Abraham Lincoln, the racist revealed?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-book-sheds-light-on-lincolns-controversial-racial-views/

"For the sake of your race, you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people," Lincoln said, promoting his idea of colonization: resettling blacks in foreign countries on the belief that whites and blacks could not coexist in the same nation.
"Colonization After Emancipation" (Image: Amazon) Lincoln went on to say that free blacks who envisioned a permanent life in the United States were being "selfish" and he promoted Central America as an ideal location "especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land — thus being suited to your physical condition."

Lincoln presided over a federal union of individual states, half of which had built an economy and a society -- a way of life -- on the principle that black people were not people at all, but property to be bought and sold and used as white people saw fit. In the event, those states proved willing to withdraw from the Union, form a nation of their own, and fight a bitter and bloody war to protect that way of life.


Lincoln himself was born and raised in Kentucky, a "border" state that remained more or less "neutral" -- under threat of Union arms -- during the Civil War. For him to embrace and even promote the concept of blacks as free people, no matter where he thought they should live as free people, was a monumental step at the time, and evoked passions that without question led directly to his assassination.


When I think of the word "racist," I can't help thinking of it as being necessarily a relative term, specifically relative to patterns of thought and behavior prevalent at the point in history when it is applied. In the context of 1860s North America, I can't even begin to characterize Lincoln's views as "racist." I think doing so would be like referring to Susan B. Anthony as being "misogynistic" because she didn't advocate abortion on demand. Such terms are creatures of the times in which they're used, and to which they're applied.


Incidentally, one of the most egregious shortcomings of "political correctness" is its rejection of the principle I've just described.

Quote from: tbone0106 on March 07, 2011, 01:10:04 AM
Lincoln presided over a federal union of individual states, half of which had built an economy and a society -- a way of life -- on the principle that black people were not people at all, but property to be bought and sold and used as white people saw fit. In the event, those states proved willing to withdraw from the Union, form a nation of their own, and fight a bitter and bloody war to protect that way of life.

Not just half the country, but the entire country had been built on the backs of slave labor. The Yankees certainly did not want the freed men to move north and take the jobs of Northerners. Nor into the border states. They almost to a man thought the Blacks were inferior. 

QuoteLincoln himself was born and raised in Kentucky, a "border" state that remained more or less "neutral" -- under threat of Union arms -- during the Civil War. For him to embrace and even promote the concept of blacks as free people, no matter where he thought they should live as free people, was a monumental step at the time, and evoked passions that without question led directly to his assassination.

On more than one occasion, Lincoln made it plain that his purpose, almost in it's entirety, was to preserve the Union. If he needed to keep the Blacks in bondage, so be it; if he needed to keep only some Blacks in bondage, so be it. There was nothing magnanimous about Lincoln, and 620000 American soldiers ( plus and untold number of civilians ) lost their lives, and were maimed forever, to preserve the Union, which is a compact between sovereign states.

QuoteWhen I think of the word "racist," I can't help thinking of it as being necessarily a relative term, specifically relative to patterns of thought and behavior prevalent at the point in history when it is applied. In the context of 1860s North America, I can't even begin to characterize Lincoln's views as "racist." I think doing so would be like referring to Susan B. Anthony as being "misogynistic" because she didn't advocate abortion on demand. Such terms are creatures of the times in which they're used, and to which they're applied.


Incidentally, one of the most egregious shortcomings of "political correctness" is its rejection of the principle I've just described.

Sorry, Tee, but that is giving a pass to a man that was more worried about where he would get his tariffs that in freeing the Negroes.

I would suggest the War Machine that Lincoln built to destroy the South, was of great concern to the Canadians who feared an eye for conquest being cast in their direction, and eventually was the means to implement the Manifest Destiny of the country against the Plains Indians. That, of course was after the assassination of Lincoln, but racism, the belief that other peoples were inferior, was very much alive in Lincoln's world and in the North.

Shooter, I don't think we have much to argue about. I was trying to make two points. First, Lincoln -- no matter his personal feelings toward blacks or the Union or tariffs -- walked out on a very long and spindly limb with his Emancipation Proclamation. (In fact, his upbringing and his concern about the Union and tariffs, etc., ADDED to the boldness of his stance.) Second, and more important, judging Lincoln by today's standards -- a thing history's modern revisionists are wont to do -- is pointless, an inane exercise, and terribly misleading, if not needlessly damaging to Lincoln's reputation. Thus my example using Susan B. Anthony.


Challenging a man who had insulted you to a duel and then shooting him to death was still a common practice in those days, especially in the South. Calling the winners of those contests 'murderers' because doing such a thing violates today's standards and laws is just silly. Dueling was common because it was quite legal and generally, if not universally, accepted at the time. (Note of interest: Although dueling has since been outlawed in much of the old South, mostly by state constitutional amendment, the majority of northern states have no laws specifically outlawing the practice to this day. Of course, this probably reflects the fact that the dueling waned in the north generations before it disappeared in the south. Also, sad to say, in many parts of the north it's now illegal to own the traditional tools of dueling -- handguns.)


I have no problem with free and frank discussion of anything Lincoln might have said or done or written with regard to slaves or blacks in general. But I cringe when modern progressive/liberal revisionists cast their enlightened judgments a century-and-a-half back through time to paint a man with a brush that hadn't even been invented when that man walked the earth.

Quote from: tbone0106 on March 07, 2011, 09:51:21 AM
Shooter, I don't think we have much to argue about. I was trying to make two points. First, Lincoln -- no matter his personal feelings toward blacks or the Union or tariffs -- walked out on a very long and spindly limb with his Emancipation Proclamation. (In fact, his upbringing and his concern about the Union and tariffs, etc., ADDED to the boldness of his stance.) Second, and more important, judging Lincoln by today's standards -- a thing history's modern revisionists are wont to do -- is pointless, an inane exercise, and terribly misleading, if not needlessly damaging to Lincoln's reputation. Thus my example using Susan B. Anthony.


Challenging a man who had insulted you to a duel and then shooting him to death was still a common practice in those days, especially in the South. Calling the winners of those contests 'murderers' because doing such a thing violates today's standards and laws is just silly. Dueling was common because it was quite legal and generally, if not universally, accepted at the time. (Note of interest: Although dueling has since been outlawed in much of the old South, mostly by state constitutional amendment, the majority of northern states have no laws specifically outlawing the practice to this day. Of course, this probably reflects the fact that the dueling waned in the north generations before it disappeared in the south. Also, sad to say, in many parts of the north it's now illegal to own the traditional tools of dueling -- handguns.)


I have no problem with free and frank discussion of anything Lincoln might have said or done or written with regard to slaves or blacks in general. But I cringe when modern progressive/liberal revisionists cast their enlightened judgments a century-and-a-half back through time to paint a man with a brush that hadn't even been invented when that man walked the earth.

I would suggest, Tee, it was the liberal/progressive Lincoln Myth Builders that promulgated the Honest Abe bull shit after his assassination and until this present day. The reputation of a scoundrel can not be shattered any more than what he himself gave ammo to shatter it with.

Historians are now beginning to see the light of a man that destroyed a section of the country supposedly to keep that section from destroying itself by secession.

BTW, his Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves; it took a war and the Thirteenth Amendment to do that. He killed the concept of the fourth branch of government, namely the sovereign states, and almost every piece of legislation since has been to drive more nails into the coffin.

Shooter, how would secession have destroyed the South?

Lincoln is the man who is given credit for freeing the slaves. 

Quote from: U_Kay on March 07, 2011, 11:26:39 AM
Shooter, how would secession have destroyed the South?

Secession would not have destroyed the South. It was destroyed by the war and Reconstruction, and took a hundred years to overcome.

QuoteLincoln is the man who is given credit for freeing the slaves.

I know! Abolishing slavery, though, was never his intent; preserving the Union, and maintaining a source of income was the intent.

Lincoln's racial views have been well documented and well known since he wrote or uttered them, at least to those who wanted to know or who did not have a vested interest in denying them.

Quote from: Berggeist on March 07, 2011, 02:15:29 PM
Lincoln's racial views have been well documented and well known since he wrote or uttered them, at least to those who wanted to know or who did not have a vested interest in denying them.

Hello, Bergg. We don't see enough of you any more.

Quote from: Shooterman on March 07, 2011, 02:17:24 PM
Hello, Bergg. We don't see enough of you any more.

I have been attending conferences and giving papers.  Also, spring is trying to come; and I have been working in the garden.  From time to time, this troll, this mountain spirit, makes it to the fora to shoot the bull and to chew the fat. (I have always found it best to shoot the bull before attempting to chew his fat! ;D

Quote from: Berggeist on March 07, 2011, 02:21:41 PM

I have been attending conferences and giving papers.  Also, spring is trying to come; and I have been working in the garden.  From time to time, this troll, this mountain spirit, makes it to the fora to shoot the bull and to chew the fat. (I have always found it best to shoot the bull before attempting to chew his fat! ;D

Excuses, excuses...

Quote from: Berggeist on March 07, 2011, 02:21:41 PM

I have been attending conferences and giving papers.  Also, spring is trying to come; and I have been working in the garden.  From time to time, this troll, this mountain spirit, makes it to the fora to shoot the bull and to chew the fat. (I have always found it best to shoot the bull before attempting to chew his fat! ;D

LOL :D :D :D
Be a man Berg, chew his fat before you shoot it, it always makes for good show.
Just keep an eye on that horn...

I love this commercial...

Honest Abe - GEICO Commercial

Quote from: Shooterman on March 07, 2011, 12:00:35 PM
Secession would not have destroyed the South. It was destroyed by the war and Reconstruction, and took a hundred years to overcome.

I know! Abolishing slavery, though, was never his intent; preserving the Union, and maintaining a source of income was the intent.

Shooter, I agree with you on the above post! Many Northerners still think the South is behind. If they only knew how ignorant they sound when they speak critically of the South. (Often, those from the North who have been so negative, have never been to the South.)

Oh well...

It's a common mistake that revisionists make today: take events of 100+ years ago and put them in today's context, judge historical figures by today's standards. It doesn't work, but it does "justify" liberal/progressive agendas to their satisfaction.  ::)

I think that Reconstruction did more to destroy the South than the war did. Booth did the South a real disservice when he fired that bullet; and the South did indeed "howl" as a result.

Lincoln...his focus was the preservation of the Union, at all costs, and Lord, the cost was so very high...I don't see him as overtly racist, since one must remember the era in which he lived. Also, the words "racist", "bigot", and "Nazi" have been thrown around so much lately they've lost their meaning, IMVHO. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't have the force of law at the time it was written, it would do many today to remember that. It was a political ploy.