The Legacy of Abraham Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, shall we discuss the centralization of power under Lincoln? His legacy in that regard?[/quote]

He realized that freedom for all men was more important than strict adherence to a document that alleged to support the equality of all men while apparently also allowing for the legal ownership of men.

Freedom on one side. A piece of paper on the other. Lincoln chose freedom, the South chose a piece of paper. The South chose economic freedom over individual freedom, Lincoln went the other way. Anyone with a libertarian streak and an ability to recognize the hypocrisy in touting rights while claiming ownership of other men would have made the same choice Lincoln did. There are some things more important than strict adherence to a piece of paper that protects freedoms.

To paraphrase/borrow from George Orwell: All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others. That was the attitude of the Southern founding fathers who also owned slaves, and Lincoln saw right through it. He didn’t advocate total equality for blacks, but he certainly understood that no country that stood for freedom could do so in good faith and then enslave an entire race of people.[/quote]

A man who knows his history knows that not just Southern landowners stood for slavery.

Yankee shipowners brought those slaves across the Atlantic.

Yankee politicians supported slavery many times at the state and national level.

The state of New York, for instance, did not even abolish slavery until 1828 – 40 years after the drafting of the Constitution.

Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the US and only one term away from Lincoln’s, was from New Hampshire and yet fiercely protected slavery.

James Buchanan, the president prior to Lincoln, also a Yankee, from Pennsylvania vigorously supported it too.

Yankees owned slaves in the early decades of our Republic.

Blacks owned black slaves too.

Even the Cherokees owned a large number of black slaves.

Southern whites, by percentage, owned very few slaves. It was a rich man’s deal.

What’s the point of this li’l lesson? While Southern landowners are vilified for slavery and rightfully so, it was not limited to them.

[/quote]

This is all completely irrelevant to my point. Southerners, Northerners, Westerners, DownUnderers, whatever. The fact is that Lincoln chose individual freedom for everyone (not complete freedom, but ending slavery is obviously the first gigantic step toward that end) and the South decided that they’d rather secede than uphold the principles that they, and many others outside of the South, hypocritically espoused when it suited them and their needs.

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? How do we hold up the Constitution as a perfect document that should be treated in absolute terms when the people who wrote it engaged in behavior that was completely inimical to the very fabric of that document?[/quote]

Why does the past vex you so?

Are you responsible for the sins of your ancestors?[/quote]

The past does not vex me. What vexes me are those who say that the Constitution is a perfect document. It’s damn near close, about as close as anyone could get, I suppose. But it is NOT perfect, not when its language somehow allowed for states to legally own other people. I don’t care what time period we’re talking about. People who risked life and limb for personal freedom should be able to understand the massive hypocrisy in then turning around and buying/selling people.

And I understand that they didn’t even consider blacks to be people back then. I don’t want people who failed to distinguish between an animal and a human being with dark skin to then write the document that I’m supposedly beholden to now.

162

Not a constitutional expert, but who says that the States that had slavery were following the constitution?
Not to derail the thread, but it’s sort of been like the bible, where people love following section X, but tend to ignore section Y to suit their needs.
With my limited knowledge, I’d say it’s more likely they had this great document and people chose to ignore the parts they didn’t like/agree with.
Going with what CB said (as far as historical context), if the MO of the day was that Africans weren’t accepted as equal, then it isn’t surprising that slavery existed.
Probably wrong on some or all of what I’ve said, so I’m not opposed to different opinions or updating what little knowledge I have on the subject.

163

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

No need to patronize me. Of course I understand this issue from a historical perspective. I have a degree in history and political science. I am acutely aware of the atmosphere under which the Constitution was drafted and all of that.
[/quote]

wow. Dude, you asked a question, I tried to answer it.

Forget I bothered.

164

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

No need to patronize me. Of course I understand this issue from a historical perspective. I have a degree in history and political science. I am acutely aware of the atmosphere under which the Constitution was drafted and all of that.
[/quote]

wow. Dude, you asked a question, I tried to answer it.

Forget I bothered. [/quote]

My bad. I’ve been a little eggy lately. The surf where I live has actually been fairly large for the first extended time in months, and I haven’t had the time to take advantage yet. It’s starting to mellow out and I’m on the verge of collapse trying to find a way to get out there for half a day before it goes away for probably the entire summer. It’s a byproduct of this drought out here; few storms equals few swells.

165

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, shall we discuss the centralization of power under Lincoln? His legacy in that regard?[/quote]

He realized that freedom for all men was more important than strict adherence to a document that alleged to support the equality of all men while apparently also allowing for the legal ownership of men.

Freedom on one side. A piece of paper on the other. Lincoln chose freedom, the South chose a piece of paper. The South chose economic freedom over individual freedom, Lincoln went the other way. Anyone with a libertarian streak and an ability to recognize the hypocrisy in touting rights while claiming ownership of other men would have made the same choice Lincoln did. There are some things more important than strict adherence to a piece of paper that protects freedoms.

To paraphrase/borrow from George Orwell: All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others. That was the attitude of the Southern founding fathers who also owned slaves, and Lincoln saw right through it. He didn’t advocate total equality for blacks, but he certainly understood that no country that stood for freedom could do so in good faith and then enslave an entire race of people.[/quote]

A man who knows his history knows that not just Southern landowners stood for slavery.

Yankee shipowners brought those slaves across the Atlantic.

Yankee politicians supported slavery many times at the state and national level.

The state of New York, for instance, did not even abolish slavery until 1828 – 40 years after the drafting of the Constitution.

Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the US and only one term away from Lincoln’s, was from New Hampshire and yet fiercely protected slavery.

James Buchanan, the president prior to Lincoln, also a Yankee, from Pennsylvania vigorously supported it too.

Yankees owned slaves in the early decades of our Republic.

Blacks owned black slaves too.

Even the Cherokees owned a large number of black slaves.

Southern whites, by percentage, owned very few slaves. It was a rich man’s deal.

What’s the point of this li’l lesson? While Southern landowners are vilified for slavery and rightfully so, it was not limited to them.

[/quote]

This is all completely irrelevant to my point. Southerners, Northerners, Westerners, DownUnderers, whatever. The fact is that Lincoln chose individual freedom for everyone (not complete freedom, but ending slavery is obviously the first gigantic step toward that end) and the South decided that they’d rather secede than uphold the principles that they, and many others outside of the South, hypocritically espoused when it suited them and their needs.

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? How do we hold up the Constitution as a perfect document that should be treated in absolute terms when the people who wrote it engaged in behavior that was completely inimical to the very fabric of that document?[/quote]

Why does the past vex you so?

Are you responsible for the sins of your ancestors?[/quote]

I do happen to be an actual descendant of John Brown, though. Seriously. He’s some distant ancestor of mine. I don’t feel responsible for his sins. The rest of my ancestors at the time were the Spanish Basque that settled the California coast in the late 18th century, and a bunch of Germans and Italians who came here at the turn of the 20th century. I don’t feel responsible for their sins. Not really sure what they did, though.

I don’t even know what ancestral guilt has to do with any of this. Is this another one of your attempts to ignore the basic thesis of my post and latch onto a minor supporting detail buried somewhere in one of my usual walls of indiscernible text?

166

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? [/quote]

It isn’t really a reconciliation as it is an understanding.

You’re talking about the clash of ideals and perspective of “what is”. Of course there is going to be some convoluted overlap of philosophical leanings. Slavery had been a practice prevalent in almost every culture the world has even seen, even when the civilizations were isolated form each other. It was “what you did”.

And the idea that all men were equal under the law, rich, poor, minority, majority, etc was relatively new to government compared to slavery.

Nothing justifies one man enslaving another, however you can understand where the action came from if you look at if from the prespective of history. [/quote]

You make a legitimate point, the whole what you did vs new ideas thing. But I suppose what my point boils down to is that the new idea itself was this thought that men had certain innate, inherent rights and that these were conferred by God upon ALL men.

It seems to me that they shouldn’t make a compromise with the formidable tide of centuries of precedent of that nature. If they truly stood for freedom for all men, that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights, shouldn’t the ONE thing they should actually do above and beyond all others be eradicating something as foreign to inalienable rights as owning another man?

I understand that slavery was an ever-present fact of humanity at that point. I also understand that eradicating slavery was not something destined to happen overnight here. But I can’t imagine that any other freedom, be it a state’s right, federal rights, economic rights, etc. is more important than the right to be free of institutionalized ownership by another person, to be bought and sold like an animal.

So I think that Lincoln’s legacy should reflect that he was the President who took the next logical step, the next logical LARGE step, that is, toward progressing what the Founding Fathers engendered. I don’t think that they finished the job entirely back then, but I think they gave us a pretty damn good head start, about as best as possible under the circumstances.

Lincoln gave us a huge push forward. I’m not sure where we’re really at now, but I don’t like it a whole lot. But I don’t think there is anything that Lincoln did that was wrong from a Constitutional standpoint because I think adherence to the CAUSE is more important than adherence to the DOCUMENT, simply because the document is a protector of the cause. The cause is freedom.

I also don’t think that Lincoln should be blamed for future Presidents who have used his admitted power-grabbing/extending methods to further more insidious changes. Lincoln bent the rules for what I believe was a cause benevolent enough to justify his questionable interpretation of his powers. It is the future Presidents, the Nixons and the Obamas and the Bush’s and the Roosevelts, that bear sole responsibility and blame for their transgressions. Shame on them, but not on Lincoln.

As an aside, I don’t think it’s all that important that Lincoln was still pretty much an overt racist. Racism is one thing; advocating treating another race like an animal instead of a person, in a country that stands for the freedom of all men, is another thing entirely.

167

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
And I understand that they didn’t even consider blacks to be people back then.[/quote]

Really?

168

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
And I understand that they didn’t even consider blacks to be people back then.[/quote]

Really?[/quote]

Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.

173

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.

174

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this.

175

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I’ve been a little eggy lately. [/quote]

Yoke’s on you.

176

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this. [/quote]

He is right for the wrong reason. Yes southern slave states would have loved to count slaves as a whole person for electoral college purposes only. Otherwise slaves were property, therefore, less than human.

177

Just started reading “We Have the War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, November 1860-April 1861” -William J. Cooper

Seems pretty relevant. I’ve already learned a bit about Abe that I didn’t know.

178

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this. [/quote]

He is right for the wrong reasons. Yes southern slave states would have loved to count slaves as a whole person for electoral college purposes only. Otherwise slaves were property, therefore, less than human. [/quote]
I don’t think they were seen as less than human, well maybe by some, because white men were having zero problems making babies with black women. Maybe lesser humans is a better way to state it but then again how much of that view was based on cultural rather than genetic (which they had very little clues about)reasons. Dumas’ father was half black and he was able to become a French general under Napoleon and Dumas, who was writing while slavery was still legal in the US and France, is France’s most popular author so how blacks were viewed when it comes to being human is not that simple. Also, Russia’s greatest poet, Pushkin, was of mixed race.

179

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this. [/quote]

He is right for the wrong reason. Yes southern slave states would have loved to count slaves as a whole person for electoral college purposes only. Otherwise slaves were property, therefore, less than human. [/quote]

DBCooper made a statement about how slaves were considered to be “2/3”(I believe it was actually 3/5) of a person. To me, he seemed to be talking about how slaves were counted for electoral reasons. Slaves were not considered subhuman; many people just believed humans could be owned at the time.

When DBCooper tried to make it a race issue, instead of a slave vs. non-slave issue, he was even more off the mark. Some black people owned slaves, some white people were slaves.

180

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.

Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]

The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this. [/quote]

He is right for the wrong reasons. Yes southern slave states would have loved to count slaves as a whole person for electoral college purposes only. Otherwise slaves were property, therefore, less than human. [/quote]
I don’t think they were seen as less than human, well maybe by some, because white men were having zero problems making babies with black women.[/quote]

There were many gallons of ink devoted, by the supporters of slavery, to the contention that blacks were subhuman. Slavery was often painted, with that nonsense in mind, as a necessary and even compassionate institution: The slave required guidance, domestication. Pseudoscience was often invoked.

The argument was common enough that Douglass thought it merited evisceration (don’t let the first line fool you. The last is the one that is relevant here):

"The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men – digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave – we are called upon to prove that we are men?"

Edit: White men in the rural South (and North) were making babies with actual animals back then, too, by the way. Well, not making babies, but doing that thing that makes babies when it’s done between compatible animals.