didn't care. He did what was expedient to save face.

[RoyGBiv]

112. Conflict ...

Every human being on the planet is conflicted about something, questions great and small. I'm conflicted about whether I should be in bed right now, and I've been conflicted most of my life on the issue of abortion, as an example.

The political choice I have made is, viewed from one perspective, one of expedience. I have chosen one value over another in part because it fits in with a larger value system, to wit, I have weighed different moral and ethical choices and chosen to subscribe to a standard of "life" that states, roughly, that multi-celled organisms that may one day grow into what we call a human being do not constitute "life" as protected by the Constitution and that the right of privacy trumps any claims that seek to enforce a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Meanwhile, I am personally opposed to abortion and, when asked for advice, have often sought to help people who want it to find alternatives.

This is conflict.

You go too far in saying Lincoln didn't care. He cared deeply, about many things, and he puzzled heavily over the meaning of the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he considered a more important founding document than the Constitution itself. The phrase "all men are created equal" is one that tormented him as to its meaning, especially as he grew to know and respect Frederick Douglass and several other blacks whom he had the opportunity to see hard at work in society.

"Saving face" barely deserves a response. I would merely ask, for whom was he saving his face? He was one of the most hated men on the planet in his day, right up to the time he was killed. A little diddy about political objectives hardly did anything to save his face. He merely clarified his position.

[political_Dem]

114. That is a fair assessment.

However, I don't think I go too far in saying that. I just tend to ask, if he was such a good friend of Frederick Douglass and other Blacks, why didn't he free the slaves and set up provisions for them to be equal in every way with no questions asked?

Why did he need to be persuaded at all to end slavery if he had such strong connections to Black people?

It is not enough to say that "he was a man of his times". He was a leader. He should have used his leadership to set an example.

Instead, he did what it took to preserve the Union and nothing more.

And yes, I would think that he did "save face". He only was "nice enough" to Black people, but didn't think they were as equal as he was. He didn't always fulfill what Frederick Douglass asked or wanted. He only threw "kernels" to Black people. Even "freedom" (if you call it that) was quite limited.

So having a "Black friend" didn't do much in terms of his views. He didn't wake up one morning and say he wasn't a racist due to contact with Blacks. He also didn't suddenly realize that Blacks should have every right that whites have because of Frederick Douglass. He didn't even believe in integration.

Instead, he operated his life like what a white male with power would: he did only what he did to "maintain his social position" in regards to Blacks in order to "save face": they were still second class citizens as long as they didn't challenge the power or supremacy of white people. So no, I'm not going too far.

He put his ass on the line when it came to preserving the Union. I agree with you that was his ultimate aim.

[RoyGBiv]

117. Freeing slaves ...

The question you ask about freeing the slaves isn't quite a fair one, for a couple of reasons.

First, I don't know that I'd call Douglass and Lincoln friends in the traditional sense. They grew to respect each other. What's problematic here is, as I said in another message, Lincoln's views evolved, and the most dramatic period of evolution was between about 1862 and his death, which is to say three years. Douglass and Lincoln hadn't know each other that long, and Lincoln took office with a confirmed belief that blacks were indeed inferior as a race to whites. He viewed them as human beings and the system of slavery immoral or at least unethical, but that didn't translate into believing in equality. Douglass and others, particularly blacks in the Union army, were causing him to change his views, but someone came along and shot him in the head before he had much opportunity to put those views into policy proposals.

The lack of perceived equality between the races presented a problem as did the practical question of how an entire enslaved class survives outside the system that has kept it enslaved. Viewed through the lens of an entire nation of people who believe a population of several million is inherently inferior to the dominant class, what happens to the society when that group's social, legal, and economic status is suddenly, dramatically changed? This was the basic difference between the two groups of abolitionists, some of whom were "immediatists," others "gradualists." The question was rightly asked, could this population even survive? (And I say "rightly" because without the legal framework and a well-funded and strongly enforced system to ensure legal rights were granted and maintained in the aftermath of slavery, what you get is worse than what we got, and what we got was already pretty bad.) Many of those who were abolitionists debated these questions as practical problems that had to be addressed.

One analogy used at the time went roughly like this: Is it proper to set the Christian free from the gladiator pen only to have his path to freedom run through the lion's den?

I'm not arguing the question here, rather noting that this was an issue Lincoln and many others considered. They had already seen examples of what happens when slaves were emancipated with the march of the Union army. A lot of them quite simply died because they had no support system and were surrounded by vicious hostility on all sides.

Second, Lincoln had no legal authority free slaves with no questions asked. His authority to do so with the Emancipation Proclamation was as a war measure, i.e. the only place in which it had any legal meaning was in those places that were in rebellion. To do otherwise would have made him a dictator, and I dare say an enormous contingent of the Union army at the time would have rebelled at the notion, and the Civil War would have erupted on a new front.

In the event, as the Union army marched forward, slaves were freed. But, those areas under Union control were not affected, and he had no legal authority to do anything there. Additionally, in several slave states did not secede or were prevented from seceding from the beginning and had never been in rebellion. They had senators and representatives, and they, along with most Democrats and the conservative Republicans blocked any and all attempts in Congress to attempt this.

In short, Lincoln was a careful thinker. He was the first President, and he had the first Congress that had ever in any way seriously even considered the idea of eradicating slavery. That it was done in the time it was is rather remarkable.

[political_Dem]

120. Yes it is a fair question.

The question you ask about freeing the slaves isn't quite a fair one, for a couple of reasons.

It is a fair question. It is one based on conscience and morality. Lincoln acted in the manner of his race and station. He thought about it, all right. But did he truly act upon it? No. He wanted slavery to die out. To be a true humanitarian, he would have to base his convictions solely on the humanity and emancipation of slaves. As a white man who had to carefully maintain the power of white people, he was no humanitarian. "Entertaining" and "Struggling over it" does not work. He barely moved an inch in his beliefs at the end of the day.

First, I don't know that I'd call Douglass and Lincoln friends in the traditional sense. They grew to respect each other.

Then why frame it as if Lincoln actually cared about Black people? People can be "respected" without fondness. In that manner, it sounds as if Lincoln barely "tolerated" Douglass enough to "entertain" his views. There is a whole gulf between "toleration" and full, profound, fondness based on equality. It was little or more a nuanced power relationship. They both had to work together in order to exchange ideas. However, Douglass' ideas were entertained due to the whims of Lincoln and not the other way around. Douglass fought for his ideas as if his life depended on it. Literally, his life (and many other people of color) did depend on how well he could persuade white people in power.

What's problematic here is, as I said in another message, Lincoln's views evolved, and the most dramatic period of evolution was between about 1862 and his death, which is to say three years. Douglass and Lincoln hadn't know each other that long, and Lincoln took office with a confirmed belief that blacks were indeed inferior as a race to whites. He viewed them as human beings and the system of slavery immoral or at least unethical, but that didn't translate into believing in equality.

So why is he painted as a hero to Black people? What it amounts to is that he had a paternalistic view of Blacks. In fact, he would have left Black people in the same place they started while he still "struggled with his conscience": nowhere and with nothing. That isn't an example of caring to me. His attitude is more among the road of "neglect".

Which leads to his small gestures toward Black people being nothing but "kernels". Face it, he was going at a snail's pace when the needs of Black people were concerned.

Douglass and others, particularly blacks in the Union army, were causing him to change his views, but someone came along and shot him in the head before he had much opportunity to put those views into policy proposals.

And if he maintained that slow and steady course of offering platitudes to Blacks, but not giving them any true power, he probably wouldn't. He thought they were inferior. And he probably would have put Douglass and other Black activists on a long leash until he was out of office.

But then, we'll never know.

The lack of perceived equality between the races presented a problem as did the practical question of how an entire enslaved class survives outside the system that has kept it enslaved.

Keeping a promise of forty acres and a mule would've helped. But that promise was as fleeting as Lincoln's "lukewarm" response.

Furthermore, you underestimate the strength and survival of Black people. Not all of them died out due to not being slaves. A lot of us survived, formed small enclaves and became very enterprising despite the circumstances.

I mean, for starters, what about the ones who escaped to Canada and to the north by using the Underground Railroad and other means?

Otherwise, your view reflects that of entitled paternalism.

Black slaves were very resilient people. They not only survived the abuse of the slave Masters and Mistresses. They farmed, cooked their own food, made their own clothes and engaged in crafts. They even farmed. They were very self-sufficient--except that when white people were involved, they blocked them every chance Black people received.

It was Jim Crow, virulent racism and the inability to grant equality that worked against Black people throughout American history. And even with that we still lived and thrived.

Viewed through the lens of an entire nation of people who believe a population of several million is inherently inferior to the dominant class, what happens to the society when that group's social, legal, and economic status is suddenly, dramatically changed? This was the basic difference between the two groups of abolitionists, some of whom were "immediatists," others "gradualists." The question was rightly asked, could this population even survive? (And I say "rightly" because without the legal framework and a well-funded and strongly enforced system to ensure legal rights were granted and maintained in the aftermath of slavery, what you get is worse than what we got, and what we got was already pretty bad.) Many of those who were abolitionists debated these questions as practical problems that had to be addressed.

And yet, Black people still survived in any way possible. Isn't that remarkable? Again, you forget about the slaves who were self-sufficient, and/or had other arrangements.

I'm not arguing the question here, rather noting that this was an issue Lincoln and many others considered. They had already seen examples of what happens when slaves were emancipated with the march of the Union army. A lot of them quite simply died because they had no support system and were surrounded by vicious hostility on all sides.

Why do you think that was? Did the white people during that time want them to survive?

You see, you paint a system that capitulates to white entitlement and supremacy. There were many slaves who subverted the system and fought against entitlement and supremacy. Harriet Tubman was one.

Second, Lincoln had no legal authority free slaves with no questions asked. His authority to do so with the Emancipation Proclamation was as a war measure, i.e. the only place in which it had any legal meaning was in those places that were in rebellion. To do otherwise would have made him a dictator, and I dare say an enormous contingent of the Union army at the time would have rebelled at the notion, and the Civil War would have erupted on a new front.

That's a cop-out. It sounds he wasn't quite an effective leader then. If he were such a persuasive man, he would have tried to use his charisma and "morality" to push the issue.

That sounds like another case of "saving face" in order to survive within the "bonds" of his race and station.

It also gives one another clue who he found were more important. Therefore, he didn't consider Blacks important. He didn't consider their equality important. He had paternalistic racism on his side.

In the event, as the Union army marched forward, slaves were freed. But, those areas under Union control were not affected, and he had no legal authority to do anything there. Additionally, in several slave states did not secede or were prevented from seceding from the beginning and had never been in rebellion. They had senators and representatives, and they, along with most Democrats and the conservative Republicans blocked any and all attempts in Congress to attempt this.

So he was completely powerless? He was the President of the United States. I'm sure, if he thought about it, he could have done something if his conscience moved him. The Emancipation Proclamation was an empty gesture.

He did try to preserve the Union, which is not a small feat.

Preserving the Union showed an example of leadership. His stances on slavery did not.


Or else, his inability to act on the behalf of slaves makes him into less of a humanitarian and not a hero at all--unlike what mainstream historians do to maintain the perception of his "greatness".

In short, Lincoln was a careful thinker. He was the first President, and he had the first Congress that had ever in any way seriously even considered the idea of eradicating slavery. That it was done in the time it was is rather remarkable.

That's partly true. I'd say he was a careful thinker--only when it had to do with preserving the Union. But not with all subjects. He still did a poor and dismal job on the behalf of Black people. It sounds he was more interested in placating white needs and power before he even considered helping the slaves.

He was in the position of power. He still could have set an better example than he did on abolition and the humanization of Black people. But his views prevented such policy, no matter amount of heart-wrenching conflict he may have experienced.

[RoyGBiv]

126. Where to begin ...

Frankly, much of this could simply be dismissed as counter-factual theorizing based on a string of logical fallacies, but I'll avoid that since you so far seem to be making a good faith attempt at discussion. I will say, however, that you are advancing ideas that are not supportable based on the historical record or begin with historical truths and extrapolate out of them ideas that have no logical basis.

Your moral judgments are your own, and you're entitled to them, but your expressions of them mirror a politically driven narrative regarding Lincoln based on a myopic interpretation of the historical record, the origins of which you might want to investigate. (Start with a Lincoln Day address by Governor Warfield of Maryland in 1907.)

Finally, at various points here you conflate "Lincoln" and "white people." I'm ignoring most of that as a fallacious condemnation of Lincoln for the flaws of others.

Fair Question

The question to which I referred assumes the course of action you criticize Lincoln for not having taken was actually possible. It was not; therefore, your question is unfair. I've already explained why it was not possible but will be glad to detail it for you further if need be. More could be said, but that is enough.

Lincoln / Frederick Douglass

You seem to have an idealized image of Frederick Douglass that is on some level insulting to him, and you have an inaccurate view of the relationship he had with Lincoln.

Lincoln and Douglass were two sides of the same coin. They both understood clearly the meaning of pragmatism and the limits of their ability to effect change. Moreover they understood and lived their lives by a guiding principle that real change that benefits people takes time. That is, they understood the situational realities they faced and avoided the pitfalls of seeking ideological purity above all else.

Douglass had engaged in many of the same kinds of compromises with so-called principle that Lincoln did as he sought to advance his agenda, which was at first largely a personal agenda. As an escaped slave, he took the advice of his New England benefactors and fled to Ireland while those working on his behalf secured his legal manumission through payment to his former owner. He had once derided the US Constitution as an inherently flawed foundation of a slave republic and later recanted and reversed entirely his argument, in part because he realized using the legal system established to seek his goals was more effective over time than denying that system's legitimacy. In so doing he angered many former friends, some of whom would later be renowned for their acceptance of secession if it meant ridding the nation of slavery not by ending it but by excision of the offending parts.

Lincoln's "simply tolerating" Douglass is your own, flawed interpretation of a real relationship that was very different and far more complex than any few lines offered here could describe.

Paternalism

Once again, there is situational reality and there is fantasy. The reality was that several million people were enslaved by a system that both exploited them and provided the means by which they sustained life. People who have never known anything but that system need help and cooperation to be able to become a part of the larger society. A truly paternalistic attitude would claim that this was not possible and that this help would be perpetual. That is not what is being suggested here.

What will never stop amazing me about the criticism you offer is its twisted bent of logic. Those who express this critical view of Lincoln you do assail him for, essentially, not doing enough. Yet when it is explained what he actually did do, what he was trying to do, and why he was doing what he was doing, the explanation is passed off as paternalistic. You can try to have it both ways if you want, but it does little for your position.

Douglass, et al wanted slavery eradicated. At the same time they wanted the lives of those who would benefit directly from its end to have the ability to live lives of their own and seek their own version of the proverbial American Dream.

Now, there are those who have deluded themselves into believing this was a relatively simple thing. You imply it in your question about why Lincoln didn't just end slavery and enact equal rights. Passing the laws is not enough and passing them when the foundation for their enforcement is not present is sheer idiocy. All of that takes time, effort, an enormous amount of money, and at least a decently sized segment of populace willing and capable of further that enforcement. In historical timeline, Congress spent relatively little time on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were, after all, fairly simple statements. And then they created the Freedman's Bureau and failed to fund it properly, then charged the army with enforcing the Reconstruction Acts and forgot to notice that the army as a whole gave less than a full damn about securing black liberty and were more interested in punishing "the secesh."

And it was a disaster of epic proportions. Yet, for some reason, the idea remains that what needed to be done was just end slavery, pass a law or two, and let former slaves go about the business of getting on with their lives.

Lincoln's aim by mid-1862 was in dismantling the system. Abolishing slavery in and of itself was only one element of a vast system. Think "capitalism" and try to imagine, realistically, ending a capitalist system in a couple years by a dictatorial proclamation. It could be done, certainly, and a lot of people would end up dead as a result.

Hero

Why is Lincoln seen as a hero to blacks? Books have been written on this subject. The evolution of historical memory and commemoration is not something that can be explained easily or with absolute certainty.

The start of the explanation, however, begins with what Lincoln represented, which has already been stated. He was the first President even to allow for the idea of an end to slavery during his term of office. For the most part, those initially freed by his actions and the later actions of Congress who furthered their own agenda by couching their initiatives in the language of the bloody shirt embraced Lincoln as their own and elevated his status to a godlike proportion. His being murdered, importantly by someone who sought to perpetuate slavery, gave him the mark of a martyr.

From there, the road takes many paths.

To put it in the words of Frederick Douglass:

Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him: not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses caught at inappropriate moments; but by a broad survey in the light of the stern logic of great events -- and in view of that Divinity which shapes our ends rough-hew them as we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had met in the person of Abraham Lincoln." -- NYT, April 22, 1876 at the unveiling of the Lincoln Monument.

Note that these remarks come from the same speech in which he referred to Lincoln as the "white man's President." Ironically, this passage is taken out of context often by DiLorenzo, et al to perform a "partial and imperfect glimpse" of what he intended to say.

To the question of what blacks were to do with Lincoln's memory, he added:

Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Hati, the special object of slaveholding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slaveholders three months' grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more. . .

Lincoln, the President

Presidents who are not acting as dictators are bound by laws, and laws prevented Lincoln from doing the moral and just thing in the manner desired by so many. Further, just what the moral and just thing to do was not agreed upon even among abolitionists, slaves, or, in hindsight, former slaves. To lay the entire question at Lincoln's feet is wrongheaded and ignores the bald fact that he, more than any American office holder before him, initiated with knowledge aforethought a series of events that would, eventually, lead to the election of President Obama, who will also be bound by laws.

[political_Dem]

128. Is it counter factual theorizing? Or something that hints at a larger debate about Lincoln's legacy?

Below, I linked to an article in the Harvard Daily Review regarding historians who had struggled with Lincoln's views regarding race and how it changed through the decades.

I don't think I'm too far off when it comes to the fact that the man is very conflicted in how he sees Black people and racism.

I'm fine with the fact that you dismiss what I've said. But there are other historians who have examined the context of Lincoln's attitudes toward race. This is not an alien issue, but a larger part of a divide between historians who are also trying to work (and not dismiss) these pertinent questions regarding where Lincoln truly stood.

I know which side you sit on, thank you very much. But you're not the only voice on this matter. That too is very true.

I still think Lincoln's views on race are problematic. I'm sorry.

Btw, W.E.B. Du Bois has a very interesting view of Abraham Lincoln that deals with him ambivalently:

"Abraham Lincoln was a Southern poor white, of illegitimate birth, poorly educated and unusually ugly, awkward, ill-dressed. He liked smutty stories and was a politician down to his toes. Aristocrats—Jeff Davis, Seward and their ilk—despised him, and indeed he had little outwardly that compelled respect. But in that curious human way he was big inside. He had reserves and depths and when habit and convention were torn away there was something left to Lincoln—nothing to most of his contemners. There was some—thing left, so that at the crisis he was big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man."

His take is much more real, than the "white washed" one that is pushed by mainstream historians.

[RoyGBiv]

131. Counter-Factual ...

I do wonder if you read any of that or simply chose to focus on the part that irked you that wasn't explained in larger detail ...

Your counter-factual theorizing involves what you imply should have been done for moral reasons without consideration of the historical realities, or to put it more crassly, the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" part.

Certainly there is no harm and much to be gained by a genuine examination of Lincoln's thoughts, beliefs, actions, and inactions. But those who engage in these studies are bound by a need for intellectual honesty and consistency. When you speak of the problems the formerly enslaved faced at the hands of virulent racism and in the same breath dismiss concerns that people like Lincoln and, yes, Frederick Douglass had prior to empancipation that would shape its form as "paternalism," you engage in inconsistency.

Whether it achieves the status of intellectual dishonesty I cannot say. I rather think you simply have a passionate view guided by your morality and are failing to understand that what is correct and proper and just is impossible to achieve with the kind of immediacy our modern culture seems to demand. This is the history of humankind in all its eras, not merely the history of a single President or the enslaved masses left to suffer and die at the hands of white vigilante murderers in the aftermath of a fundamentally flawed emancipation policy.

Thaddeus Stevens was a genius and a kind and just man who sought to do what was morally right, and in the process of so doing he and those who followed his lead managed to do just the opposite until many more generations had passed than needed have passed had matters been handle with more care.

To put it another way, they freed the Christians from the gladiator pit and led them straight into the lion's den.

[political_Dem]

135. Okay. We'll agree to disagree.

But the quote from W.E.B. Du Bois rings true: Lincoln was a puzzle, at best.

There isn't anything wrong with people who like to put Lincoln up on a pedistal in same the way that people worship McCain for being a POW. It is how they treat him as if he can do no wrong and make excuses for him. Therein lies the problem.

[RoyGBiv]

166. Fair enough ....

But, for the record, if you've interpreted anything I've written in this thread as placing Lincoln "on a pedestal," you have a strange definition of that concept.

And I will reiterate, or clarify as the case may be, Lincoln was placed on a pedestal initially by and large by former slaves.

A couple of books/articles for you:

Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001

Frederickson, George. "A Man but Not a Brother: Abraham Lincoln and Racial Equality," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb., 1975), pp. 39-58

Schwartz, Barry. "Collective Memory and History: How Abraham Lincoln Became a Symbol of Racial Equality," The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Summer, 1997), pp. 469-496

I offer this because there are many levels to the question(s) as we have explored it. You will find much you agree with in these articles, which is one reason I chose them, but the thesis of these writings presents a decided lack of either/or thinking.

[patrick t. cakes]

94. Thoreau, not racist. Lincoln, racist.

[suston96]

98. Like a few real political philosophers through the ages, Lincoln abhorred the contradictions and....

...hypocrisy in political morality.

Are blacks equal to whites? Judging by todays evidence, in most endeavors blacks surpass whites. For one thing, white men can't jump.

And a black guy just beat out a white American war hero for the US Presidency.

Lincoln was both perceptive and prophetic in his black/white analyses - and he turned out to be right. Give a black the same opportunities as whites and behold, the playing fields are leveled.

Gobama! May your coming Presidency leave all those whitey supernumeraries trailing in a cloud of dust.

[Jennicut]

99. I'm sorry but comparing a man in the 1860's to one in 2008 is not fair

To say that Lincoln should have been what we consider politically acceptable by today's standards is like asking for the impossible. Lincoln was shaped by societal attitudes and brought up a certain way. The man became president and eventually evolved. He had to keep the country together as it was being split apart. That was his main goal but without him AA's may never have gotten their freedom. He did what he had to and the man was not happy about seeing people inslaved. This WAS however the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had a huge influence on our freedoms today and yet he had slaves and might have had an affair with one, it does not make his contributions any less significant. To start hating on Lincoln because he is not a 2008 version of what you or anyone else wants him to be is ridiculous-he was what he was because of the time he was in. Time slowly changes people and we are who we are because of what came before us. We have come far in over 150 years.

[political_Dem]

105. I never said I hated Lincoln.

But I did say because of his views about Black people, I have a diminished respect for him.

Other than that, the first parallels being made between Lincoln and Obama were not created here. They were created by the MSM and sometimes, by Obama himself.

Secondly, I think it is rather helpful to compare the histories of two distinct eras because they provide more information in order to frame particular issues, such as race.

Above all else, I believe that he was important to American history because he did preserve the Union.
That makes Lincoln a more complicated man because of the privilege, race and the entitlements of his station.

Would Obama be President if he had little to no formal education? People have problems with him despite two degrees and being the top of his class in law school.

[Jennicut]

110. Okay. well I did not mean hating him just picking him apart

Its so hard to compare the two men because they are from different eras just as Obama is not like FDR or JKF. Both those men are know cheaters and also lied about their health-our heroes are never who we wish them to be or very rarely are. They are human and make mistakes. However, Obama has a lot of pressure put on him because he is the first black president. Its almost like he is supposed to heal 200 plus years of racial problems in one night. No one can do that just as Lincoln operated out of the context of how he was brought up and where he was in history. I do think that Obama can heal some problems of the past and look at the outpouring of emotion when he won by all races, ages, and both genders. He has brought people together and Lincoln tried to keep the country together. I wish Lincoln was not racist but he is who he is and I hope Obama is allowed to be who he is. I think Barack is a very pragmatic, cautious man and that is good for us after 8 years of the non intellectual non caring Bush.

[political_Dem]

113. I agree that Obama should create his own perception free of comparisons.

Obama does have a lot of pressure on him. And perhaps, he has more pressure on him than everyday persons of color. He is in a position to "humanize" a person of color--which is not that easy to do in American society.

Although racial views have changed for the better, racism has not gone away. So, he has to do his best in order to maintain such a careful, nuanced, gentle perception. A lot of people of color do because of negative stereotypes fostered throughout American culture. His campaign and election are rare glimpses of how people of color have had to put up with both subtle and blatant racism on a daily basis.

Imagine what would happen if Obama screamed angrily at someone? What would happen if he were drunk all the time or choked on a pretzel? Everyone (and I mean everyone from the bottom to the top) would eat him alive.

I tend to think that it is rather premature to compare him to other Presidents right now. I would rather see him create his own style of statesmanship. When there is some distance, then we can examine his style in comparison with other Presidents.

In the case of Lincoln, I would rather the MSM and other figureheads in the public eye be careful of making such comparisons right away. Unfortunately, I believe that this is the fault of the folks who are trying to "sell" Obama. They are trying to reach and find historical figures that would resonate with "mainstream" Americans. After all, doing so would make him more of "like them" despite the obvious differences.

In a way, it is kind of obscene and offensive if you think about it.

[RoyGBiv]

111. Sure it is ...

When we're finding the good things that these individuals did, we are just as surely comparing them to people today as we are when we look at the bad things. Part of Lincoln's greatness is that he presided over the nation at a time of intense conflict and helped keep it whole. Whether that is a good thing is defined by our own opinion of it. Clearly in his day many people did not think it was a good thing. There were those in Europe that silently or otherwise supported the Confederacy simply because the United States was emerging as a potential world economic power, and with economic power came military power. There was a whole section of the nation itself that thought it wasn't a good thing, and there were those in the non-seceded states who thought war over the question was an immoral choice.

We tend not to think that and so judge Lincoln positively because he "saved the Union." That mere phrase implies a modern judgment in that it is an expression of a belief that the Union was worth saving.

What you do is look at the total picture, and you cast your judgment of what you think of an individual based on it. There is no way to avoid this. Pure objectivity in historical examinations is a myth.

If it's not okay to make these comparisons, then the same argument can be made about those who fostered and perpetuated the slave system. They were products of their times as well.

[rogerballard]

102. My answer to your question.......

We are all human.

[fujiyama]

123. If you read about his life

you see a real evolution in his thoughts on race.

It is pretty clear that he opposed slavery as an institution from early on, though earlier in his presidency he was very reluctant to risk political capital or the war for the cause of abolition.

He was earlier a proponent of the movement to send blacks to Liberia and he stuck to this for a while even though it was clear the plan wouldn't go anywhere. He certainly wasn't as liberal as some of the others in his cabinet (and those that had run against him earlier). His team of rivals included ardent Radical Republicans who were more pressing in the need to add abolition as one of the key goals like Salmon Chase for example and he got in a fair amount of trouble with other republicans.

However we can see he really did respect Frederick Douglass for one. And he was incredibly angry when hearing about summary execution of black POWs taken by the confederates. He also did agree to support of the Reconstruction Amendments and even voiced support for limited suffrage (at least for those that were educated and served in the military). That statement, soon after the war was reported to have driven James Wilkes Booth over the edge.

Lincoln's significance in what he accomplished cannot be overstated and while it can be argued he was slow in pressing for abolition and equality his views were changing and for the better. He ultimately did exhibit a lot of political courage and I think it's incredibly foolish to try to view a person's beliefs out of the context of the society in which they lived.

[political_Dem]

125. Lincoln through the Decades

This is an article from the http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/11.16/12-lincoln.html">Harvard Daily Newsdiscussing the changing views of Lincoln by decade. It is like a Literature Review in a way. What is interesting is that debate between historians also has to do with Lincoln's ideas concerning race. One could only wonder what they would argue what Lincoln's image in the wake of the 2008 Elections:

(article by Corydon Ireland)

"Every generation invents a new Lincoln," said (George M.)Fredrickson-a fact that makes the historiography of Lincoln's views on race a tangled tale.

After the war, came decades of praise for Lincoln as the "Father Abraham" who led blacks out of slavery. Booker T. Washington, in 1891, called Lincoln "the great man, that first American."

But just a few years later, writer Thomas Dixon in his 1905 novel, "The Clansman" portrayed Lincoln as a model white supremacist, a Southern gentleman who opposed black suffrage and favored colonizing ex-slaves.

By 1922, a few cracks appeared in the way black Americans viewed Lincoln as well. In that year, W.E.B. Du Bois expressed what Fredrickson called "mixed and unsettled feelings" in an essay about Lincoln and race, though he also praised Lincoln as "big enough to be inconsistent."

From the 1930's to the 1950's, Fredrickson said, American historians did not excoriate Lincoln for his racial views, but simply recorded episodes of semming bigotry in a matter-of-fact way.

By the 1960s, there was a "dramatic turn" in views of Lincoln, said Fredrickson. On the one hand, Martin Luther King Jr. saw him as an icon for the emerging civil rights struggle. On the other hand, Malcolm X-a believer then only of black saviors-told black Americans to take down their pictures of Lincoln.

Among historians at the same time, there was open dissent regarding Lincoln's true views on race. Some dredged up the Kentucky-born president's sometimes-to-modern ears-insulting remarks about the black race, and his advocacy of sending ex-slaves off to colonies in Africa or the Caribbean. They saw Lincoln as too cautious and conservative, a reluctant emancipator.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, views of Lincoln among historians had swung back to being more sympathetic, with a flawed Lincoln being given credit for good intentions, said Fredrickson.

But a spate of recent books have appeared, reviving a kind of historians' civil war over Lincoln's racial views.

Kind of like this thread, in a way. :)

[mgc1961]

132. Lincoln didn't run for President...

...on an abolitionist platform. As I recall, he said he had no intention of tampering with the established order of things in regard to slavery, but the political circumstances of land changed and as a result so did his position in relation to it.

[olegramps]

133. Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Lincoln stated:


"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

He went on to read the platform of the Republican Party, "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, now matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

He was solely dedicated to saving the Union:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Quoted in "Abraham Lincoln in his own words" Lincolniana, 1996, Barnes & Noble Books, p.31. "Letter to Horace Greeley" August 22, 1862.

[olegramps]

136. I have to add another quote that is so applicable to our present situation.

Lincoln in his speech to to the Illinois Legislature, January 1837 said:

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."

[LanternWaste]

138. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates...

Read the Lincoln Douglas debates. It allows us a wonderful and obvious illustration of Lincoln's anti-slavery morality and attitudes, in addition for his defenses for his position.

[yurbud]

139. 1849 Lincoln bill to abolish slavery in DC:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0042500))

[yurbud]

140. it looks like the Southern revisionists are winning on the Civil War...

Lincoln was a man of his time and didn't believe in integration or equality, but was firmly opposed to slavery.

That said, he was a pragmatic politician who knew the importance of timing.

He also tried too hard to be conciliatory. He hoped that the border states would "voluntarily" give up slavery once the war started, but they didn't, and his action that enraged the South to secede was simply saying slavery should not expand into any new states. He was hoping to end slavery peacefully and more or less gradually, but events made it clear more radical action was called for.

[Veruca Salt]

141. The year is 2158

and the first openly gay president has just been elected POTUS. There are cartoons of her/him celebrating the occasion with the 44th president of the US who, as history showed, was against gay marriage and thusly against gay civil rights (as that is how it is viewed in 2158), but due to pressure from the gay civil rights movement overturned DOMA and eventually signed into law the historical document giving equal rights to the gay community. History would show that the majority of citizens in the US were against this and in some of the more backwards parts of the country demonstrated against this causing the federal government to step in and force the matter.

In the year 2158 there is still some prejudice against gays in some parts of the country, but the majority of citizens grew up with gay civil rights as the norm and look to Obama as the turning point in that fight. Hence the cartoons.

A poster on a message board asks the question of the cartoons: 'I think Obama would have been quite freaked out by the idea of gay president, even though all these toons seem to to indicate he'd be thrilled.'

Another poster on the message board replies to the first: 'Sure he was against gay marriage, because it was the norm in that day and age, but if he were alive today I think he would be all for it and would have voted for the first gay president.'

[apnu]

142. Nice sum.

I really don't understand why Obama is getting the wrap for Prop 8. Nor all this Lincoln bashing. I guess we still have a lot of work to do, improving the institution of education in American. So many people have incorrect historical knowledge.

Still, I love the example, spot on!

[Veruca Salt]

143. Thank you!

I don't think Obama deserves any grievance for prop 8, it's the sad fact that the majority of people are bigoted against gay marriage as it IS the norm for this day and age. The issue should have never been brought to a vote at all. And I say this as a lesbian whose own mother thinks that I shouldn't be able to marry and that civil unions are good enough. :cry:

What I am going to do is work to get DOMA struck down and federal civil rights so hopefully some day in the future (and I really hope it doesn't take a hundred and fifty years) we do get to see that first openly gay president. :)

[apnu]

148. Hey I'd vote for a gay president.

To me a politician is about the issues, where they stand and what they aim to do. That's it. I could care less what a POTUS prefers in a partner or their race, sex or religion.

My philosophy on sex (which includes my view of homosexuality) is summed up by Henry Rollins: "Life's too short -- get off as much as possible"

[cemaphonic]

147. Lincoln was a Free Soiler, not an abolitionist.

Though he hated slavery, his agenda was to prevent both the spread of slavery *AND* the spread of black populations into the new western territories. (With the eventual goal of gradually ending slavery though sheer political pressure from the old Northern, and new Western states) Even at the start of the war, his main goal was to hold the union together - if he could have done that without ending slavery, he would have.

Also, the EP didn't really free anyone - it specifically excluded slaves in the slave states that stayed in the Union, and was only enforceable in the Confederacy via military occupation. I tend to see it mostly as a diplomatic appeal to France and the UK.

As to the quoted article, yeah, by modern standards, Lincoln would be considered quite racist. But it isn't 1860 anymore, and it makes a lot more sense to judge him on his actions and his historical legacy in this country, which on the whole are quite positive.

[political_Dem]

149. Some questions

1) If we are to forgive Lincoln because of his "evolving" views on race, why is his commitment to expel Blacks from America ignored? What part of sending Blacks out of the country equates with an "evolving view about Blacks and slavery"? What is benign about colonizing Blacks elsewhere? Lincoln supported this throughout his presidency.

2)By limiting suffrage to Blacks who were "intelligent" as well as Blacks who served in a national capacity, how is Lincoln's call for limited suffrage not seen as http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Halstead.html#paternalism ">"paternalistic racism"?

Paternalistic Racism: This type of racism refers to the process whereby the freedom of black people is defined or restricted by generally well- intentioned regulations that are drawn up by whites....It differs in two ways from institutional racism. First, it involves the initiation of new practices and procedures in response to the presence of racial minorities in the country, whereas institutional racism involves the failure to adapt long-standing practices and procedures to new needs. Secondly, it involves a more clear- cut wielding of power by white people, whereas it was argued above that in institutional racism it is a mistake to oversimplify the power that any individuals can wield in established institutions. Paternalistic racism implies that white people have the right to interfere in the lives of blacks for their own good and the power to define that good. --Mark Halstead on racism

3)I'll ask the same question that I asked in the OP: should we forgive or forget Lincoln's racism? Is it too easy to say that "he was a man of his times"?

Other than that, I side with the abolitionists on the notion that Lincoln was too cautious. I still believe that he was conflicted about race despite the fact of his evolving views.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

151. I would say that the fact he discarded the colonization idea fits in with his evolving view of the

situation.

[political_Dem]

152. Even though he did evolve in his views, he still felt Blacks were inferior.

Should we forgive him of that?

My initial questions stem from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/27.2/paludan.html">Lincoln and Negro Slavery: I Haven't Got Time for the Pain. This is an essay by Phillip Shaw Paludan. It is quite a fascinating take on the "he is a man of his times" argument:

Lincoln's minimal interest in black pain is not news to historians. Lerone Bennett brands Lincoln as a racist because he never looked at slavery from the slave cabin. But even those Lincoln defenders who attend to the issue haven't considered it as carefully as they might. They know the fact of Lincoln's disinterest in black pain but haven't explored what it means. In the most recent study of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Allen Guelzo observes that "when spoke against slavery he was speaking against the institution, and not necessarily for its black victims ... he was not enough moved by American slavery's singular injustice to its American captives to call for their immediate emancipation." Guelzo notes that Lincoln wanted to end slavery gradually, not by the swift sword of immediatism. He observes Lincoln's law practice and finds no abolitionist eagerness there. In fact, the Matson case found Lincoln advocating that Mr. Matson be allowed to re-enslave a runaway and her children. And Lincoln and Mary both benefited when her slaves from the Todd holdings were sold. Little moral outrage against slavery showed itself then.8 Guelzo gets the main point right, but he is at pains to show Lincoln's prudence in seeking emancipation and to demonstrate, rightly, that Lincoln's respect for the legal order guided his hand when it was time for emancipation. He doesn't explore very deeply the meaning and nature of Lincoln's lack of compassion. And Guelzo does more than most writers on Lincoln. 9

Other historians also obscure the nature of Lincoln's hostility to slavery. Douglas Wilson says only that "Lincoln hated slavery all his life." He points to a protest by Lincoln and Dan Stone to show that hatred, but says little more about the nature of their feelings. Michael Burlingame notes Lincoln's distaste of cruelty to human beings and animals and his anger at slave traders, and he recounts the stories that Lincoln felt the horrors of the New Orleans slave market. But Burlingame, after noting how many historians now agree that Lincoln seriously opposed slavery, then goes on to catalogue Lincoln's statements expressing his hostility to slavery. Burlingame does speculate that it was slave trading that bothered Lincoln but explores no further what other parts of slave suffering might have bothered him. In doing that, he joins those historians in their general omission of the question of whose pain Lincoln deplored while hating the institution.9

[SemiCharmedQuark]

153. It's not about forgiveness.

It always comes down to coming to grips with a gray world where imperfect people live.

We will likely never know what his true views were. He was a politician. You can read his journals and find he always hated slavery and then read his stump speeches where he claimed he would not interfere with slavery. So it is clear that what he said to the public and what he felt in private are not one and the same.

I believe the best view we can get is from Frederick Douglass' writings on him:

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=38&subjectID=2

[political_Dem]

155. I tend to agree.

I think most of all, that he is a conflicted, and often very flawed man.

Thanks for the link on Frederick Douglass. Although what he said sheds some light, I still feel that their relationship was quite complicated.

I also appreciate the response. That gives me more food for thought.

[DefenseLawyer]

154. Jesus, what a massive waste of time.

You know what? I wasn't around at the time, but I'd say Lincoln did the best he could in an exceedingly difficult situation. But hey, the way the President Elect is being bashed around here as a phony and a sellout, certainly Lincoln deserves the same treatment.

[political_Dem]

159. You might see it that way, but I find it fascinating.

I've learned quite a deal from just asking the question. Like the originator (galaxy21) of the issue, I also wondered about the slew of Lincoln cartoons that were being drawn in regards to Barack Obama.

What came out of this thread is a very terse, but thought-provoking discussion of how we are to perceive Lincoln. No matter what the feelings expressed in this thread, I like the fact that people are contributing their knowledge on this subject.

There is nothing wrong about a exchange of perceptions, facts and ideas when it is civil. It only shows that there are many ways to read the legacy of Lincoln. It also keeps alive the debate of what impact the 16th President has had on American society.

[DefenseLawyer]

161. As an intellectual exercise, I agree

I think it is always valuable to re-examine history. I am just in pure political mode when I come here, and I am focused on getting things on track and helping the President. Going back to decide whether Lincoln was really a horrible guy just isn't on my radar screen right now. In that respect, for me the whole exercise is a waste of time.

[political_Dem]

162. Fair enough--especially when we have to get to work with pushing pertinent issues in this country.

But, I still feel that there are always opportunities to learn, no matter where anyone stands on a particular subject.

[The Blue Flower]

156. He was a product of his time and culture

He did think express racist sentiments early in his career. And he came to a different understanding as he matured.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. First no, then yes.

By around the middle of the war he became completely committed to ending slavery.

[leftist.]

158. No matter was the consensus is, I'd like to tell you that ...

I'd like to tell you that I've learned a tremendous amount from this thread, so if nothing else please accept my thanks for posting it :)

[political_Dem]

160. You're very welcome. I appreciate that. I learned a lot too.

That is the best of DU's qualities.

[0955Forrest]

163. Lincoln...

From a person with a Master's Degree in History...

Lincoln was a 19th Century George W Bush.

Lincoln used slavery and the abolitionist movement as a straw man to secure the economic/political future of the Union.

Lincoln spent 670,000 lives in less time than * has consumed 4000.

Researching Lincoln requires the scholar to be able to skim through the worship and praise and look at the facts.

Lincoln's regard for the Constitution makes * look like freekin' Thurgood Marshall.

[0955Forrest]

164. btw...

after mentioning Thurgood Marshall... I just wanted to throw this out there. There's a book written by Juan Williams (I know, yeah the guy from Fox) that is outstanding re: Marshall. He's the least well known of the 20th Century Civil Rights leaders but perhaps the most important and influential. Even more... his accomplishments were made during an era of truly violent resistance to Civil Rights reform.

Great man.

[RoyGBiv]

167. Master's degree, eh?

Who was your thesis adviser?

I know some that would have supported that kind of argument, but not many.