What Would Lincoln Say?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I don’t think Lincoln was for equality for the same reason that my grandparents still call blacks “negroes”- product of his times.

The abolitionist movement was really more a fringe movement- at no time until Lincoln was elected did it really have any power.

Lincoln’s personal feelings on blacks may not ever be truly known, but the standing facts are that he stated virulent opposition to slavery. He was not willing to sacrifice the Union because of it, but by the time he issued the proclamation after the Battle of Antietam, the war was already in full on bloodbath mode.

Now, he didn’t have to do that, and he certainly caught shit from Northerners for it too. Entire regiments resigned, stating unequivocally that they “would not fight for sambo.”

However, he did it anyway. And it’s well known that the people in his cabinet, especially those like Seward and Chase, were very anti-slavery, Chase to the extreme. If you were Lincoln, but thought blacks unequal and unworthy, then why surround yourself with these people? It wouldn’t make sense.

In the end, did the times make Lincoln? To a degree, sure. They made him in the same way they “made” US Grant, who was a drunk who failed at every business he ever ran until the war came along, or Sherman, who alot of people thought was just insane. Without the war, these would have been men without a purpose.

However, you have to admit that in a time when so many failed at the jobs that they were trying to do, these men rose to occasion when it came. All in all, there’s not much more a man can do other than that.

I think that if he’s in magical-sky-heaven land, then he’s probably happy, because that would mean that he’s seen the past century and a half and come to see that blacks are indeed people, just like everyone else. And I bet he’d be cordial to Barack… I think they’d have more in common than simply being great orators.

22

The Eight-Volume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Read it and weep.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I understand your intent here.
But as for the Lincoln excerpts…context, context, context. Mercifully short:

Some number of them are from The Debates in 1858, in which Lincoln took the position that Douglas, and Popular Sovereignty, was in error. His point, sarcastically, was to distance himself from the so-called “Black Republican” and abolitionists, and make his stand on law, practicality and ethics. The Cooper Union speech would take this all further in 1860.

Lincoln’s feelings on race, spanning almost 40 years in public life, require more insight than I can summon, even on his birthday.[/quote]

Well, Doc, I would hate to be accused of taking Mr. Lincoln’s words out of context. So I took the liberty of paging through the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, a sprawling eight-volume, four-thousand page compilation of every speech, every letter, and every semi-coherent margin scribble ever produced by the man, between 1832-1865.

I highly recommend this collection to you.

The first two quotations I leave for your consideration are from this collection. I have noted the volume and page numbers, so that you may correct my assumption concerning their context if necessary.

The third quotation is second-hand from Major General Benjamin Butler, quoting private correspondence from Lincoln, so you may be within your rights to discount this source.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for 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 and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

"I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

I will also add to the remarks I have made, that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it,

I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."[/i]

–4th Debate with Stephen A. Douglas in Charleston, Illinois
Sept. 1858 (Vol. III, pages 145-146)

Context as I understand it: Lincoln is seeking to assure the whites of Springfield that his opponent Stephen Douglas is mistaken in his allegation that Lincoln advocates social and political equality between blacks and whites in America.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.

In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life as easily, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case."[/i]

–Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Africans in Washington D.C.
August 1862 (Vol. V, pages 371-372).

Context as I understand it: Lincoln is explaining to a group of emancipated blacks why he believes it better for both of their races that they, and black people in general, leave the United States.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]"But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us…

I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. What, then, are our difficulties in sending all blacks away?

"If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men. I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerrilla war because we have taught these men how to fight. All the arms in the South are now in the hands of their troops, and when we capture them we will of course take their arms.

There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.

“I wish also you would give me any views that you have as to how to deal with the negro troops after the war. Some people think that we shall have trouble with our white troops after they are disbanded. But I don’t anticipate anything of that sort, for all the intelligent men among them were good citizens or they would have not been good soldiers. But the question of the colored troops troubles me exceedingly.”[/i]

–Letter to General Benjamin F. Butler
March 1865 (Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benj. F. Butler, page 903)

Context as I understand it: seems fairly self evident, particularly in light of the preceding passage. Lincoln was concerned about the deleterious effects of armed free black people in postwar America, and wished for some way to remove them.

And as an aside, I am making no “contentions,” but rather asking a rhetorical question.

23

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Barack would never order bombardment of cities (which was considered illegal and immoral in Lincoln’s time),
[/quote]

It was illegal and immoral? I want a source for that one.

But aside from that, the Civil War was the first example of Total War on a large scale. It has been employed after in every war since. There’s something to be said for it’s effectiveness… and I bet that if a WWII came around, you’d be surprised by what Obama would do.

Illegal? Again, source.

Untrue. If it was clear, then we wouldn’t be arguing about it today.

You’re judging a man that you don’t know and never met on some of the worst hypothetical situations a leader can make. In short, you’re full of shit, as usual.

[quote]
They DO share a love for increasing the size of the Federal Government though. Gotta give 'em that…[/quote]

Right, because when Bush got in he drastically cut the size of the… wait a second…

24

[quote]Otep wrote:
Varquinar, thank you for posting those pictures.

[/quote]

You are very welcome, Ootip.

26

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Context as I understand it: seems fairly self evident, particularly in light of the preceding passage. Lincoln was concerned about the deleterious effects of armed free black people in postwar America, and wished for some way to remove them.

And as an aside, I am making no “contentions,” but rather asking a rhetorical question.
[/quote]

Very interesting stuff Varq.

Can you blame him? As I said, I think alot of this was in the context of the times. Wouldn’t you be concerned about an oppressed people who have been under the oligarchy’s heels for generations suddenly being free, armed, and back in the South?

What I see in the letter to Butler is more of him being worried and wondering what to do.

Again, was he racist? Clearly. But everyone was. Doesn’t make it right, of course, but putting it in historical context leads you to believe that he is definitely less racist than others, and at least willing to see the blacks as people instead of property.

Not that it has any bearing on this, but I don’t recall if Butler was an abolitionist or not, but I strongly, strongly dislike him because… well, he was a fucking moron of a “general.”

27

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I think that if he’s in magical-sky-heaven land, then he’s probably happy, because that would mean that he’s seen the past century and a half and come to see that blacks are indeed people, just like everyone else. [/quote]

I don’t think there was ever any doubt in Lincoln’s mind that blacks are people. His belief, as I understand it, is that they are not the equals of white people. Surely this idea has not yet completely disappeared in modern America, even among people in elected positions. The difference is that these people would no longer own up to such a belief in a public statement.

Yup. They’re both kind of skinny and gangly, and are both legislators from Illinois.

Other than that, I suppose the next four years will show us just how much they do have in common.

28

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I bet that if a WWII came around, you’d be surprised by what Obama would do.

[/quote]

Did you mean CWII, or WWIII?

And I daresay I wouldn’t be surprised.

29

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Eight-Volume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Read it and weep.

DrSkeptix wrote:

I understand your intent here.
But as for the Lincoln excerpts…context, context, context. Mercifully short:

Some number of them are from The Debates in 1858, in which Lincoln took the position that Douglas, and Popular Sovereignty, was in error. His point, sarcastically, was to distance himself from the so-called “Black Republican” and abolitionists, and make his stand on law, practicality and ethics. The Cooper Union speech would take this all further in 1860.

Lincoln’s feelings on race, spanning almost 40 years in public life, require more insight than I can summon, even on his birthday.

Well, Doc, I would hate to be accused of taking Mr. Lincoln’s words out of context. So I took the liberty of paging through the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, a sprawling eight-volume, four-thousand page compilation of every speech, every letter, and every semi-coherent margin scribble ever produced by the man, between 1832-1865.

I highly recommend this collection to you.

The first two quotations I leave for your consideration are from this collection. I have noted the volume and page numbers, so that you may correct my assumption concerning their context if necessary.

The third quotation is second-hand from Major General Benjamin Butler, quoting private correspondence from Lincoln, so you may be within your rights to discount this source.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people;

And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for 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 and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

"I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

I will also add to the remarks I have made, that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it,

I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."[/i]

–4th Debate with Stephen A. Douglas in Charleston, Illinois
Sept. 1858 (Vol. III, pages 145-146)

Context as I understand it: Lincoln is seeking to assure the whites of Springfield that his opponent Stephen Douglas is mistaken in his allegation that Lincoln advocates social and political equality between blacks and whites in America.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.

Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.

In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life as easily, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country.

This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case."[/i]

–Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Africans in Washington D.C.
August 1862 (Vol. V, pages 371-372).

Context as I understand it: Lincoln is explaining to a group of emancipated blacks why he believes it better for both of their races that they, and black people in general, leave the United States.

[center]* * *[/center]

[i]"But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?

I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us…

I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves. What, then, are our difficulties in sending all blacks away?

"If these black soldiers of ours go back to the South I am afraid that they will be but little better off with their masters than they were before, and yet they will be free men.

I fear a race war, and it will be at least a guerrilla war because we have taught these men how to fight. All the arms in the South are now in the hands of their troops, and when we capture them we will of course take their arms.

There are plenty of men in the North who will furnish the negroes with arms if there is any oppression of them by their late masters.

"I wish also you would give me any views that you have as to how to deal with the negro troops after the war. Some people think that we shall have trouble with our white troops after they are disbanded.

But I don’t anticipate anything of that sort, for all the intelligent men among them were good citizens or they would have not been good soldiers. But the question of the colored troops troubles me exceedingly."[/i]

–Letter to General Benjamin F. Butler
March 1865 (Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benj. F. Butler, page 903)

Context as I understand it: seems fairly self evident, particularly in light of the preceding passage. Lincoln was concerned about the deleterious effects of armed free black people in postwar America, and wished for some way to remove them.

And as an aside, I am making no “contentions,” but rather asking a rhetorical question.
[/quote]

Yes…and?

In the context of the mid-19th centruy, he was no different than many enlightened souls: Mr Lincoln was not a believer in the equality of man.

He simply believed that inequality did not make slavery right; that the Framers knew and planned for slavery to disappear; that slavery was an issue that could not be expanded to territories and New States; that secession was illegal and secessionists were therefore in simple rebellion; he swore to uphold the Constitution and that meant he had to prosecute a war foist upon him.

Yes…and?

V, these are things you already know. Does any of this subtract is some mysterious way from the way we view him? If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology. It seems to me that the fact of his history is what commends him all the more.

30

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology. [/quote]

If by “we” you mean people who have taken the trouble to educate themselves about it, then yes, we have.

If you mean the pronoun to include the great masses of ardent admirers of Lincoln (as well as the ardent admirers of Obama, inasmuch as these groups tend to overlap), then no, I don’t think we have at all.

32

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Barack would never order bombardment of cities (which was considered illegal and immoral in Lincoln’s time),

It was illegal and immoral? I want a source for that one.

But aside from that, the Civil War was the first example of Total War on a large scale. It has been employed after in every war since.

There’s something to be said for it’s effectiveness… and I bet that if a WWII came around, you’d be surprised by what Obama would do.

the blocking of ports (illegal against one’s own ports),

Illegal? Again, source.

suspension of Habeus Corpus (only Congress could do that).

Untrue. If it was clear, then we wouldn’t be arguing about it today.

I also suspect that BHO would never order a scorched earth policy, especially in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, or in South Carolina.

You’re judging a man that you don’t know and never met on some of the worst hypothetical situations a leader can make. In short, you’re full of shit, as usual.

They DO share a love for increasing the size of the Federal Government though. Gotta give 'em that…

Right, because when Bush got in he drastically cut the size of the… wait a second…
[/quote]

"Though Lincoln acted to suspend the writ, nowhere in the United States Constitution does the president have this power and in fact it is given instead to Congress by any plain reading of the document. Lincoln denied this, asserting "Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power [suspension of habeas corpus].

But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power." As any plain reading of the Constitution reveals, this claim is dubious."

In addition to the overwhelming historical evidence against Lincoln’s interpretation and actions regarding habeas corpus, the standing precedent of the United States Supreme Court also holds that Congress has the power to suspend the writ.

A precedent on the matter was handed down in 1807 by Chief Justice John Marshall. In the case of Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout Marshall affirmed what had been known without contention by the founding fathers - that the suspension power was given to Congress. His decision read:

"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton’s case and in Burford’s case.

If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide."

It is accordingly of little surprise that this precedent was cited in 1861 when Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was challenged in court.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/813646/posts

By the way, if you published that during Lincoln’s presidency, you’d have been arrested.

But what’s a Constitution anyway? Just a piece of paper! Are we going to let it block our plans for empire?

LOL!!!

33

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology.

If by “we” you mean people who have taken the trouble to educate themselves about it, then yes, we have.

If you mean the pronoun to include the great masses of ardent admirers of Lincoln (as well as the ardent admirers of Obama, inasmuch as these groups tend to overlap), then no, I don’t think we have at all.[/quote]

Most of the world resolved slavery without violence, usually by just paying the owners and setting slaves free. Only someone as hell bent on creating a powerful government as Lincoln would use war as a means.

The man used scorched earth on parts of the country (Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina).

http://www.suvcw.org/education/documents/liebercode.htm

"Mr. Lieber?s rules of conduct for war became General Order 100, accepted by President Lincoln and issued by the Adjutant General on April 24, 1863. While this General Order affected only the United States, it has become, what some scholars believe, the cornerstone for the internationally accepted Geneva Convention rules.

http://www.suvcw.org/education/documents/liebercode.htm

“Art. 37. The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously
punished.”

Lincoln = war criminal

34

The United States did not exist before The Civil War.
The various United States were in a position of independent physical(geographical) sovereignty with conditional joint sovereignty in specific realms and jurisdiction described by the Federal Constitution.

and then there was Lincoln.

Most of what was true about the constitution at its ratification is no longer true(or accepted as true by lawmakers, judges, lawyers, presidents, etc…).

So, in my opinion, this is the Nation that Lincoln built.

Whatever existed before that is lost to history.

35

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Could it be that Abe, despite his canonization in American political history as a great man, was to an extent just an ordinary politician, i.e., one who says one thing and does another?

I happen to subscribe to the theory that says the events that surrounded his presidency made him a “great man” and not the other way around.[/quote]

Is that a real theory, or did you just invent it, then subscribe to it? Less than great men do not become great because of circumstance and events. Great men show their greatness when given the opportunity.

When given the chance to be great they show their greatness. Ordinary men are revealed by crisis. Bush was an ordinary man. FDR, ordinary man in exra-ordinary times. Washington?

A great man. Lincoln? A great man. They shaped their times. They shaped our world. Most others did what they could, what most men would do. For some it went well (FDR). For others (Bush)…maybe not so much.

37

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
…In the context of the mid-19th centruy, he was no different than many enlightened souls: Mr Lincoln was not a believer in the equality of man.

He simply believed that inequality did not make slavery right; that the Framers knew and planned for slavery to disappear; that slavery was an issue that could not be expanded to territories and New States

I agree.

that secession was illegal and secessionists were therefore in simple rebellion; he swore to uphold the Constitution and that meant he had to prosecute a war foist upon him.

I agree this is what he thought but anyone would be hard pressed to point to the Article in the Constitution that made it “illegal” for a state to secede. Lincoln created that illegality out of the clear thin air.

Yes…and?

V, these are things you already know. Does any of this subtract is some mysterious way from the way we view him? If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology. It seems to me that the fact of his history is what commends him all the more.

I can honestly see how he can be admired by some and detested by others.

I can guarantee you one thing - if you were a Milledgville, Georgia widow living on a small farm and barely getting by and Yankee soldiers stopped by one day in late 1864 in their “effort to prosecute the war”, and raped your daughters, slaughtered your pigs and milk cow, burned your house and barn to the ground, stole your meager supply of corn, and laughingly sauntered on their merry way,

I don’t think you’d be too impressed with Lincoln’s reply to Sherman when Sherman presented Lincoln with the Christmas gift of the city of Savannah: [i]

"Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere.

Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce…But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army officers and men."[/i]

I know if I had been that widow, a portrait of John Wilkes Booth would have hung in the living room of the house I rebuilt in the ashes of my old home.[/quote]

Secession? Andrew Jackson didn’t care for it, nor for nullification. I would have thought the personality of Jackson would appeal to you, but perhaps you prefer Henry Clay, whom he had wished he had hanged.

Articles in the constitution? All a matter of interpretation. It is “We the People…” after all, not “We the States…” It is The People who are endowed with rights, and The Law serves to guard those rights.

By that interpretation, the Constitution is the covenant was among the people of a united country, and not among its several states alone. By that reasoning, the Union was indissoluble, except by those States with various axes to grind (i.e., New England, once, and slave states, perpetually, and now apparently even New Hampshire).

Conceded, that is a contention, and no more a fact than the one you argue; and that, sadly, is why wars are fought and lost. Once lost, the point is not even moot.

“…if I had been that widow…”

She may have even chosen to curse her neighbors in South Carolina, who instigated the calamity.
Or, she may have been able to do so then, but only recently can I approach Psalm 19.

Perhaps now you are ready to read this, in case you have not already done so:

38

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology.

If by “we” you mean people who have taken the trouble to educate themselves about it, then yes, we have.

If you mean the pronoun to include the great masses of ardent admirers of Lincoln (as well as the ardent admirers of Obama, inasmuch as these groups tend to overlap), then no, I don’t think we have at all.[/quote]

By “we” I meant the two of us, but there is room in the Clubhouse for Pushharder.

Not so for HH, at least until he stops eating that lead-based face paint they made him wear in clown school.

40

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

If so, congratulations: we have conquered the mythology.

If by “we” you mean people who have taken the trouble to educate themselves about it, then yes, we have.

If you mean the pronoun to include the great masses of ardent admirers of Lincoln (as well as the ardent admirers of Obama, inasmuch as these groups tend to overlap), then no, I don’t think we have at all.

By “we” I meant the two of us, but there is room in the Clubhouse for Pushharder.

Not so for HH, at least until he stops eating that lead-based face paint they made him wear in clown school.[/quote]

Knew you couldn’t answer me. Really in denial there.

Lincoln, MLK, JFK — they’re all phony.

Ah well, if myths and made-up legends make you happy…