Did Abraham Lincoln Hold Racist Views?

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  perrie-halpern  •  one month ago  •  112 comments

Did Abraham Lincoln Hold Racist Views?
Nothing is more unfair than to judge of a statesman of a past day by the light of the present. “The Life and Times of Viscount Palmerston”

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

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1  magicschoolbusdropout    one month ago

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" !

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1    one month ago

No, it's called history. These are Lincoln's own words.

btw, I don't like the word "woke". It is dismissive.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago
Nothing is more unfair than to judge of a statesman of a past day by the light of the present.

"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."

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.1    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.1.3  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.3    one month ago

Then take that up with your friends who thought that FDR was fair game.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago

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."

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    one month ago

"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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
1.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago
btw, I don't like the word "woke". It is dismissive.

Yes.  Usually intentionally and often justifiably.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.9  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    one month ago

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?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  CB @1.1.9    one month ago

Woke, PC and plenty of other progressive judgements are just weakness trying to leave the body .....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.11  CB   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.10    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  CB @1.1.11    one month ago

No need to say any more on this topic than I’ve already said.    No matter what all y’all think.

Peace!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.12    one month ago

Peace, if you will allow it. Drop your 'rock'? Stop weaponizing skin color and sexuality. A new year is coming! Just do it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.11    one month ago
ays something about how some conservatives view minorities, people of color, and 'otherized' people.

As do some liberals.

Point?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.11    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.9    one month ago
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?

Probably for many of the same reasons black people, brown people, red people and yellow people do.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    one month ago

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!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.17    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.13    one month ago
Drop your 'rock'? Stop weaponizing skin color and sexuality. 

Will you stop pillorying conservatives at every turn?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
dennissmith
Freshman Silent
1.1.21  dennissmith  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.2    one month ago

Several historical figures have been judged by today's standards and had places named after then renamed, statues removed etc. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.22  charger 383  replied to  dennissmith @1.1.21    one month ago

The standard used for removing statues needs to be applied to both sides

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
1.1.23  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago
LBJ? The guy who supported civil rights? Come on.

Actually his record is a mixed bag. 

He dedicated himself to eradicating the Ku Klux Klan and finding the killers of civil rights activists, while also working diligently, and perhaps illegally, to suppress the efforts of grassroots civil rights activists to fight segregationists who had mocked the disappearance of the civil rights workers as a publicity stunt.

I suspect his reasons for supporting the Civil Rights Act were more political than an attempt to do the right thing.

  Johnson basked publicly in the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but privately characterized it to southern leaders as a Kennedy bill and pointed out to them that Goldwater was the only presidential candidate who was a member of the NAACP. Johnson understood the serious problems of poverty and power in urban ghettoes, but suspected that civil disorders there were parts of conspiracies involving Communists and/or wealthy radical conservatives from Texas determined to destroy him.

In the short term, his genius proved true. His efforts at negotiating tricky issues of race were successful in the fall, as he defeated Barry Goldwater by one of the largest margins in U.S. history, losing only the five expected Deep South states and Arizona.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.22    one month ago

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 

Davis believed in   paternalism , which was the belief that European-Americans had the spiritual and moral responsibility to serve a parental role to slaves and thus viewed slavery as a positive aspect of American culture.
original
-
Alexander Stephens, the vice-president of the confederacy , bragged in a speech that the Confederacy was the world's first nation founded on the concept of white supremacy. 
-
And on and on. All of the statues to these people should be taken down. 
-
As for the "historic" value of such statues, that is nonsense, at least in the sense that the statues defenders mean it. Almost all of these statues and monuments were built as a part of the "Lost Cause" movement, which was an effort to mythologize the South as a region of civilization and chivalry while ignoring the scourge of slavery. 
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  CB @1.1.13    one month ago

When I offer peace, it is offered without qualification.    You should try that sometime.    You’ll be much happier in life.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.24    one month ago
What is the justification for leaving statues to confederate traitors standing in 2023 ?

Why must something be justified to you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.27  CB   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.25    one month ago

Is this an offer of peace from you? Or, should I keep hope alive?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.28  Ronin2  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago
LBJ? The guy who supported civil rights? Come on.

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.29  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.28    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  CB @1.1.27    one month ago
Is this an offer of peace from you?

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 ......

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.31  CB   replied to  Sparty On @1.1.30    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1    one month ago
Nothing is more unfair than to judge of a statesman of a past day by the light of the present.

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.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
1.2.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
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 ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.2.1    one month ago
Where did you get that that was the idea coming from my post ?

The idea came from a quote that you posted.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.3  MrFrost  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1    one month ago
Being Woke

This has been so over used it's sickening. Woke simply means "aware", which the right wing apparently hates. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.3    one month ago
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:

Umbrella term for individuals who are engrossed by social justice and thinks of themselves as saviors with a  moral high ground , but remain willfully ignorant to the irrationality of their claims and the problems they create. These individuals give special treatment to certain minorities in hopes of ending racism and perpetuate mental illnesses as the norm.
"My son's woke kindergarten teacher taught him that he's actually a girl because he played with dolls ."
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
1.3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @1.3    one month ago

What was wrong with just using aware?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.2    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.3    one month ago
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

Bingo. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.3.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.4    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.6  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.3    one month ago

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!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.3.7  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.3    one month ago
I've never referred to myself as 'woke'

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.4    one month ago

As usual!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one month ago

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.”

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    one month ago

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?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    one month ago
you "cherry picked" a statement by Obama?  To provide an example of cherry picking?

Yes. Isn't that very clear? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1    one month ago
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. 

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?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.2    one month ago
Isn't that very clear?

Not really, but glad you cleared that up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.3    one month ago
t seems that you did some cherrypicking with the Obama statement. 

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....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one month ago

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?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.6    one month ago
as vocal about colonization a

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. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.7    one month ago
And then changed his mind, as the Emancipation Proclamation and his actions thereafter  makes clear. 

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.

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. 

I have read them and he is quite clear in his views on it, thus my question to you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.8    one month ago
I stated he changed his mind

except you didn't. You said he never mentioned it again. Those are not the same thing. 

hem and he is quite clear in his views on it, thus my question to you

Then by all means enlighten me. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.9    one month ago
except you didn't. You said he never mentioned it again. Those are not the same thing. 

This is my complete comment:

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.
Then by all means enlighten me. 

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.10    one month ago
his is my complete comment:

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. 

w the answer to the question I asked you in  2.1.6  that isn't my problem and you best enlighten yoursel

Lol. I just know you have no way to support your false premise in 2.1.6

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    one month ago
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. 

LMAO, you better read 2.1.5

Yet Lincoln was in favor of colonization and in fact brought the subject up when he invited freed blacks andabolitionists 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.
Lol. I just know you have no way to support your false premise in 2.1.6

LOL, you are really out in right field, take a break.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.12    one month ago
AO, you better read 2.1.5

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. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.13    one month ago
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.

That is my comment 2.1.6 to you responding to 2.1.5. Hope this clears up your confusion.

Since you can't support your argument, I guess that's the best you can do.  Sad. 

LOL, what is sad is your inability to read and understand. 

Cheers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one month ago
By a 2022 standards, pretty much every person ever born is a racist

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.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    one month ago

Very good and relevant seeding 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @3.1.1    one month ago

Thanks! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    one month ago

Thomas Jefferson allegedly knew slavery was wrong, but did next to nothing to end it.  Why? 

He needed his slaves for economic reasons. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
3.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one month ago

Was that his only reason?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
3.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago

"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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one month ago

ut did next to nothing to end it.  Why? 

The General Assembly shall not have power to . . . nor to permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the thirty first day of December, one thousand eight hundred; all persons born after that day being hereby declared free.

This is from his draft of the Virginia Constitution.   The provision was obviously rejected. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.5    one month ago
nor to permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation

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. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
3.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.6    one month ago
er of those provisions would have effected him personally

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
It was a political calculation. 

With this I totally agree.  It's impossible to divorce his campaign speeches from their political context. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5  Sparty On    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @5    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  Vic Eldred    one month ago

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.


 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    one month ago

He might have evolved. I know a lot of that came from his relationship with Jefferson Davis.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    one month ago
He might have evolved.

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.1    one month ago

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

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.2    one month ago
But his views prior to that were racist

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. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    one month ago
Contemporary standard of "Racism" as used today is meaningless when discussing someone born more than 200 years ago. 

Exactly.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    one month ago
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. 

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.5    one month ago
 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, o

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.6    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
6.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.7    one month ago

Why do you doubt that they both were racist, white men?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.2    one month ago

Ok Perrie. We have to chalk this one up for you.

Remember tomorrow is another day!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.9    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.8    one month ago

Drinker,

The very point I was trying to make is that both men were racist. I never brought up their color. Why are you? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.11    one month ago

Wikipedia sheds an interesting light on this

 According to a March 1942 poll conducted by the  American Institute of Public Opinion , 93% of Americans supported the relocation of Japanese non-citizens from the Pacific Coast  whereas only 1% opposed it. According to the same poll, 59% supported the relocation of Japanese people who were born in the country and were United States citizens, whereas 25% opposed it. [32]

...six weeks after the attack, public opinion along the Pacific began to turn against Japanese Americans living on the West Coast, as the press and other Americans [ citation needed ]  became nervous about the potential for  fifth column  activity. Though the administration (including President  Franklin D. Roosevelt  and FBI Director  J. Edgar Hoover ) dismissed all rumors of Japanese-American espionage on behalf of the Japanese war effort , pressure mounted upon the administration as the tide of public opinion turned against Japanese Americans. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#:~:text=The%20internment%20of%20Japanese%20Americans%20in%20the%20United,two-thirds%20of%20the%20internees%20were%20United%20States%20citizens.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    one month ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    one month ago

Republicans weren’t the main obstacle back then for voting rights.    Should we judge the current Democrat party by the Democrats back then?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.1  bugsy  replied to  Sparty On @6.2    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.2  CB   replied to  bugsy @6.2.1    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
6.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.2.2    one month ago
It does not seek to divide people along any type or kind or thought.

Exactly, there are many conservative democrats. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.4  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.2.3    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  CB @6.2.2    one month ago
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.

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

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.6  CB   replied to  Sparty On @6.2.5    one month ago

Of course, there is this illusion that democrats have conceded "pro-" ground to conservatives. It is only a party's delusion. Merry Christmas!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7  charger 383    one month ago

I have asked this before;  Today. Is the only important thing about people in history were they nice to blacks?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @7    one month ago

Oh, you’ll get your junk slapped for that one here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7    one month ago
Today. Is the only important thing about people in history were they nice to blacks?

For the race baiters, yes, of course.

What possible difference does someone's opinion about Lincoln matter today?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2    one month ago
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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @7    one month ago

Charger,

This discussion got started over not being nice to Japanese Americans, not blacks. So I guess the answer to your question is no.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.3.1  charger 383  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.3    one month ago

But I don't think any statues have been taken down over that

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
7.4  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @7    one month ago

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    one month ago
So the idea that Lincoln was not a racist is just not true.

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. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     one month ago
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. 

It is important to remember and acknowledge this from Lincoln before taking office in 1861:

Excerpt:

[69] A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can.[lxxxix] Judging by all the say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

[70] Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

[71] The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

[72] These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong[xc], and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

[73] I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do[xci] nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone – have never disturbed them – so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing until we cease saying.

[74] I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.[xcii]

[75] Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silence, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality – its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension – its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

[76] Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care – such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the Divine[xciii] rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance –[xciv] such as invocations to[xcv] Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

[77] Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves.[xcvi] LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.[xcvii][xcviii]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1  CB   replied to  CB @9    one month ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB     one month ago

In this speech Abraham Lincoln explained his objections to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and resurrected his political career. In the speech Lincoln criticized popular sovereignty. Questioned how popular sovereignty could supersede the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln dismissed arguments that climate and geography would keep slavery out of Kansas and Nebraska.

Most importantly, Lincoln attacked the morality of slavery itself. Lincoln argued that the slaves were people, not animals, and consequently possessed certain natural rights. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that `all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia . New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.

 

Peoria, Illinois: October 16, 1854

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say.

. . protracted useful information let out in the interest of space and time . .

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,---to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this; to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa; and that which has so long forbid the taking them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

. . protracted useful information let out in the interest of space and time . .

Let me here drop the main argument, to notice what I consider rather an inferior matter. It is argued that slavery will not go to Kansas and Nebraska, in any event . This is a palliation ---a lullaby . I have some hope that it will not; but let us not be too confident. As to climate, a glance at the map shows that there are five slave States---Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri---and also the District of Columbia, all north of the Missouri compromise line. The census returns of 1850 show that, within these, there are 867,276 slaves---being more than one-fourth of all the slaves in the nation.

It is not climate, then, that will keep slavery out of these territories. Is there any thing in the peculiar nature of the country? Missouri adjoins these territories, by her entire western boundary, and slavery is already within every one of her western counties. I have even heard it said that there are more slaves, in proportion to whites, in the north western county of Missouri, than within any county of the State. Slavery pressed entirely up to the old western boundary of the State, and when, rather recently, a part of that boundary, at the north-west was moved out a little farther west, slavery followed on quite up to the new line. Now, when the restriction is removed, what is to prevent it from going still further? Climate will not. No peculiarity of the country will---nothing in nature will. Will the disposition of the people prevent it? Those nearest the scene, are all in favor of the extension. The yankees, who are opposed to it may be more numerous; but in military phrase, the battle-field is too far from their base of operations.

But it is said, there now is no law in Nebraska on the subject of slavery; and that, in such case, taking a slave there, operates his freedom. That is good book-law; but is not the rule of actual practice. Wherever slavery is, it has been first introduced without law. The oldest laws we find concerning it, are not laws introducing it; but regulating it, as an already existing thing. A white man takes his slave to Nebraska now; who will inform the negro that he is free? Who will take him before court to test the question of his freedom? In ignorance of his legal emancipation, he is kept chopping, splitting and plowing. Others are brought, and move on in the same track. At last, if ever the time for voting comes, on the question of slavery, the institution already in fact exists in the country, and cannot well be removed. The facts of its presence, and the difficulty of its removal will carry the vote in its favor. Keep it out until a vote is taken, and a vote in favor of it, can not be got in any population of forty thousand, on earth, who have been drawn together by the ordinary motives of emigration and settlement. To get slaves into the country simultaneously with the whites, in the incipient stages of settlement, is the precise stake played for, and won in this Nebraska measure.

The question is asked us, "If slaves will go in, notwithstanding the general principle of law liberates them, why would they not equally go in against positive statute law?---go in, even if the Missouri restriction were maintained?" I answer, because it takes a much bolder man to venture in, with his property, in the latter case, than in the former---because the positive congressional enactment is known to, and respected by all, or nearly all; whereas the negative principle that no law is free law, is not much known except among lawyers. We have some experience of this practical difference. In spite of the Ordinance of '87, a few negroes were brought into Illinois, and held in a state of quasi slavery; not enough, however to carry a vote of the people in favor of the institution when they came to form a constitution. But in the adjoining Missouri country, where there was no ordinance of '87---was no restriction---they were carried ten times, nay a hundred times, as fast, and actually made a slave State. This is fact---naked fact.

Another LULLABY argument is , that taking slaves to new countries does not increase their number---does not make any one slave who otherwise would be free. There is some truth in this, and I am glad of it, but it [is] not WHOLLY true. The African slave trade is not yet effectually suppressed; and if we make a reasonable deduction for the white people amongst us, who are foreigners, and the descendants of foreigners, arriving here since 1808, we shall find the increase of the black population out-running that of the white, to an extent unaccountable, except by supposing that some of them too, have been coming from Africa. If this be so, the opening of new countries to the institution, increases the demand for, and augments the price of slaves, and so does, in fact, make slaves of freemen by causing them to be brought from Africa, and sold into bondage.

But, however this may be, we know the opening of new countries to slavery, tends to the perpetuation of the institution, and so does KEEP men in slavery who otherwise would be free. This result we do not FEEL like favoring, and we are under no legal obligation to suppress our feelings in this respect.

Equal justice to the south, it is said, requires us to consent to the extending of slavery to new countries. That is to say, inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. Now, I admit this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and negroes. But while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the negro, I wish to ask whether you of the south yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? It is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave States than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people, manifest in many ways, their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the negro. If they deny this, let me address them a few plain questions. In 1820 you joined the north, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? The practice was no more than bringing wild negroes from Africa, to sell to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears.

Again, you have amongst you, a sneaking individual, of the class of native tyrants, known as the "SLAVE-DEALER." He watches your necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave, at a speculating price. If you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. You despise him utterly. You do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. Your children must not play with his; they may rollick freely with the little negroes, but not with the "slave-dealer's children". If you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the job without so much as touching him. It is common with you to join hands with the men you meet; but with the slave dealer you avoid the ceremony---instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact. If he grows rich and retires from business, you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now why is this? You do not so treat the man who deals in corn, cattle or tobacco.

And yet again; there are in the United States and territories, including the District of Columbia, 433,643 free blacks. At $500 per head they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. How comes this vast amount of property to be running about without owners? We do not see free horses or free cattle running at large. How is this? All these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves, and they would be slaves now, but for SOMETHING which has operated on their white owners, inducing them, at vast pecuniary sacrifices, to liberate them. What is that SOMETHING? Is there any mistaking it? In all these cases it is your sense of justice, and human sympathy, continually telling you, that the poor negro has some natural right to himself---that those who deny it, and make mere merchandise of him, deserve kickings, contempt and death.

And now, why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave? and estimate him only as the equal of the hog? Why ask us to do what you will not do yourselves? Why ask us to do for nothing , what two hundred million of dollars could not induce you to do?

But one great argument in the support of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, is still to come. That argument is "the sacred right of self government." It seems our distinguished Senator has found great difficulty in getting his antagonists, even in the Senate to meet him fairly on this argument---some poet has said

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

At the hazzard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, I meet that argument---I rush in, I take that bull by the horns.

I trust I understand, and truly estimate the right of self-government. My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the principles to communities of men, as well as to individuals. I so extend it, because it is politically wise, as well as naturally just; politically wise, in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. Here, or at Washington, I would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of Virginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana.

T he doctrine of self government is right---absolutely and eternally right---but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself ? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism.

I f the negro is a man , why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another .

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. :)

 
 

Who is online



Kavika


23 visitors