Abraham Lincoln WTF?

[Tx4obama]

If this portion of the quote alone is not enough to upset your preconceived notions of President Lincoln, wait until you get a load of the rest of that quote:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Source the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.)

<SNIP>

Full post here: http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/abraham-lincoln-wtf.html

[The Magistrate]

1. From The Debates With Douglas, Ma'am

And common knowledge to anyone who has read much of anything on Mr. Lincoln, hardly a deep secret long concealed.

[rug]

4. It's hardly a handy fact readily broadcast.

[The Magistrate]

7. Those Debates, Sir, Are A Major Part Of Lincoln's Political Life

They are not some hushed-up episode, rendered obscure and difficult to access.

[rug]

14. The debates are well-known; the racist views less-known.

They can be accessed but are rarely highlighted.

[The Magistrate]

21. He Was Still In Advance Of Judge Douglas On The Question, Sir

He was willing to state a Negro was the equal of a White in possessing the right to retain what his labor produced. He was well behind some abolition advocates, of course, but whites who were not racist by modern standards were pretty thin on the ground at the time. Mr. Lincoln advocated 'back to Africa' resettlement well into the course of the Civil War. Again, none of this is hidden, but rather widely available.

[rug]

26. He was also more advanced than Jefferson Davis but that wasn't the topic.

The topic is why are his racist views less widely known and acknowledged 156 years later.

[The Magistrate]

31. Since They Are Not Hidden, Sir, Then On Your Showing There Is Nothing To Discuss

The most important facts of his history are the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation and the prosecution of the Civil War to the defeat of Southern treason.

[rug]

34. I do not call Lincoln's racism "Nothing To Discuss".

That it is not hidden is hardly a reason to claim it is "Nothing To Discuss".

Nor does it answer the question at hand.

[The Magistrate]

58. You Can Call It A Double-Burger With Cheese, Sir, For All The Difference It Would Make To Me

Most White people in the mid-nineteenth century were racists by any modern definition, feeling whites were superior to all the rest, and if push came to shove, that whites from northern and western portions of Europe were superior to whites from southern and eastern portions of Europe. This is, again, hardly news to anyone, and not worth much more discussion than the mere statement of the fact requires. Do not, by the way, be deceived into thinking 'free soil' and abolition sentiments were indicators of a different attitude. In most cases, both these views were roted in a detestation of Negroes, and a desire to exclude them: barring slavery in a territory was a good first step to excluding Negroes from it.

[rug]

63. You called it nothing, not a double cheeseburger.

Most White people in the mid-nineteenth century were not president and are not lionized in the twenty-first.

This thread is not about whether you care about Lincoln's racist views. It is about why they are not more widely known or discussed,

As an aside, I will assume your use of the term "Negroes" is a mimickry of nineteenth century terms and not your own.

[The Magistrate]

67. And Both 'Nothing' And 'Double Cheeseburger', Sir, Plug The Same Hole In Sentence Structure

It has already been demonstrated they are well known, and not particularly interesting given the contemporaneous societal norms.

And do, please, proceed to harbor fantasies you can pretend to find me racist over use of the term 'Negro'....

"The mind wobbles...."

[rug]

74. No it hasn't.

Among other things you've demonstrated, you've simply stated that because his racist writings are not hidden they are thereby well known. Dubious, charitably. If you claim the populace at large is aware of Lincoln's racist beliefs, by all means produce the evidence, even at the cost of curtailing your bloviating.

And despite your repetition of an archaic racist term, I did not find you racist. I do find you have as much care for Lincoln's racism as you do for a double cheeseburger, with cheese.

[The Magistrate]

75. Never Found Cheese-Burgers To My Taste, Sir

And you have crossed my boredom threshold with your incessant nonesense....

"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[rug]

82. You crossed mine midway through your second post.

Some are made of sterner stuff.

[regnaD kciN]

85. You seem to have difficulty following a logical argument (including, apparently, your own)...

...because the "nothing to discuss," on your very own terms, related not to "Lincoln's racism," but to "why has Lincoln's racism been covered-up?" Since it has been well-established that it has never been covered-up, there is, indeed, nothing to discuss on that matter. End of story.

[MADem]

69. They thought women voting was as likely as pigs flying, it was "accepted" that women gave up all

their rights of self-determination upon marriage, and they believed animals couldn't feel emotions (tell that to my dog!). They thought alcoholism and sexual orientation were issues of choice and willpower. They thought mental illness was a personal weakness.

They certainly weren't right about a lot of things, were they?

When people try to judge the conduct of figures from our history by the mores of today, it never makes sense. You can shake your head in amazement at their behavior, but putting present day expectations on them is just a big old anachronistic mess!

Of course, in some corners of this country, there are still white people who haven't changed their "We're better than anyone else" POV much if at all since the Civil War, and that's very unfortunate, indeed.

[regnaD kciN]

84. Exactly. I've known this since my American History classes in high school, if not before...

To honor Lincoln's achievement, you don't have to pretend he was a nineteenth-century advocate for the NAACP. It's well-known that he, like many who opposed slavery, was still racist. Similarly, there were many (probably the vast majority of the all-male electorate) who supported sufferage while still believing that women were "the weaker sex" who were only fit to be wives and mothers. You can't judge people of the past by modern standards; you can only judge them insofar as they deviated from the "conventional wisdom" of their own times.

But, still, Lincoln's personal racist views (at least as expressed at the time of his Senate campaign) were never in doubt or hidden. Did you know that Jimmy Carter, in his earlier days on a local school board, supported segregation?

[sharp_stick]

9. Pick up a book now and then

or even just look at the wikipedia page?

[rug]

20. At what grade were you or your children first taught Lincoln's racist views?

The topic is not your laissez-faire view of education.

[treestar]

44. By the standards of that time, Lincoln was not much of a racist

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.


"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.


"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

Lincoln lived in a time in which there were people still arguing for slavery.

[rug]

52. By the standards of this time, his views were racist.

The question remains: why are those views as not well known now as the hagiography.

[Codeine]

70. Because his views pale in significance to his actions and achievements.

On one hand you have the private thoughts of a man, on the other the lasting legacy of a President -- which of the two matter now? Which impacted history? Those of us who are interested in Lincoln as a man can worry about his views while those who have only a passing interest or who care more for the broader sweep of history can pretty much not worry about what Lincoln thought on a personal level.

[coalition_unwilling]

98. You're engaging in the sin of 'presentism,' i.e., judging the past by the

(I hope) evolved standards of the present. If you were instead to judge Lincoln by the standards prevalent in his time, he comes out pretty much smelling like a rose, imho. There's a reason newly freed black slaves in Richmond fell down at Lincoln's feet when he toured the city following the Confederates' abandonment of it. Maybe you should ask yourself why those blacks weren't instead calling Lincoln a 'racist.' Could it be that 'racism' as a cognitive category, an -ism, did not exist in any meaningful sense in 1865???

[treestar]

125. It was so ingrained, it was not noticed, and something like the Lincoln quotes

against slavery would have been considered to be beyond outrageous. Lincoln was likely vilified by slavery supporters at the time.

In fact I know some confederate nuts who vilify Lincoln today - including claiming he was a racist (Slaveowners weren't, because they didn't want to ship Blacks back to Africa as Lincoln supposedly did.)

[treestar]

123. Everything is known

I once saw a book in an old bookshop which was an entire volume on Lincoln's religious beliefs. It might not be hard to find entire volumes on his views on race.

But many people don't insist on focusing on the negative, or finding fault with people or dwelling on their faults. For instance, the quotes above - why did you ignore them? Because you'd like to focus on the negative.

[rusty fender]

113. Lincoln's beliefs regarding "negroes" is well-known among

the educated. Just pick up a copy of the Lincoln /Douglas debates. It is quite illuminating.

Lincoln insisted that the U.S. could not survive with both free and slave states. He said that it had to be all slave or all free. He was right about that.

What is also remarkable about these debates is the manner of their language and how complicated their arguments were. They didn't have teleprompters, but they maintained intricate lines of reasoning throughout the debates.

[Codeine]

17. I've never met an even vaguely educated person who was unaware of

the complexities of his personal views.

[rug]

22. How many of the vaguely educated persons you met consider "the complexities of his personal views"

to be racist?

[Codeine]

30. All of them.

Your point? Racism was pretty much a given in that period.

[rug]

36. The point is that his racist views are not widely known. Why?

[Codeine]

38. But. . . they ARE widely known!

Jesus, anybody who has ever read a damned thing about the man knows these things. The willfully ignorant do not -- but they don't know much about any darned thing. Even the most basic of books on the man makes his views clear.

I'm completely flummoxed by your obstinacy here. What exactly is your point?

[rug]

55. We're arguing anecdotes here. Data is required.

I strongly suspect that Lincoln's racist views, while familiar to some segments, are not nearly as well known as his virtues. Comparing circles of friends or calling those who do not know willfully ignorant, does not advance the discussion. If people are ignorant it's more likely the reseult of not being taught than of willful ignorance.

My position is that these views are not widely known, nor are they widely taught. You may dispute that but I doubt you have any more demographic data at hand than I do.

But if I'm right, why are they not more widely known? In 100 years I do not want as one-dimensional view of Reagan as there is now of Lincoln.

[Codeine]

65. I learned this in high school.

Just a crummy little dirt-poor school in inland southern California, where educational standards are less than rigorous and general cultural knowledge is non-existent -- we discussed in in our high school history class.

Do a lot of folks have a one-dimensional view of Lincoln? Of course they do; those same people likely have a one-dimensional view of every major historical figure, at least the handful of which they've even heard.

And to the larger point, of what significance to the average person is Lincoln's racism? His primary achievements in his presidency are far more meaningful than whether or not he personally liked blacks or accepted their intellectual equality. I don't feel that his 19th century view of race taints his greater legacy.

[hfojvt]

78. perhaps his virtues are far more important than his vices

How much does one repugnant statement, or two, take away from the Emancipation Proclamation? I would contend that it is little more than a dollop of spit in Lake Michigan. When you goto the Grand Canyon do you scour its floor for rabbit turds? Would you think that a video tour of the Grand Canyon should spend half an hour showing pictures of the rabbit turds?

As for Reagan, well what did he do that compares to the Emancipation Proclamation or keeping the Union together?

And one need not wait 100 years to see a hagiography of Reagan. At a recent event for the Jefferson County Democrats, I won a door prize of "Great Americans" from "A Child's Great American Library". Among such notables as Lincoln, Washington, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, and Geronimo (and also Oprah, Walt Disney, and Buffalo Bill Cody) is included Ronald Reagan. It says "Reagan provided the bold leadership the nation desperately needed" and "This approach (Reaganomics) worked! Jobs were created and inflation came down."

It also says "At the time of his election ... Unemployment was near 10% and inflation was choking the American economy."

See, that's not just sweeping racist views under the 'rug'. That's making excrement up. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/142

Unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office. It didn't rise to 10% until AFTER his bullsh*t Reaganomics bill was passed.

Well, fortunately those lies are only being told to children.

[Rex]

117. Well you don't seem to need much data to form an assumption

so why are you dumping on people for doing the same thing? So Little Jimmy did not learn Honest Abe was a racist in third grade, big deal.

[regnaD kciN]

89. Yes. The point is that they ARE widely known...

...apparently, to everyone but rug (until a few days ago). And that very ignorance on his or her part means there must be a cover-up!

[pscot]

39. Christ! I hope you never find out

what he claimed to have done to his mother's dog.

[rug]

56. His views on race have more impact, even today, than his mother's dog.

The world doesn't need any more saints, or historical revisionism.

[Codeine]

73. His views on race are really insignificant.

You've learned a new fact and you're worrying it like a dog with a new bone, but it's not the enormous revelation you believe it is. He thought black people were inferior but he fought a war which ultimately ended centuries of enslavement. One is private musings, one is History.

[rug]

79. Lincoln's views on race, which are racist, are insignificant? Really insignificant?

You have a weird view of historical significance. I can see it would be equally insignificant to you to discuss the views on race of either President Johnson.

Now, as to your personal remarks. You assume this is new to me and unsurprisingly you assume wrong, Your coterie of acquaintances notwithstanding, the wide spread view of Lincoln is not that of a racist. That view is incorrect and, to you, insignificant.

The point is this information should be included along with all the virtues and legends of lincoln. There is no good reason not to.

It's a simple point.

[regnaD kciN]

91. Damn right, they're insignificant!

What he accomplished is significant; what his thoughts (insofar didn't influence his actions) were, not at all.

Look, if you can find any evidence at all that Lincoln's views on racial superiority and inferiority affect where we are today, you might have a point. But I'm not seeing anyone out there invoking Lincoln as the basis for a return to segregation. In fact, the only reason to bring up his personal views on race is to basically malign his character (whether such maligning is thoroughly-justified is irrelevant to the matter at hand). But let me put it this way: say there really had been this great cover-up you seem to perceive. What if, by now, Lincoln really was a "one-dimensional figure," the "Great Emancipator" who ended slavery because of some alleged personal conviction of full racial equality. How would that harm the political discourse today? Seriously, would it make a single difference in how we view matters of race in America in the twenty-first century? Personally, I can't think of a single thing that it would change.

[whopis01]

126. To a great extent they are insignificant.

Much like the views of anyone who hasn't been alive for almost the last 150 years.

I understand the point you are making - when talking about Lincoln and his views and actions, these were some of his views and should be included with the others. I agree with that.

I don't think this is anything that has been left out or covered up - It was covered when I was in school. Specifically I recall a discussion about it in 10th grade history class (American history that year). This was in Florida in the 1980's (just as a point of reference).

As far as his views being significant or insignificant - how do you feel that your discovery of this information has changed things for you? Other than perhaps your views and opinions of Lincoln of course. I realize that this information may have a significant effect on your views of the man - but reality it that this is a man who has been dead for a very long time and what we think or don't think of him today doesn't really amount to very much. How does this, in your estimation, affect the world that we live in today? Does it have a significant outcome on your views and your actions?

I am not saying this just to continue the argument - I am just curious as to how you feel this is significant today.

[ZombieHorde]

120. I agree we don't need more historical revisionism,

but a few more saints in the world wouldn't hurt.

[pnorman]

47. Moreover, it was absolutely necessary to make such remarks to be politically violable in that race.

He lost that race, but NOT by a crushing landslide.

There are some close parallels to Obama that his detractors here on DU refuse to consider.

[The Magistrate]

59. True Enough, Sir

'Free Soil' sentiment, such as existed in Illinois, hardly indicated fellow feeling for Negro brethern among the voting populace....

[WhoIsNumberNone]

88. Should come as a shock to many Republicans though...

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. I don't know why this would be surprising.

Civil Rights and cases like Loving v Virginia came over 100 years after Emancipation.

[NoMoreWarNow]

3. he *was* a Republican

and a man of his times.

Also, exchanged letters with Karl Marx.

[randome]

6. He was also a vampire hunter.

At least that's what I saw at the movies.

[Iggo]

16. And he was known to party-on with Bill & Ted.

That's l-i-n--C--o-l-n.

[eShirl]

110. The man did get around, didn't he?

[alfredo]

29. Here's the letters

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

From the reply to Marx's letter:

The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Francis Adams

[aquart]

5. Which is why you should pay attention to what they DO, no matter what they say.

What he DID was sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

And not a word can take it back.

[UTUSN]

57. Same (O.P.) can be said of MADISON, LBJ (see thread on MADISON/his slaves by xchrom)

Some of the thoughts in this thread suppose that racism has been gone and for a long long time. MADISON wrote the vision but never freed his slaves; LBJ played up to all sides (Libs vs Bigots), killed tons of Lib attempts for civil rights, then MADE PASS the first civil rights legislation in a 100 yrs (1958?) while nailed by Libs for watering it down, then took the next monumental steps (Voting Rts & Civil Rts Acts) while nailed by the Bigots for betraying them.

Great new book:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002565792, thread by xchrom, ““A Slave in the White House”: James Madison and his slaves”

(My post there: )

In Robert A. CARO’s bio of LBJ, he spends exhaustive chapters in Vol. 2 on the (one of several) stolen election, the Box 13 stolen Senate run, that makes 2000’s Shrub v. GORE look puny. He paints Rethug/Conservative Coke STEVENSON as a noble, high-minded, honest, epitome of integrity and LBJ as the unscrupulous thief. No question. But Coke was a garden variety Conservative. If justice had been done and proper investigation and legal action been honored and Coke the Honest justly installed as Senator, his sincere Conservatism WOULD NEVER HAVE RESULTED in the landmarks of Civil and Voting Rights legislation that the perpetrator LBJ accomplished.

Let this sink in: SOME CONVICTIONS/PHILOSOPHIES ARE ULTIMATELY WRONG. Wingnuttiness is one of these. Tell that to TeaBaggers.

In this book review, the author’s description of MADISON’s “the legislative mind” – compromising, making deals – applies perfectly to CARO’s depiction of LBJ.


*************QUOTE******** (from the same O.P. link) [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] [/FONT]

.... ...Mr. Brookhiser sees [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Madison as the epitome of the legislative mind[/FONT]. Madison was the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]man of principles who made deals[/FONT], making sure the words “slave” and “slavery” did not appear in the Constitution, but also paying off his Southern vote-counting brethren with the three-fifths compromise. Slaves were partial “persons” for purposes of exerting political power. This [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]political accommodation[/FONT] jibed with Madison’s statement that slaves were part of his family, but only a “degraded” part. ....

Madison’s idea of the American polity had no place for educated black men and women, let alone the masses of freed slaves that he believed had trouble governing themselves. No matter which biography you read, all of them eventually disclose this fundamental fact: Madison did not believe that white and black Americans could live side by side on terms of equality and amity. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]His failure to imagine a world more capacious and tolerant than his own helps explain a good deal of subsequent history, and America’s resistance to the very practice of equality[/FONT] that Madison otherwise did so much to foster. ....

************UNQUOTE

[sharp_stick]

8. Did you not go to school?

I mean the lack of general knowledge in history in this country is fucking pathetic enough. You really didn't know this?

[Tx4obama]

10. Why are you making this personal? The subject line and article is from another website

I was just posting it here on DU for the folks that didn't know about the quote.

[Art_from_Ark]

86. I went to school in the '70s

That was probably the era where one could get the least whitewashed version of American history in public schools. All 3 of my American History teachers were die-hard Southern Democrats who enjoyed talking about the scandals of various Republican presidents like Grant, Harding and Nixon, and the failings of various others like Taft and Hoover, but NOT ONE of them mentioned this sort of thing about Lincoln. Even there in that corner of the South, in that era of soul-searching in American History classes, the Lincoln legend was sacrosanct.

[datasuspect]

121. yep

Lincoln freed the slaves. He got shot. Civil war somewhere in there.

He was never cast in terms of the reality of his viewpoints.

Especially growing up in Illinois. The Land of Lincoln.

PLUS, FDR/Kennedy were elevated to godlike status.

Columbus discovered America.

We even got a day off for it.

Any critical assessment of US History back then didn't happen until college.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. 19th century man held 19th century racial attitudes shocker

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 save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. - Abraham Lincoln, 22 August 1863.

Lincoln's attitudes on race were those of a man of his time; this is something that's pretty well known by anyone who's had even a cursory introduction to that period of American history. I'm not sure why it comes as any kind of surprise.

[undeterred]

12. Lincoln became Lincoln.

He evolved but he was not ahistorical.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Lincoln was preoccupied with preserving The Union.

The above quote reflects his need to prevent The South from leaving The Union; it wasn't his personal views. Remember Lincoln was both an officeholder and politician.

[Odin2005]

15. He was pandering to bigoted people in the Lower Midwest.

Folks in the southern parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were extremely racist but he needed their votes.

[HughBeaumont]

27. "Were"?

[Odin2005]

33. DOH, my bad!

[coalition_unwilling]

99. Hah! -n/t

[dsc]

28. actually at that time he only needed those from Southern Illinois as he was running for that Senate

seat which he lost.

[Odin2005]

37. Then, yeah, but he had the same problem in 1860 running for president.

the culturally "Yankee" folks in New England and around the Great Lakes were strongly pro-abolition and were pressuring him to support it, but the "Butternut" and "Hoosier" folks in the Lower Midwest, which were and still are culturally "Appalachian", were very much against abolition.

This divide is still around today if you look at country by county maps of voting patterns and dialect differences.

[aikoaiko]

18. I remember learning about this rhetoric when I was in High School and it really floored me.

It was one of those difficult moments when I struggled with realizing that most people are not all good or all bad.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Yet he prosecuted a war that was, ultimately, about freeing black people

Lincoln stuck his neck out to do the right thing. Not the politically expedient thing.

[coalition_unwilling]

100. Manny, the war became ultimately about freeing slaves (whether black or

any other race). But it began as Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union as the 'last, best hope of mankind' (a democratic republic) against Southern treason. Saying that emancipation was incidental to preservation of the Union does not detract one iota from Lincoln's achievement or stature, imho.

[Snake Alchemist]

23. Much like Robert Byrd. People are complex. Keep reading. nt

[deutsey]

24. At one point Lincoln wanted to return Blacks to Africa

The man was a man, not a messiah or a demigod.

[Lex]

25. And the Titanic actually was a ship

that sank too. Apparently that also surprises people who haven't paid attention.

[Gregorian]

32. I want to explain why I rec'd this. It made for interesting replies people might want to read.

[enough]

35. It's hard to belive that any one with a basic knowledge of Lincoln and his history

would be WTFing about this. Did you just learn about this? Wait till you start studying Jefferson.

[Lex]

41. I know, right? LOL

nt

[Tx4obama]

72. See comment #10 n/t

[Proles]

40. This isn't really a surprise to me. A couple years ago I read a quote by Lincoln stating that he

would rather have the blacks leave the US after being freed, saying that for them to stay would be selfish behavior.

The fact is, history is never a rosy, perfect story-like affair. It's messy and ambiguous to put it shortly.

Anyways, Lincoln presided over a very divided country, so he may have only be saying what he said to placate the south. Taking baby steps so to speak. He obviously seemed against slavery, so I still think he was a perfectly fine president, given the time he lived in.

[alphafemale]

42. Oh for gawd sake it was 1860

A half million dead yankees to end slavery was not enough?


Well maybe if we'd have really Meant it.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

43. Required reading

http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Slavery-Henry-Louis-Gates/dp/0691149984/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1334540531&sr=8-19

Lincoln on Race and Slavery edited by Henry Louis Gates

Seriously, read it. It's a very enlightening look into Lincoln and the extent of his progressiveness on slavery and racial issues

[cr8tvlde]

45. The story here is that a large number of people

have not progressed beyond this viewpoint.

[Major Hogwash]

46. If this was Lincoln's personal viewpoint, then why did the South fear him being elected?

Since his personal viewpoints on slavery didn't matter.

South Carolina's Senators were talking about seceding from the Union long before the election of 1860.
In fact, just idle talk about Lincoln running for the office of President reignited some politicians in the South to talk more about secession.

Talk about seccession had been raging in Washington for over 10 years by then. Henry Clay debated on slavery in 1850, warning the Southern states against seccession.

The question of slavery had been brewing ever since the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
President Taylor died while in office during the fight over the Compromise in 1850.
Later President Buchanan waffled on the issue that lead to Lincoln being elected in 1860.

[The Magistrate]

60. Because, Major, the South Was Loaded With, And Led By, Raving Nutters....

Not only barking, but aggressive and over-confident in their martial prowess....

[Tom Ripley]

48. American history is really ugly; it's why most people prefer American "heritage"

[Codeine]

66. History in general is really ugly; ours is not uniquely negative. nt

[Tom Ripley]

83. Agreed(n/t)

[bullwinkle428]

87. Marge Simpson : "I never realized history was so filthy!"

[frogmarch]

49. Not news to me. I learned about it in the 50s

in grade school. In context.

[jwirr]

50. This does not surprise me. He fought the war to stop the south from leaving the union. And

if you ask Native Americans he was not so good to them either.

[jp11]

51. RE: Dead people.

They're awesome didn't you get the memo? Unless you're hated like Hitler or Bin Laden once you die you are awesome no speaking ill of the dead.*

Nothing stops people from taking a stroll to their graves and leaving a steaming pile once they find out the facts.















[font color="black" size="0" face="face" ]
*Though there are people who will deify both Hitler and Bin Laden as with any person, somebody somewhere probably loves them.

[Starry Messenger]

53. Marx on Lincoln

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/11/23.htm

At the time Lincoln was elected (1860) there was no civil war, nor was the question of Negro emancipation on the order of the day. The Republican Party, then quite independent of the Abolitionist Party, aimed its 1860 electoral campaign solely at protesting against the extension of slavery into the Territories, but, at the same time, it proclaimed non-interference with the institution in the states where it already existed legally. If Lincoln had had Emancipation of the Slaves as his motto at that time, there can be no doubt that he would have been defeated. Any such slogan was vigorously rejected.

But also this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/10/12.htm

Other people claim to be “fighting for an idea”, when it is for them a matter of square feet of land. Lincoln, even when he is motivated by, an idea, talks about “square feet”. He sings the bravura aria of his part hesitatively, reluctantly and unwillingly, as though apologising for being compelled by circumstances “to act the lion”. The most redoubtable decrees — which will always remain remarkable historical documents-flung by him at the enemy all look like, and are intended to look like, routine summonses sent by a lawyer to the lawyer of the opposing party, legal chicaneries, involved, hidebound actiones juris. His latest proclamation, which is drafted in the same style, the manifesto abolishing slavery, is the most important document in American history since the establishment of the Union, tantamount to the tearing tip of the old American Constitution.

Nothing is simpler than to show that Lincoln’s principal political actions contain much that is aesthetically. repulsive, logically inadequate, farcical in form and politically, contradictory, as is done by, the English Pindars of slavery, The Times, The Saturday Review and tutti quanti. But Lincoln’s place in the history of the United States and of mankind will, nevertheless, be next to that of Washington! Nowadays, when the insignificant struts about melodramatically on this side of the Atlantic, is it of no significance at all that the significant is clothed in everyday dress in the new world?

Lincoln is not the product of a popular revolution. This plebeian, who worked his way tip from stone-breaker to Senator in Illinois, without intellectual brilliance, without a particularly outstanding character, without exceptional importance-an average person of good will, was placed at the top by the interplay of the forces of universal suffrage unaware of the great issues at stake. The new world has never achieved a greater triumph than by this demonstration that, given its political and social organisation, ordinary people of good will can accomplish feats which only heroes could accomplish in the old world!

Hegel once observed that comedy is in act superior to tragedy and humourous reasoning superior to grandiloquent reasoning.[Lectures on Aesthetics] Although Lincoln does not possess the grandiloquence of historical action, as an average man of the people he has its humour. When does he issue the proclamation declaring that from January 1, 1863, slavery in the Confederacy shall be abolished? At the very moment when the Confederacy as an independent state decided on “peace negotiations- at its Richmond Congress. At the very, moment when the slave-owners of the border states believed that the invasion of Kentucky by the armies of the South had made “the peculiar institution” just as safe as was their domination over their compatriot, President Abraham Lincoln in Washington.

[baldguy]

54. I'm guessing that LGBT rights wouldn't draw much support in the 1850s either.

All this proves is that Lincoln was a man of his time.

[regnaD kciN]

92. ...or the 1950s, for that matter.

[MADem]

61. Sure--he was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the place where he saw the point of emancipation.

He's not pure as the driven snow, not by a long shot. He's an imperfect person who was a product of his bigoted and often mean-spirited times. He did do the right thing. That's good. He took a bullet for doing it, and that's unfortunate.

Look at Thomas Jefferson's personal behavior, and contrast that with his high minded words.

I haven't read any in-depth biographies of Lincoln in recent years, but I have read bios of other founding fathers as well as more contemporary leaders. They aren't the one-dimensional saints-on-earth that we learn about in simplistic fashion in grammar school.

The reality is much muckier. Hell, look at how contemporary Republicans STILL treat women and minorities! They'll go down in history, too--but not in a good way.

[coalition_unwilling]

103. Lincoln WAS NOT dragged, kicking and screaming, to emancipation. That is total and utter rubbish. He

had drafted the EP many months before it was officially promulgated but put in a desk drawer to wait for a significant Union victory. That victory came at Antietam (Sharpsburg) and, were it not for McClellan's langorousness, might have resulted in defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia right then (and end to the Civil War for all practical purposes).

[MADem]

104. Oh please. Put the huff-n-puff away. I am talking about his evolution over DECADES.

Get over yourself.

[coalition_unwilling]

106. When someone uses the phrase 'kicking and screaming,' the implication is

that the person doing it (Lincoln) was resisting the idea of emancipation. Lincoln had long pondered the question of slavery and emancipation, whether and under what terms it should occur, ALL THE WHILE LOOKING TO EMANCIPATION as the desired end point. It is true that Lincoln had to trim John Fremont's sails when Fremont declared escaped Missouri slaves 'contraband of war' (and thus not subject to return to their owners). But Lincoln had to rescind Fremont's order because Missouri was contested ground with two rump legislatures (one free and one slave) competing for the loyalties of Missourians and control of the Mississippi was part of Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan. I only took issue with the phrase 'kicking and screaming' as indicative of Lincoln's mindset when the reality is quite the opposite.

[MADem]

108. Read past the subject line. I wasn't implying what you are suggesting at all.

I wasn't just talking about his Presidential/wartime persona. I was responding to the Magistrate, and his comments, which dealt with the pre-Presidential Lincoln.

That was the context of my remarks. He was dragged, kicking and screaming, (by his own personal assessments, exposures and events, etc.) to a point (in his Presidency) where he could consider the prospect.

I stand by that assessment. I'm quite sure it wasn't his first instinct.

[Rowdyboy]

62. And Jefferson had slaves and he SLEPT with them...I mean he really had SEX with them...and George

Washington also did not cut down any cherry trees! History is so much fun-you can prove whatever you want.

[Major Nikon]

76. Lincoln also didn't free the slaves

The Emancipation Proclamation only concerned areas that were under Confederate control, which Lincoln couldn't force to do anything at the time. The 13th Amendment is actually what freed the slaves and it wasn't passed until several months after Lincoln's death.

[Rowdyboy]

90. Very true.... I was unaware there was any controversy about that but thanks for the clarification..

in case there was any doubt.

[coalition_unwilling]

105. Oh, please. That's engaging in pedantry and Jesuitical equivocation of the worst sort. The

EP completely and utterly transformed the nature and destiny of the war. The EP basically told the South (your 'areas that were under Confederate control') that it would not be coming back into the Union with its 'peculiar institution' intact (as it might still have done during the 7 Days' Peninsula Campaign).

Put another way, if Lincoln did not free the slaves, then who did? Sherman freed a whole shitload, IIRC

[Major Nikon]

107. As opposed to historical revisionism?

There's no question that the EP did a lot of things. What it didn't do was free a single slave simply because Lincoln had no power to do so. Prior to the EP slaves from union controlled areas were held as "contraband of war", and after the EP these slaves were released. Sherman and other generals also released thousands of other slaves. However, released and freed are not the same thing. At that time, slaves were considered property by both the North and the South. There were a number of laws at the time that fully supported slavery which hadn't been revoked. Until the 13th amendment was passed, the legal status of every one of those slaves was in question because the 5th amendment guarantees no property can be taken by the government without due process.

[coalition_unwilling]

114. Yipes. I guess it comes down to what the phrase 'freeing the slaves' actually means, hence

my invocation of Jesuitical equivocation. The EP freed all slaves in the United States in the larger, metaphorical sense, even though it did not literally free a single slave. And how could it literally do so? The EP was after all simply a piece of paper on the literal level, incapable of shedding blood on Cemetery Ridge or the Wilderness. One could likewise argue that the 13th Amendment did not free a single slave either, since they had already been freed by the blood of afore-mentioned soldiers in afore-mentioned battles.

N.B. I'm using 'blood' figuratively. Since blood can't literally free slaves either.

[SidDithers]

64. Sounds like we need some Drunk History in this thread...

Edit: bah, embedding disabled on the video. Here's the Funny or Die link:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/d47e6a33a5/drunk-history-vol-5-w-will-ferrell-don-cheadle-zooey-deschanel


Sid

[Rowdyboy]

96. Michael Cera's is really fantastic...

[JI7]

68. this is well known

[RetroLounge]

77. Are we throwing Abe under the bus now too?

It's so hard to keep track of who fails the purity test around here.

RL

[coalition_unwilling]

119. And the self-righteous 'presentism' is pretty stifling too, now

that you mention it.

Let's judge people by the standards of our time instead of the standards of their time.

[sadbear]

80. Seems a lot of folk are feeling superior for having read A People's History of the United States

Yeah, it's near the top of the progressive's reading list. So what? Don't get all preachy if you've read it and someone else hasn't. It's not an accomplishment.

[2ndAmForComputers]

81. Therefore, he was actually the bad guy, and the South should have won.

Yawn.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Oh! I finally understand your post.

Lincoln was imperfect. Therefore imperfect Presidents are Lincoln.

And those Purity Democrats? Silly people.

BTW: Lincoln had a habit of firing losing generals. Do you think that was unfair, since it was the Confederacy who was actually waging war against the Union? Shouldn't Lincoln have just blamed the South and thanked his losing generals?

[Tx4obama]

94. Has anyone on this thread even read the full post on the link in the OP?

There is NOTHING in the OP that are my words.

Please read the FULL post on the link in the OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. What was the point of your post? nt

[Major Nikon]

97. It's the WTF part that is throwing so many off

It sounds as if you're surprised to hear this about Lincoln.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. Before the war, he wanted to maintain the status quo in regards to slavery. He certainly held some views that would today be considered quite racist, but you can't judge someone from 150 years ago by today's standards.

[Tx4obama]

101. Yep, well it's not my fault that folks aren't clicking on the OP link to see that's the title :) n/t

[HiPointDem]

102. Less interesting to me than why we don't talk about which of today's ruling-class families owe

that position to capital derived from owning and trading slaves & slave-produced goods.

There are many; it is rarely discussed; instead, the prime movers and beneficiaries of the slave system are hidden behind a glaze of collective guilt and individual "racism" -- usually said to be characteristic of poor white trash, and we are told to focus on stamping out individual racism, even as the descendants of the instigators and rulers of the slave system continue to make bank on all of us.

To me, this mystery is of much deeper interest.

[BlueIris]

109. It took me years to accept the truth of Lincoln's racism.

And lack of support for equality. By year, I mean I couldn't do it until last year. It took watching the Ken Burn documentary on The Civil War, with quotes from Lincoln about how he would continue slavery if it would end the war, to make me accept it.

So this is not surprising to me.

[quispquake]

111. Read "A People's History of the United States"

Howard Zinn fills you in on LOTS of interesting facts like this...

[ehrnst]

112. And Jefferson owned / raped slaves & Lincoln got STDs from hookers.

Not that it should be ignored, however - to expect these historic figures to share 21st century mindsets isn't realistic.

We focus on the later act of Emancipation, and make a lot of assumptions about him personally. His first priority was preserving the Union, and he understood that Europe - which was more anti-slavery than the US - had more to gain from supporting the Confederacy, which provided a lot of cotton and sugar.

Lincoln understood that making the war about ending slavery would turn European support to the Union.

Historically speaking what one does outweighs what one's opinions might be.

[lynne]

115. I think a better statement on poster would be -

- "You only learn what YOU want to learn." - because the info on Lincoln is certainly out there and has been for 150+ years.

Read his first inaugural address. It's a real eye-opener if you've never delved into Lincoln further than your public school history book.

[coalition_unwilling]

116. Emphatic K&R for the discussion! I had my eyes opened a couple years back

to Lincoln's seemingly racist views right here on DU. (Can't remember the name of the DUer who pointed me toward these remarks, but thank you I remember being humbled by the recognition that Lincoln's views represented those of his time on the issue of race relations, although I do think Lincoln by his own time's standards was fairly progressive.

A great thread though. Thanks!

[Humanist_Activist]

118. I remember being taught this in highschool, in addition, his views did develop over the course of...

the civil war. I won't claim he was, towards the end, an equal rights advocate, but given his experiences and writings, he was beginning to lean in that direction.

[Ian_rd]

122. It's how normal men are remembered as great men.

[malthaussen]

124. Slavery does not equal racism

The thing I've found most interesting about this discussion is the apparent assumption that to be opposed to slavery (in the 1860s context) was to be opposed to racism. It's an easy assumption to make, since the slaves in question were also non-white, but I think some of the apparent confusion over Mr Lincoln's attitudes comes from confusion of these two issues.

Put bluntly, one can be strongly opposed to ill-treatment of horses, yet not believe that horses are equal to men. I submit that, in the 1860s context, blacks were seen much in the light of horses. Or if that is too extreme a position for taste, say the same of children: I doubt many of even the greatest Abolitionists saw blacks as much different from children.

It is interesting, and instructive, to keep in mind that the slaves were "freed" as a matter of convenience, not conviction. It might tend to illuminate the fact that politics is a question of expediency, however much it may be wreathed in principled rhetoric.

-- Mal

[lincoln65]

127. Abraham Lincoln in the end

Abraham Lincoln said this during his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858. Illinois was a very racist state, and Lincoln was a realist. He did hold some of the racist beliefs of his time, and we should not excuse him for it, but we should understand it, especially in light of his later accomplishments in dealing with slavery and African-Americans. At the end of his life, Lincoln was in favor of giving voting rights to Black soldiers and literate blacks. He also said once, "Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." I hope we can all part ways with Lincoln on his earlier racial views but stand by him through everything else.

[gopiscrap]

128. welcome to DU