'Lincoln's Promise: We'll Take an Eye for an Eye to Protect Our Black Troops'

[Popular Front of Judea]

A nice counterbalance to the stream of Neo-confederate propaganda about Lincoln that you will encounter on the internet.

In his General Order No. 252, issued on July 31, 1863, Abraham Lincoln made a promise he had to have known he could not fully keep. Upset at news that black Union soldiers, when taken prisoner by Confederates, had been treated differently from white POWs, Lincoln ordered that any indignities visited upon black troops would be replicated on an equal number of Confederate POWs.

“For every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed,” Lincoln wrote. “For every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war.”

Black Union soldiers faced harsh consequences when captured as POWs, with Confederate policy initially holding that they could be tried as criminal insurrectionists in state courts, and executed as such. The Confederate Congress also threatened to enslave black POWs—even those who had lived as free men in the North before the war.

Often, however, threats to black soldiers were more immediate. Black POWs were abused, forced to labor in the line of fire, and shot after surrendering or while “trying to escape.”

While the concept of eye-for-an-eye punishment might seem medieval, during the Civil War the practice of retaliatory killing was not uncommon. Historian Lonnie Speer has argued that black and white POWs throughout the Civil War were punished or killed to even a score—and this occurred with the knowledge and involvement of military leaders.

Despite this precedent, and continuing unequal treatment of black POWs, Lincoln found it politically and logistically impossible to follow his own orders to the letter.

In some instances, however, he was able to stand by his position that black prisoners be treated the same as white ones. For example, he insisted that black soldiers should be considered equal to whites in POW exchanges—a policy the Confederates finally agreed to in January 1865.

Lincoln's Promise: We'll Take an Eye for an Eye to Protect Our Black Troops | Slate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/08/06/abraham_lincoln_the_president_s_general_order_to_p rotect_black_pows_from.html)

[Gimbell]

Awesome.

Lincoln was not a perfect individual but he really did do what he had to do to free the slaves, preserve the union, and end the civil war.

[Anti-White]

And all the while he wanted to ship them all back to Africa. Understanding that Honest Abe was a lying mutherfucking politician pisses on any good words he spoke.

Fuck Abraham Lincoln

[Kingfish]

From what little Ive read on him (mainly from Howard Zinn's Peoples history of the USA) it seems like his political opportunism drove what he said and how he acted towards blacks more so than any moral position he might have held.

[Popular Front of Judea]

From what I have read Lincoln started out focused on political expediency but over time his moral stance towards African Americans evolved. Wars do that.


From what little Ive read on him (mainly from Howard Zinn's Peoples history of the USA) it seems like his political opportunism drove what he said and how he acted towards blacks more so than any moral position he might have held.

[Comrade Chernov]

Ah, Abe Lincoln. A racist, totalitarian Liberal who was fighting against an even greater evil than himself and his radical Republican party.

[Teacher]

Lincoln was great. The emancipation proclamation was one of the most radical expropriations of ruling class property in the history of the world.

[Rafiq]

Ah, Abe Lincoln. A racist, totalitarian Liberal who was fighting against an even greater evil than himself and his radical Republican party.

Totalitarian? You're a reactionary.

[Red Commissar]

And all the while he wanted to ship them all back to Africa. Understanding that Honest Abe was a lying mutherfucking politician pisses on any good words he spoke.

Fuck Abraham Lincoln

Eh, this is taking a very specific and misleading reading of Lincoln's position.

The whole "back to Africa" thing was vogue among some self-styled reformers in the US, and even those who were in the radical wings of the abolitionist movement seemed to have believed this was the solution. Lincoln himself was of this opinion until about some point during the Civil War, when he came to the conclusion that the whole idea of back to Africa was an insult to those black union soldiers.

There have been some fringe books and other accounts claiming Lincoln held these views if not more racist ones to his death, though unsurprisingly these get held up by reactionary lost cause historians, what ever the original intention of the author may've been. These aren't held in high regard by many historians, and this isn't because there's some conspiracy to keep them quiet but simply that the sources they claim to find are questionable. Those that they do end up presenting to critics are often found to have been put out of context or misdated.

A good, reliable book about Lincoln's views on slavery is Eric Foner's "The Fiery Trial" which charts Lincoln's views on slavery from his early years as a politician in Illinois, to a Senator, and finally during the course of his presidency and the Civil War.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Totalitarian? You're a reactionary.

Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Quick on those neo-Confederate talking points aren't you? Yes Lincoln suspended habeas corpus twice in the midst of a civil war -- first in the case of mobs that sabotaged a crucial railroad link and the second after the resistance that occurred when Lincoln authorized the calling up of the militia. There never was a blanket suspension of habeas corpus.

Proclamation 94 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_94)


Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Quick on those neo-Confederate talking points aren't you? Yes Lincoln suspended habeas corpus twice in the midst of a civil war -- first in the case of mobs that sabotaged a crucial railroad link and the second after the resistance that occurred when Lincoln authorized the calling up of the militia. There never was a blanket suspension of habeas corpus.

Proclamation 94 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_94)

Don't appreciate being called a neo-Confederate for asking an honest question, but okay.

[Ocean Seal]

People need to differentiate between holier than thou rhetoric and actual objective progress for a very reactionary nation. Call Lincoln all you want, the United States advanced eons in the reconstruction era. That's real progress.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I didn't say you were neo-Confederate, I was noting that "Lincoln suspended habeas corpus!" is a neo-Confederate talking point.

Here is a fine collection of neo-Confederate propaganda:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html


Don't appreciate being called a neo-Confederate for asking an honest question, but okay.

[Teacher]

As someone who studies the history of communist countries and also happened to go through a big U.S. Civil War phase, I see a lot of parallels in the way the histories of both things are misrepresented.

In the same way that Cold Warriors have exercised an undue amount of influence and manipulation of the historical record vis-a-vis the Soviet Union/PRC/Cuba/world communist movement in general, the "Lost Cause" historians of the U.S. Civil War for a long time demonized Lincoln and Reconstruction.

The difference is that the civil rights movement in the U.S. made it possible for revisionist historians to challenge the racist histories of the Civil War/Reconstruction, but the Cold War raged on until the 1990s and anyone who wrote even mildly positive things about communist countries had the dogs unleashed on them -- professionally, personally and in the media.

One might think that the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War would make it safer to question traditional anti-communist narratives in academia, but being a radical with an anti-capitalist disposition is pretty much impossible if you want to be taken seriously. Identity politics is okay because its safe and doesn't really challenge the system.

[Astarte]

How any Marxist can have vehemence against Lincoln is beyond me. As has been mentioned already in this thread under his leadership slavery was abolished as a legal mode in the United States. The First International even sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Lincoln, though obviously a bourgeois liberal politician even said:
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

[d3crypt]

Lincoln kicks ass! He is the only president in US history i really like.

[Comrade Chernov]

Okay, maybe I took the totalitarian thing a little too far. The modern Republican party looks on Lincoln as they do Reagan, and I suppose I've still, sadly, got some of the Democrat in me that I was raised with. The emancipation of the slaves was certainly a major advancement, and I only wish that Lincoln was left of liberal. I've also never been a fan of suspending the rights of the people, even if it was a wartime necessity.

If Lincoln had a good legacy, it was certainly the emancipation of slaves.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

@Astarte

I agree with you, but you need to read that quote in full:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."

So as you can see, although he was beginning to understand 'the labor problem', he wasn't quite ready to give up on capital altogether.

However, it is pretty radical in context considering these were the words of a then sitting U.S. President. Don't forget also that at this time there were already Marxists working within the Republican Party.

[Comrade Chernov]

It astonishes me that there were Marxists within the Republican Party in the 1860s, and yet by the 1900s the Republican Party had already become the ***** of corporations that they remain to be to this day.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Fuck Abe Lincoln. Dude was happy to see black soldiers paid half wages. Dude was only "willing" to arm blacks insofar as they were already arming and organizing themselves.

If you haven't, go read "Jailbreak Out of History: The Re-biography of Harriet Tubman". Now.

[Anti-White]

Eh, this is taking a very specific and misleading reading of Lincoln's position.

The whole "back to Africa" thing was vogue among some self-styled reformers in the US, and even those who were in the radical wings of the abolitionist movement seemed to have believed this was the solution. Lincoln himself was of this opinion until about some point during the Civil War, when he came to the conclusion that the whole idea of back to Africa was an insult to those black union soldiers.

There have been some fringe books and other accounts claiming Lincoln held these views if not more racist ones to his death, though unsurprisingly these get held up by reactionary lost cause historians, what ever the original intention of the author may've been. These aren't held in high regard by many historians, and this isn't because there's some conspiracy to keep them quiet but simply that the sources they claim to find are questionable. Those that they do end up presenting to critics are often found to have been put out of context or misdated.

A good, reliable book about Lincoln's views on slavery is Eric Foner's "The Fiery Trial" which charts Lincoln's views on slavery from his early years as a politician in Illinois, to a Senator, and finally during the course of his presidency and the Civil War.

Fringe books? where is the approved reading list on Lincoln, Commisar Don't-Know-Shit-From-Shineola?. Where the fuck can you point decisively to Lincoln renouncing the Colonization Society? What HARD evidence is there to indicate he changed his mind? The motherfucker was an officer of the ACS!

You know the Left is dead when leftist dickheads want to srub clean the deeds of a white corporate lawyer from the 19th century.

[Astarte]

@Astarte

I agree with you, but you need to read that quote in full:
[I]
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits."


Thanks, I actually wasn't even aware of the second half of that quote - I have always just seen the truncated version quoted.

[Paul Pott]

Lincoln was a progressive leader who oversaw the destruction of the Southern slaver aristocracy and the beginning of the unchallenged rule of the bourgeoisie in the US. He saved the Union, laid the groundwork for prosperity in the following decades, and ensured the US would become a power greater than anything in Europe.

He was one of the last great leaders of the era in which capital played a progressive role. Also his Republican party had many of our political forebearers in the US.



You know the Left is dead...

Yeah, it died with Marx. :rolleyes:

Lincoln was a progressive bourgeois politician in the 19th century. To attack him as a reactionary shows a profound ignorance of the role he played in history and the cultural conditions at the time concerning race.

Marx believed in phrenology, which pretty much said blacks were dumber because they had certain skull characteristics, you gonna attack him too?

[Fakeblock]

Marx believed in phrenology, which pretty much said blacks were dumber because they had certain skull characteristics, you gonna attack him too?

Are you sure? A search on marxists.org lead to these:


"One of my friends here, who dabbles a lot in phrenology, said yesterday when looking at the photograph of your wife: A great deal of wit! So you see, phrenology is not the baseless art which Hegel imagined."

and (speaking of Gustav Struve)


"Regarding his own skull as normal he suddenly developed an interest in phrenology and from then on he refused to trust anyone whose skull he had not yet felt and examined. He also gave up eating meat and preached the gospel of strict vegetarianism; he was, moreover, a weather-prophet, he inveighed against tobacco and was prominent in the interest of German Catholicism and water-cures. In harmony with his thoroughgoing hatred of scientific knowledge it was natural that he should be in favour of free universities in which the four faculties would be replaced by the study of phrenology, physiognomy, chiromancy and necromancy. It was also quite in character for him to insist that he must become a great writer simply because his mode of writing was the antithesis of everything that could be held to be stylistically acceptable."

There is, however, Marx's letter where he calls Ferdinand Lasalle "the Jewish nigger". And anti-white wouldn't really be in the wrong for attacking Marx on his prejudiced attitudes. The difference between Marx and Lincoln was that Marx held principled anti-colonial (at least later in life) and abolitionist politics.

Lincoln and the Union did play a progressive role in the Civil War, that is hard to deny. His personal politics are another matter. Personally I'd prefer politicians like Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans, if I had to play favourites.

[Orange Juche]

From what little Ive read on him (mainly from Howard Zinn's Peoples history of the USA) it seems like his political opportunism drove what he said and how he acted towards blacks more so than any moral position he might have held.

What matters more - what he believed, or what he actually did?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Lincoln was a progressive leader who oversaw the destruction of the Southern slaver aristocracy [. . .]

Yeah, oversaw - like an overseer - like a cracker with a whip.
Way to write black people out of their own history.


[He oversaw] the beginning of the unchallenged rule of the bourgeoisie in the US. He saved the Union, laid the groundwork for prosperity in the following decades, and ensured the US would become a power greater than anything in Europe.

Great man history much?
Probably the spoils of settler-colonialism (and the virtual re-enslavement of blacks at the end of reconstruction) had more to do with America's prosperity than fuckin' Abraham Chinstrap did.


He was one of the last great leaders of the era in which capital played a progressive role. Also his Republican party had many of our political forebearers in the US.

[. . .]

Lincoln was a progressive bourgeois politician in the 19th century. To attack him as a reactionary shows a profound ignorance of the role he played in history and the cultural conditions at the time concerning race.

Marx believed in phrenology, which pretty much said blacks were dumber because they had certain skull characteristics, you gonna attack him too?

No, if I'm going to attack Marx, it's along the axes proposed by Federici and critics who reject Marx's liberal baggage w/r/t the "progressive" character of capitalism, with its implicit patriarchal, Eurocentric, character. Of course, I don't expect this criticism to be shared by somebody whose sense of American history is all about white dudes and their government(s).

[Paul Pott]

Yeah, oversaw - like an overseer - like a cracker with a whip.

Well, it's good to know what I'm dealing with right off the bat.



Great man history much?

There is no such thing as great man history, there is the set of potential outcomes provided for by the material conditions and the choices made by the personalities and forces striving to reach their goals in those conditions. Those at the helm of the state, like Lincoln, are central to history whether you like it or not. But I guess it makes you feel radical to deny that.



Probably the spoils of settler-colonialism (and the virtual re-enslavement of blacks at the end of reconstruction) had more to do with America's prosperity than fuckin' Abraham Chinstrap did.

Oh, so it had nothing to do with the central role of industrial capital in American economic and political life and the policy pursued by Lincoln and his successors in favor of the interests of the bourgeoisie. Somehow it can all be chalked up directly to racism still existing.


No, if I'm going to attack Marx, it's along the axes proposed by Federici and critics who reject Marx's liberal baggage w/r/t the "progressive" character of capitalism, with its implicit patriarchal, Eurocentric, character. Of course, I don't expect this criticism to be shared by somebody whose sense of American history is all about white dudes and their government(s).

Let's clarify one thing so there is no confusion on the part of anyone reading this thread - Marx was not a liberal. He didn't praise Lincoln or the class nature of his government from some kind of emotional viewpoint. Marx analyzed history and contemporary events using the dialectical materialist method central to what we call Marxism.

You are the liberal, and you and your chums should take your Howard Zinn-esque nonsense somewhere it won't contaminate the discussion.

[Anti-White]

Lincoln was a progressive bourgeois politician in the 19th century. To attack him as a reactionary shows a profound ignorance of the role he played in history and the cultural conditions at the time concerning race.

Marx believed in phrenology, which pretty much said blacks were dumber because they had certain skull characteristics, you gonna attack him too?

Am I gonna attack Marx? Fuck yeah.

He was more of a racist than just believing in phrenology. He was a regular user of the word "nigger" in attacking even his white enemies and often spoke of my People in the most derogatory terms. I have read many of his letters and his rank racism is shot through them.

That you didn't bring this up shows that you are either ignorant of the facts or trying to sweep them under the rug like many of the Marxist who sought so eagerly to "mentor" me for their own purposes.

Lincoln the "progressive?" He was a fucking railroad attorney and a supporter of the Free Soil Movement which wanted to exclude Blacks -- free and slave -- from the open territories so that whites could flourish and prosper through white colonialism. Should I repeat that he was a LEADER OF THE COLONIZATION SOCIETY that sought to repatriate freed Blacks to Africa.

White so-called "leftists" are fucking backward.

[tachosomoza]

Yeah, fuck Lincoln. If he could have ended or avoided Civil War without freeing slaves, he would have.

John C. Fremont > Massa Linkum.

[Paul Pott]

Am I gonna attack Marx? Fuck yeah.

He was more of a racist than just believing in phrenology. He was a regular user of the word "nigger" in attacking even his white enemies and often spoke of my People in the most derogatory terms. I have read many of his letters and his rank racism is shot through them.

In other words: Marx in some ways was a typical Westerner of the 19th century on race.


That you didn't bring this up shows that you are either ignorant of the facts or trying to sweep them under the rug like many of the Marxist who sought so eagerly to "mentor" me for their own purposes.


I brought up the phrenology thing to illustrate that Marx wasn't immune from fads of the time, like scientific racism. What he wrote in his letters is irrelevant to his work and his role in history, as are his views on race.

What is relevant, is his opposition to slavery.


White so-called "leftists" are fucking backward.

The backwards ones are the race warriors like you for whom all white people comprise the enemy. The New Black Panther Party is more your speed.

Notice how this asshole capitalizes "Black" every chance he gets. Much as the boneheads at Shitfront do with "White".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well, it's good to know what I'm dealing with right off the bat.

Yeah, one of those "crazy" people who doesn't fawn over dead rich white men. What batshit thing might I say next? You know, I didn't even go to see the Hollywood biopic. I'm practically a self-hating whiteboy. :rolleyes:


There is no such thing as great man history, there is the set of potential outcomes provided for by the material conditions and the choices made by the personalities and forces striving to reach their goals in those conditions. Those at the helm of the state, like Lincoln, are central to history whether you like it or not. But I guess it makes you feel radical to deny that.

Augh. No, it makes me "radical" that I look at the "root" of things (etymology, yo). That is, I'm not particularly concerned by the activity of state figureheads, especially in a context where there are a whole host of other actors. In particular, I'm interested in the role played by blacks in their own armed resistance, which precedes the war proper, and which, during the war, became decisive. Since, you know, "black troops" was the starting point for this thread. It's not that I don't think subjectivity is "a thing" - I just think it's absurd to make Lincoln central to black military struggle.


Oh, so it had nothing to do with the central role of industrial capital in American economic and political life and the policy pursued by Lincoln and his successors in favor of the interests of the bourgeoisie. Somehow it can all be chalked up directly to racism still existing.

Alright, but where did industrial capital come from? It's not the sort of thing you can look at in isolation; rather, American industrial capitalism was kick-started by a period of primitive accumulation. It's an idea from Marx - you may be familiar. Anyway, point being, if there were no massive invasion and appropriation of native lands, and no racialized proletariat, there wouldn't be American industrial capital because, unsurprisingly, it didn't just spring magically from policy into reality.


Let's clarify one thing so there is no confusion on the part of anyone reading this thread - Marx was not a liberal. He didn't praise Lincoln or the class nature of his government from some kind of emotional viewpoint. Marx analyzed history and contemporary events using the dialectical materialist method central to what we call Marxism.

1. I don't think you understand what liberalism is (hint: it's not defined by "emotional viewpoints").
2. I didn't say Marx was "a liberal" - I said he had "liberal baggage". This should be a no-brainer. In another post in this thread, you defend Marx in light of his racism saying that he "wasn't immune from fads of the time". That you can't connect these two things, funny enough, speaks to an emotional attachment.


You
are the liberal, and you and your chums should take your Howard Zinn-esque nonsense somewhere it won't contaminate the discussion.

Howard Zinn was an historian. That "nonsense" is called history. One would hope that a sincere Marxist would want to root their historical materialism in actual material history, and not fapping over contemporary-pop-history (aka, lies).

[Red Commissar]

Fringe books? where is the approved reading list on Lincoln, Commisar Don't-Know-Shit-From-Shineola?. Where the fuck can you point decisively to Lincoln renouncing the Colonization Society? What HARD evidence is there to indicate he changed his mind? The motherfucker was an officer of the ACS!

You know the Left is dead when leftist dickheads want to srub clean the deeds of a white corporate lawyer from the 19th century.

Uh, ok. Did you look at my link at all?

If you can't get a hold of the book (google should have a preview of it), the author does a pretty good job talking about how Lincoln's views on this matter evolved. He had held these views sympathetic to colonization early into his presidency, and these began to get abandoned at around 1863. The turning point seemed to be over a failed attempt to colonize the island of Île à Vache off the coast of Jamaica after an offer from Bernard Kock, an individual who owned the island. This ended up in Kock abusing and exploiting the freed slaves, the colonization was cancelled and the settlers returned from the island to the US.

This helped to underscore the problems of colonization, which Lincoln now did not favor and Congress accordingly cut all funding to it. Lincoln's secretary, John Hay (who later became Secretary of State under other president's) recounted that he was glad that Lincoln had sworn off colonization. The book later goes on to lay out how Congress never approved funding the large-scale colonization that the ACS desired, even though it was clearly in Lincoln and Congress's power to do so, especially after 1864. The only thing that can be said for certain about Lincoln and colonization is that he was still warm to the idea of individuals choosing to settle in Africa, but as a large-scale resettlement program? We don't see this. The fact that the 14th and 15th amendments extended citizenship and the right to vote to freed slaves indicated that these individuals were seen as part of the United States, as opposed to being removed through colonization in the aftermath of the civil war. It would have not made any sense to extend these rights if the targeted population was only going to be removed later on.

Am I necessarily praising Lincoln? I don't think he was appreciably different from other presidents as far as his personal views went. I don't think people should be holding up Lincoln as a "People's Hero" and ignore his faults, because he's not really fitting of lionization, and neither is any other person. Lincoln however never claimed to be a radical and we should view him in the context of his time- there were of course much more relevant radicals when it came to abolition who genuinely believed in freedom and did not indulge in colonization as a "solution" to a post-slavery society. I would even extend this criticism to radical (white) abolitionists, who for all their efforts at freeing slaves and talking about equality in all levels of life, were remarkably quiet in Reconstruction and the reaction that followed from southern states.

If you want to attack Lincoln for being a distant racist, then it his presidency's treatment of Native Americans that should be the target of criticism here. Unlike his engagement and changing views on slavery, Lincoln never really considered anything about Native Americans and policy towards them remained the same as ever with respect to military action and relocation, something that only got worse when many tribes threw in with the Confederacy. .

At the same time however, I don't think this should make us simply ignore history all together and cherry pick what we want in order to push our ideological viewpoint. If we're doing that it doesn't really do anyone good.