Did Abraham Lincoln Hold Racist Views?
In a recent discussion about FDR, it came up that FDR was a racist because he put the Japanese into internment camps. So I presented that Lincoln was also a racist, by today's standards and was told he wasn't. Here is my presentation based on Lincoln's own words.
In 1858, Lincoln challenged U.S. Senator and leading Democrat Stephen A. Douglas for his seat. The two candidates engaged in a series of seven debates across Illinois. In the sixth debate, held in Quincy on October 13, 1858, Lincoln responded to Douglas’s assertion that Lincoln saw no “distinction between races.” Printed in the Chicago Daily Press and Tribune on October 15, 1858, Lincoln replied:
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 intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races 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. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Another time he said:
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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
https://presidentlincoln.illinois.gov/learn/educators/educator-resources/teaching-guides/lincolns-views-african-american-slavery/
He also advocated relocating freed slaves out of the United States:
Since the early 1850s, Lincoln had been advancing colonization as a remedy for the gradual emancipation of the nation’s enslaved. While he strongly opposed the institution of slavery , he didn’t believe in racial equality, or that people of different races could successfully integrate. And unleashing nearly 4 million Black people into white American society—North or South—was a political nonstarter. So despite the fact that most Black Americans in the 1850s had been born on U.S. soil, Lincoln advocated shipping them to Central America, the Caribbean or “back” to Africa. “If as the friends of colonization hope…[we] succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land,” Lincoln said during his eulogy for statesman Henry Clay in 1852, “it will indeed be a glorious consummation.”
https://www.history.com/news/abraham-lincoln-black-resettlement-haiti
So the idea that Lincoln was not a racist is just not true. While he did end slavery in the US, he did so to save the union.
Tags
Who is online
23 visitors
Nothing is more unfair than to judge of a statesman of a past day by the light of the present.
That's been going on for the last couple years now (4 or 5 years anyway).
They call it "Being Woke" !
No, it's called history. These are Lincoln's own words.
btw, I don't like the word "woke". It is dismissive.
"Was what Lincoln said back in the then days, Racist ?
Nothing is more unfair than to judge of a statesman of a past day by the light of the present."
Thank you for quoting my quote.
This article is in response to FDR being called a racist. I was told that Lincoln was not one. My point is that these historical figures can or can't be judged by today's standards.
I'll take "Can't" for $400.00 Perrie !
They "Can" be Judged based on what was happening in their particular day though, if one is Truly "Truthful" as to the goings on then.
Then take that up with your friends who thought that FDR was fair game.
Perrie, first I want to say that I hope I wasn't in any way over-the-top before. I'm not involved in the FDR issue. I don't think he was a racist either.
It is true that Lincoln originally wanted to preserve the Union above all else, but diring the Civil War his position evolved into a war to end slavery. Nobody who sends so many to their deaths to end slavery should ever be called a "racist."
"My point is that these historical figures can or can't be judged by today's standards"
It seems that just about all the Founding Fathers are adjudged to have been racist, because they owned slaves.
So by today's standards, both FDR and Lincoln were racists. So was LBJ.
Yes. Usually intentionally and often justifiably.
Greg,
I was not the one calling out FDR on a feel good article about his Christmas message.
They all were racists.. no matter the party. It was acceptable in their time.
LBJ? The guy who supported civil rights? Come on.
The expression 'woke' like plenty words, any (other) word, in the hands of dismissive people will be dampened and impotent. It is what MAGA does, they diminish; they "whataboutism"' they pretend that history (not told/accepted by them) is of no value. Sad too. Because, it has been done in. . . wait for it, . . .history!
It was not that 'early' whites were too done or too ignorant of what their conscious minds were telling them about Africans, U.S. Negros, and later Black Americans/African Americans. It was then and is returning in stark relief now a CONSCIOUS effort by some Whites today to WHITEWASH and brainwash themselves and the next generation in part or whole to once again not be attentive to the cries of minorities. Of which, Blacks, well are the direct contrast to Whites (for those who 'live' in this state of mind)!
It's so frustrating too. Because God or whatever put us here in an otherwise beautiful place to GROW more beautiful all our days; humanity fights with a force of 'kilotons' its own acceleration to joy 99 percent of the time. It is people, but not all of us, that SCREW it all up for the rest of us. Why? Because of some people simply can't stand sharing, blending, and "making it" with others. Those folks, aforementioned, have a disorder, and it persists: They are sociopaths! They mean "for it" to hurt, damn, and kill those they demean, bad-mouth, abuse, and wreck!
Now to President Lincoln. I have read Lincoln 'letters' where some of what is quoted in this 'piece' above is stated. From what I read with my own eyes and received from Lincoln's writings were about a man who was conflicted as to how to help the black 'race,' joined at the 'hip' with a white 'race' that would only choose to see blacks as lessers. It was Lincoln's 'talking outloud' through his writings trying to determine how to lead a prejudiced people. . . with larceny in their hearts for the black 'animals' (beasts of burden) of his day.
That is, Lincoln opposed the institution of slavery, but found that the 'talking heads' and power institutions, world, and nation-state politics were heavily against a man, any man who would try to take away what was strongly classified (and hard to defeat) as the notion: Another man's PROPERTY.
President Lincoln was a 'creature' of the times he lived. Of course, he tried to finesse his presidency to 'fit' all sides. It did not succeed. The only civil war in our history was the outcome. And finally, of course, Lincoln was unceremoniously stripped of his dignity when he was assassinated.
The larger question I have is this: Why do some whites continue to train some of their own to envy, be jealous of, or outright hate blacks and other people of color?
Woke, PC and plenty of other progressive judgements are just weakness trying to leave the body .....
Wake up. You only call it "PC" and "other progressive judgements" because you are buying into a narrative. You wish to tell YOURSELF and other whites to keep the 'uper-hand,' by persisting in politically pushing-back against those 'others' who have been marginalized all their lives. Y'all see minorities and 'others' rising up through the systems of our government, getting the recognition rightly deserved, achieving placement where they were not before, expressing freedoms denied, and it chaffs and scrapes y'all. So you fight back.
Why in whatever name some conservatives hold dear would y'all call it weakness when other people are busting free in this generation and developing the proper strength to be more than they have ever been allowed to be,. . . says something about how some conservatives view minorities, people of color, and 'otherized' people.
I will gladly take on this discussion with y'all anyday.
No need to say any more on this topic than I’ve already said. No matter what all y’all think.
Peace!
Peace, if you will allow it. Drop your 'rock'? Stop weaponizing skin color and sexuality. A new year is coming! Just do it!
As do some liberals.
Point?
[deleted]
Probably for many of the same reasons black people, brown people, red people and yellow people do.
The point is you are nothing but a 'counter-talker' and it is meaninglessness to try to discuss anything worthwhile with you! So, I am going to walk away now. My "Merry Christmas" gift to you, family, and friends!
[deleted]
Will you stop pillorying conservatives at every turn?
Maybe he will consider it
when conservatives and like minded liberals and
independents
stop pillorying people of the LBGTQ.
Several historical figures have been judged by today's standards and had places named after then renamed, statues removed etc.
The standard used for removing statues needs to be applied to both sides
Actually his record is a mixed bag.
I suspect his reasons for supporting the Civil Rights Act were more political than an attempt to do the right thing.
What is the justification for leaving statues to confederate traitors standing in 2023 ?
Robert E Lee was a slaveowner who said that slavery would end when God saw fit to end it and that it was necessary to civilize the Africans.
-
Jefferson Davis
When I offer peace, it is offered without qualification. You should try that sometime. You’ll be much happier in life.
Why must something be justified to you?
Is this an offer of peace from you? Or, should I keep hope alive?
LBJ is definitely a racist.
LBJ gets a pass because of the all powerful D behind his name. He had his reasons for supporting the Civil Rights Act (or as he called it the N****** Bill). He need blacks to vote Democrat- and keep them voting Democrat. He never once hid the fact; nor his contempt of blacks in private.
Did you privately know LBJ? Or, is your contempt such that some conservatives need to tell other people how they should feel about their political health and what is good for them? One more thing, the saying goes: Politics makes for strange bedfellows. It applied at the times intersected for Lincoln and LBJ.
Lyndon B. Johnson may have been a bigot, a racist, or just an average run of the mill "n-ger' hater, but. . . then he grew up! At JFK's assassination with the power vested in the presidency fully 'presented' to him to lead, LBJ became a man of the people—and not just his tribe.
It would benefit us all to achieve a state of caring about the larger schemes in this world and life without being figuratively pushed over the edge of a cliff or emotionally left at our wits end, but whatever gets us to internal peace inside is its own reward.
Black Americans are grateful to white men like, Lincoln and LBJ. You want to know why? Because whatever the politics in their day, whatever the 'travails' ebbing and flowing, whatever demons they wrestled with in their own minds, there existed a 'thread' of something bigger in them which found a way to let black Americans become who and what we are today.
It is important to note that as some would put it: The so-called, 'racist' presidents - one republican, the other democrat - got the job done where other presidents did not! That is a boon to these men and a credit (I will not take away from them) to Lincoln and LBJ.
Finally, even old hater George Wallace lived long enough to take back (repent of) his nasty, filthy, attitude. Though the philosophy of segregation still exists in parts of Alabama.
yes and no. No because I’ve never been at war with you and yes because it is my wish for you.
You seem so angry and conflicted. One can only hope that you find peace in your heart.
Life is too short ......
Merry Christmas, Sparty On. I am conflicted, it comes with the territory. However, I am not as angry as you might suppose. The issue here is there are forces which are dedicated to the pretense that this country's past was necessary and glorious, standalone. I have accepted and placed myself in the role/a role of illustrating in words and pictures that what our history was and in some ways not all still is should reflect the good, bad, ugly, and gross.
We are doomed to repeat the past history of events if near generations are denied access to reading about it, seeing it, and promising themselves not to see it occur again-ever!
Life is too short you wrote (to me). Don't I know it, Sparty On. In many ways I have endured it even as I strive to enjoy it. These political intrigues and schemes, outright hatred and violence against 'my' people and other people all over the world, the dismissals of my person, the needs, plural, to hide or suppress my person, and et ceteras - all the while I'm watching white, heterosexual, Christian, males living the life granted to them 'outloud' has compacted and drained my life and threatened to 'wash-rinse-repeat' in the lives of more of my people. I come against this in word and deeds.
At what point in history, do you feel being racist is not a bad thing?
Just because it was accepted in the past, does not make racism good.
Where did you get that that was the idea coming from my post ?
The idea came from a quote that you posted.
This has been so over used it's sickening. Woke simply means "aware", which the right wing apparently hates.
While it originally meant being aware to conspiracy theories (the moon landing took place in a soundstage. Stay woke). Its meaning has evolved. As urban dictionary puts it:
What was wrong with just using aware?
Nothing. I've never referred to myself as 'woke' though I have defended the original definition which is just being aware of injustice. The problem is that by simply admitting that you're aware of injustice, especially racial injustice, rightwing conservatives immediately accuse you of being 'woke' and use the word as both an insult and a way to dismiss the injustice one might be addressing. Of course they do this because they are often the perpetrators of the injustices and continue to harbor deep seated prejudices thus they prefer the status quo of systemic racial injustice in society and want to obfuscate any exposure of it.
And if obfuscating it doesn't work they turn on the crocodile tears as they proclaim their own victimhood and claim it's reverse racism against white Christians that's the real problem and are bitterly angry with anyone not 'aware' enough to see what they believe are injustices targeting white conservative Christian culture. I mean how dare someone reply with a "Happy Holiday" in response to a conservative Christians "Merry Christmas"! I mean when will the persecution stop?!? /s
That's the kind of shit they're worried about when black Americans are more likely to be stopped and searched, serve longer sentences, are less likely to get probation for the same crimes than whites even though whites are as likely if nor more likely to use and sell drugs. But being aware of those facts about racial inequality apparently makes me "woke" and an enemy of conservatives and white nationalists, but not giving a fuck about Christmas apparently means I'm attacking Christians and not being sensitive enough about their supposed horrible plight and persecution.
Bingo.
It comes down to them wanting everyone to be 'woke' when it comes to any injustice they experience, from not being allowed to discriminate against 'sinners', Hunter Biden's laptop, the investigation of dirty Donald, to high gas prices and inflation. Anything they see as unfair or unjust that they believe effects them, everybody better wake the fuck up and address their needs. As for any other injustice "others" experience, they want you to go back to sleep and stop rocking their boat, they don't want you putting their white Christian privilege at risk.
People of color have been dealing with (some) white anxiety around the clock for many of our lifetimes. Why can't some whites get it through their heads that we are just people with dreams and ideas like themselves, even when we don't dream or ideal the same? It is like I was born immersed in a world of white, heterosexual, Christian conservatives and they will never let me live it down that I can never be good enough for the lot of them doing the endless complaining!
As usual!
The posts attribute the following quote to Lincoln: “There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together... while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any man is in favor having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln made these remarks during one of a series of debates in 1858 with Stephen Douglas, when the men were vying for control in the Illinois General Assembly ( bit.ly/2Z4WkCV ).
In the same speech, Lincoln said: “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.”
Most people, epically Lincoln, are more complicated than can be explained by simplistic pronouncements and judgments based on cherry picked statements made on the campaign trail.
For instance, Barack Obama said this during a Democratic debate "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." Only a fool would use those sort of statements ins isolation to describe Obama's beliefs.
Is that why you "cherry picked" a statement by Obama? To provide an example of cherry picking?
Yes. Isn't that very clear?
Well, it seems that you did some cherrypicking with the Obama statement.
Only a fool would try to compare what Obama said and what Lincoln said. But of course, those are only two comments made by Lincoln. The article itself has other instances.
Being on the campaign trail is different than not being on the trail when you make seemingly racist statements, was he appealing to racists with those comments?
Not really, but glad you cleared that up.
Yes. That was the whole point of the quote. How much more obvious does it need to be? I literally wrote,
"Only a fool would use those sort of statements ins isolation to describe Obama's beliefs. "
campaign trail is different than not being on the trail when you make seemingly racist statements
Of course it is. If he had spoken out forcefully in favor of the absolute equality between the races in 1858, he never would have been President. And if he wasn't President....
Yet Lincoln was in favor of colonization and in fact brought the subject up when he invited freed blacks and abolitionists to the WH in 1862 and the preliminary EP. The blowback was such that he never mentioned it again publicly and it was dropped from the final EP.
He was vocal about colonization and had been for some time.
So, was he racist or did he not believe that equity between white and black could exist?
And then changed his mind, as the Emancipation Proclamation and his actions thereafter makes clear.
was he racist or did he not believe that equity between white and black could exist?
But if you want to understand Lincoln's early views on voluntary colonization, you should read them. He's quite capable of speaking for himself.
As I stated he changed his mind or more accurately dropped the subject because of the blowback in his 1862 meeting with free blacks and abolitionists.
I have read them and he is quite clear in his views on it, thus my question to you.
except you didn't. You said he never mentioned it again. Those are not the same thing.
Then by all means enlighten me.
This is my complete comment:
If you don't know the answer to the question I asked you in 2.1.6 that isn't my problem and you best enlighten yourself.
Except you didn't state that in 2.1.6 . That makes your claim in 2.1.8 that you quoted again for some reason, false.
Lol. I just know you have no way to support your false premise in 2.1.6
LMAO, you better read 2.1.5
LOL, you are really out in right field, take a break.
I did, Its my comment. How can you possibly imagine that helps you? Or have you totally given up on making a rational argument and are simply throwing out random words and pretending they are responsive?
ou are really out in right field, take a break
Since you can't support your argument, I guess that's the best you can do. Sad.
That is my comment 2.1.6 to you responding to 2.1.5. Hope this clears up your confusion.
LOL, what is sad is your inability to read and understand.
Cheers.
By a 2022 standards, pretty much every person ever born is a racist (if those standards are applied equitably to all people. some really racist people don’t think members of some races can be racists.) so it’s a meaningless word, particularly when discussing people born 200 years ago in a radically different culture.
Hence my quote at the opening of the article.
My whole reason for writing this was because John posted an article about FDR's Christmas message to the nation and then there was a total off-topic about him being a racist. If Lincoln should be judged in his own time, so should FDR.
Very good and relevant seeding
Thanks!
Thomas Jefferson wrote thousands of words clearly suggesting that he thought the Africans were inferior to whites.
There is no such record of Lincolns racism other than a few passages from a few speeches in heated political campaigns. I think its certainly possible that Lincoln was racist , because he was brought up in a time and place as a child where it was likely a widespread view. But there isnt a lot of record of it.
Jefferson is different.
Thomas Jefferson wrote thousands of words clearly suggesting that he thought the Africans were inferior to whites.
So what? He, like Lincoln or FDR, was also a man of his times and was in general, ahead of them on racial issues for someone born in the mid 1700s. Ultimately his words did significantly more for equality for blacks than almost anyone else.
Thomas Jefferson allegedly knew slavery was wrong, but did next to nothing to end it. Why?
He needed his slaves for economic reasons.
Was that his only reason?
"Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building," said Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the SF school board's renaming committee.
ut did next to nothing to end it. Why?
This is from his draft of the Virginia Constitution. The provision was obviously rejected.
Tellingly, neither of those provisions would have effected him personally. He got his and so was willing to shut the door to others.
By closing down new importation of slaves into Virginia, his own slaves would have become more valuable at sale.
Exactly, our clever Southerners ended the Atlantic Slave Trade here in 1808 to boost the value of their slaves while the stupid Cubans and Brazilians continued importing slaves for 60 more years.
It's an acknowledgment of the obvious reality that immediate emancipation was impossible.
The only hope for Virginia to outlaw slavery in 1783 was to do so gradually, and even that was impossible.
Jefferson was being pragmatic and trying to actually offer a solution that had a chance of working.
y closing down new importation of slaves into Virginia, his own slaves would have become more valuable at sale.
Do you have any proof that was his motivation?
Do you think American slaves benefited from the end of transatlantic trade or were harmed by it?
It's astounding how many attack people for not accomplishing the impossible.
One of the problems with calling Lincoln a racist is that he understood , or thought he understood, that he needed to appeal to both racists and non racists if he wanted to succeed in national politics.
I think Lincoln was originally indifferent to the subject of race, other than that he wanted to end slavery. In the Lincoln-Douglas debate noted in the seed, Lincoln made anti-Negro comments in order to counteract Douglas telling the voters that Lincoln was an n lover, so to speak. It was a political calculation.
With this I totally agree. It's impossible to divorce his campaign speeches from their political context.
These sorts of attempted comparisons are problematic at best.
People today can not even begin to comprehend the pressures and complications folks like Abe and FDR faced making such decisions and it’s a fools errand trying to apply standards of today, to decisions made back then.
20-20 hindsight jockeys are worthless in this regard.
Sparty,
That is the point of this article. FDR was dragged out on the rug, and I am pointing out that both these men are being viewed by today's standards.
I’m agreeing with it. My problem is watching people here pick and choose who usually gets judged poorly.
Hint, it’s usually the more conservative people who get judged by today’s standards. Either way I agree, they are foolish comparisons to make.
April 11, 1865: Last Public Address
In Lincoln's last public address, he recommended extending the right to vote to the African Americans who had fought for the Union. This expressed his belief that African Americans should be granted full political equality.
It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.
He might have evolved. I know a lot of that came from his relationship with Jefferson Davis.
He obviously did. The purpose of the Civil war went from preserving the union to ending slavery.
It was Lincoln that ended that period of seeing blacks as inferior.
Lincoln stopped the union from ending. He would have done it any way he could. But his views prior to that were racist. The point of this discussion
Lol. you get mad at judging FDR by modern standards but have no problem judging Lincoln by those same standards, despite Lincoln being born generations earlier.
Contemporary standard of "Racism" as used today is meaningless when discussing someone born more than 200 years ago.
Exactly.
LOL... Irony. You kind of missed the point. And had you read my previous commentary you would have seen, that all I was saying is if you judge one, you have to judge them all, or at least anything more than 50+ years ago.
Okay, than you have no basis to object to FDR being called a racist. You can't play the "he was at war card" excuse for FDR, so he's not a racist, and then declare Lincoln (who didn't put people in camps because of their race ) a racist because of his speeches. Pretty much no historical figure will survive the 2022 racism test, so it's silly to categorize every historical person as a racist. Using the same word to describe the racial views of John Calhoun and Lincoln is just idiotic. They're both racists! George Wallace, RFK and Booker T Washington, all racists! The word has no meaning. If everyone is a racist, no one is.
You are twisting my words purposefully. I despise that.
So one last clarification.
If FDR was a racist, then so was Lincoln or you judge both by their time.
Why do you doubt that they both were racist, white men?
Ok Perrie. We have to chalk this one up for you.
Remember tomorrow is another day!
Thanks for that comment Vic. It's good to know that we can have a discussion with an outcome and it was very big of you to acknowledge the point I was trying to make.
Drinker,
The very point I was trying to make is that both men were racist. I never brought up their color. Why are you?
Wikipedia sheds an interesting light on this
I think there is considerable doubt if FDR was personally racist. I dont think there is anything inherent in the internment of the Japanese Americans that indicates that. More likely Roosevelt wanted to keep the nation united for a long war and he somewhat lost control of the narrative to fear mongerers.
Republicans weren’t the main obstacle back then for voting rights. Should we judge the current Democrat party by the Democrats back then?
Not necessarily judge them, but we have to understand that most of the left today fully embraces the ideology of the democrats of the 19th century.
How long will some conservatives tell themselves such tragic tales? The democratic party of today is not a party to segregation. It does not seek to divide people along any type or kind or thought.
Exactly, there are many conservative democrats.
Conservative democrats are in the democratic party, but these conservatives are not in the mode of "southern democrats" that fled away for a conservatism which is outdated, old, decrepit, and dead yet alive.
Unless of course you are any of these things:
- Fiscally responsible
- Pro Life
- Pro 1st amendment (free speech)
- Pro 2nd amendment
- A person who had the temerity to not support Hillary (a deplorable)
- A person who had the temerity to not support Biden (a fascist)
- Pro border control
- Pro Law enforcement
- Pro punishment for criminal activity
- Pro Military
- etc, etc
Of course, there is this illusion that democrats have conceded "pro-" ground to conservatives. It is only a party's delusion. Merry Christmas!
I have asked this before; Today. Is the only important thing about people in history were they nice to blacks?
Oh, you’ll get your junk slapped for that one here.
For the race baiters, yes, of course.
What possible difference does someone's opinion about Lincoln matter today?
About the same as it does for FDR.
And be careful about who you imply is a race-baiter.
Charger,
This discussion got started over not being nice to Japanese Americans, not blacks. So I guess the answer to your question is no.
But I don't think any statues have been taken down over that
No, I don't know of any Japanese that considered themselves black.
It is often stated that history is written by the victors, in this case, more white European men.
Their own women and Native Americans had less worth than a black fieldhand
but no one was lower than a Chinaman. Hell the Texas Rangers guarding the Southern Borders circa
1900 had little to no respect for Tejanos, but that paled compared to their attitudes
about Mexicans and their "shoot on sight" policies about Chinamen.
So Sexism and racism generally belong to the ruling entities, in this case, white men.
Its not just the USA, it is prevalent throughout the rest of the world
usually with a bad dose of religion thrown in.
Racism and sexism are learned, tribalism is in our DNA
But should we judge Lincoln as a man or a president based on this? I do not think so. Lincoln lived in a world where certain things were taken for granted - among them, that the various races of human being were different in some significant way that warranted discrimination. This was an idea as old as civilization and there is just no particular reason that Lincoln, or anyone else should have felt very differently about it.
Now, imagine that Lincoln or any of his contemporaries, rather than living in the ignorance of their times, was exposed to the knowledge we have in the 21st century. Imagine he understood that black, white, or red skin did not determine a person’s capacity for intelligence or compassion. Imagine that he had the opportunity to see that black families and white families could be the same. That black people could be lawyers, doctors, scientists, or artists with competency equal to anyone else. That people of any color could feel the same love or pain that he felt.
That creates a very different foundation for judging a man.
And then even if we could establish that Lincoln had reason to understand the natural equality and universality of the human race, what could he have achieved - even as president - in the political climate of 1860? Is there something more radical he could have done that he didn’t do? I don’t see how. I think everything he did in the context of his times took an extreme level of political and personal courage and leadership - beyond what we might reasonably expect.
It is important to remember and acknowledge this from Lincoln before taking office in 1861:
And so it clear from the excerpt above (more besides in the entirety of the speech, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, “SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN AT COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK CITY” NEW YORK, NY (27 FEBRUARY 1860), that Lincoln argued (made a case) for why slavery could not be extended (advanced) westward to "free states." Despite any perceived or suspected impact or advantage southern slave states and their owners thought adding to free state enumeration would give to someday ending slavery.
Incidentally, it could be that this Cooper Institute speech was a direct factor in why once inaugurated Lincoln could not convince southern slate owners to believe he would not eventually 'labor' to end slavery altogether. Inevitably, those slave states secession led to the freeing of all slaves as a direct consequence of them not trusting Lincoln, a president willing to leave them as slaver owners. . . right where he found them. They only had to agree to not going any farther west with owning men/women/children as personal property.
This is one "h" of a long argument from Lincoln on issues related to slavery. Lincoln argued against slavery quite a bit I am discovering through research of his speeches. These speeches are directly accountable for why southern conservatives did not trust (soon after such arguments were delievered) President Lincoln would allow slavery to continue. The southerners, supporters of slavery, did not understand that President Lincoln was a constitutionalist president while deploring slavery in his person.
Check out this speech. It is deep. Mr. Lincoln makes (loves) great debate! There is just too much there to share/quote here.