Discussion about Lincoln

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:49 am
That quote sucks. :)
and Lincoln was a racist. :)

[Jude]

QUOTE (blackstone @ October 05, 2007 08:49 am)
That quote sucks. smile.gif

and Lincoln was a racist. smile.gif
and almost every other Victorian Era White wasn't?

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+October 05, 2007 04:37 pm--> (Pawn Power @ October 05, 2007 04:37 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 08:49 am
That quote sucks. :)
and Lincoln was a racist. :) [/b]
Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly the best President the United States has ever had. Contrary to the beliefs of teenage "communists" looking for radical views, Karl Marx actually wrote a letter praising the actions of Lincoln as President shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation (1 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)).

Lincoln was not a racist. If you hate him for quotes such as "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." you have an extremely poor understanding of public policy and American history. Lincoln detested the institution of slavery and viewing him as a racist is the product of viewing his actions and quotes through a 21st-century lens. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin could all be considered racists along the same criteria.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 05, 2007 12:17 pm--> (Killer Enigma @ October 05, 2007 12:17 pm)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 05, 2007 04:37 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 08:49 am
That quote sucks. :)
and Lincoln was a racist. :)
Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly the best President the United States has ever had. Contrary to the beliefs of teenage "communists" looking for radical views, Karl Marx actually wrote a letter praising the actions of Lincoln as President shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation (1 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)).

Lincoln was not a racist. If you hate him for quotes such as "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." you have an extremely poor understanding of public policy and American history. Lincoln detested the institution of slavery and viewing him as a racist is the product of viewing his actions and quotes through a 21st-century lens. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin could all be considered racists along the same criteria. [/b]
And they also might have been racists. Lincoln was probably a racist. I don't know for sure either way but I do know that he was one big asshole just like every other politician. If he was racist or not he still didn't care about the slaves. He didn't "free" them from slavery into wage-slavery because he cared for them. He was just a two faced politician who used that "freedom" to stick it to the south for dropping out of the union. Also with the slaves being "free" the masters at the plantations didn't have to provide shelter and food for the Africans.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+October 12, 2007 03:51 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ October 12, 2007 03:51 am)
Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 05, 2007 12:17 pm

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 05, 2007 04:37 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 08:49 am
That quote sucks. :)
and Lincoln was a racist. :)
Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly the best President the United States has ever had. Contrary to the beliefs of teenage "communists" looking for radical views, Karl Marx actually wrote a letter praising the actions of Lincoln as President shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation (1 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)).

Lincoln was not a racist. If you hate him for quotes such as "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." you have an extremely poor understanding of public policy and American history. Lincoln detested the institution of slavery and viewing him as a racist is the product of viewing his actions and quotes through a 21st-century lens. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin could all be considered racists along the same criteria.
And they also might have been racists. Lincoln was probably a racist. I don't know for sure either way but I do know that he was one big asshole just like every other politician. If he was racist or not he still didn't care about the slaves. He didn't "free" them from slavery into wage-slavery because he cared for them. He was just a two faced politician who used that "freedom" to stick it to the south for dropping out of the union. Also with the slaves being "free" the masters at the plantations didn't have to provide shelter and food for the Africans. [/b]
Speech at Chicago, Illinois
July 10, 1858

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."

I question the academic integrity of your comments. Any scholar of Lincoln-related history is well-aware of the man's hatred for the institution of slavery and his compassion towards African-Americans. As a President, his hands were tied in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation. His goal in symbolically freeing the slaves in the South was one of arousing class consciousness, in a sense. Word disseminated throughout the South and more slaves felt it possible and morally-decent (remember, many had grown up their whole life in slavery, being told by slave masters that this was their place in life, often putting religious connotations to it) to escape to the North.

Moreover, slavery was never necessary for Northern industry but the Dred Scott decision made it a legal practice. The Emancipation Proclamation barred the further expansion of the dying institution, thereby damning it following the Civil War.

I highly recommend you read David Herbert Donald's biography on Lincoln. You clearly have radical positions which I assume you adopted on this board. My best advice would be to not accept most of what you read on here, and from many so-called "revolutionary" sources, without looking into it heavily yourself. Certainly it is best to reserve extremist remarks where you very clearly know nothing.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+October 13, 2007 12:10 am--> (Killer Enigma @ October 13, 2007 12:10 am)
Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 12, 2007 03:51 am

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 05, 2007 12:17 pm

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 05, 2007 04:37 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 08:49 am
That quote sucks. :)
and Lincoln was a racist. :)
Abraham Lincoln was undoubtedly the best President the United States has ever had. Contrary to the beliefs of teenage "communists" looking for radical views, Karl Marx actually wrote a letter praising the actions of Lincoln as President shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation (1 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)).

Lincoln was not a racist. If you hate him for quotes such as "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." you have an extremely poor understanding of public policy and American history. Lincoln detested the institution of slavery and viewing him as a racist is the product of viewing his actions and quotes through a 21st-century lens. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin could all be considered racists along the same criteria.
And they also might have been racists. Lincoln was probably a racist. I don't know for sure either way but I do know that he was one big asshole just like every other politician. If he was racist or not he still didn't care about the slaves. He didn't "free" them from slavery into wage-slavery because he cared for them. He was just a two faced politician who used that "freedom" to stick it to the south for dropping out of the union. Also with the slaves being "free" the masters at the plantations didn't have to provide shelter and food for the Africans.
Speech at Chicago, Illinois
July 10, 1858

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."

I question the academic integrity of your comments. Any scholar of Lincoln-related history is well-aware of the man's hatred for the institution of slavery and his compassion towards African-Americans. As a President, his hands were tied in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation. His goal in symbolically freeing the slaves in the South was one of arousing class consciousness, in a sense. Word disseminated throughout the South and more slaves felt it possible and morally-decent (remember, many had grown up their whole life in slavery, being told by slave masters that this was their place in life, often putting religious connotations to it) to escape to the North.

Moreover, slavery was never necessary for Northern industry but the Dred Scott decision made it a legal practice. The Emancipation Proclamation barred the further expansion of the dying institution, thereby damning it following the Civil War.

I highly recommend you read David Herbert Donald's biography on Lincoln. You clearly have radical positions which I assume you adopted on this board. My best advice would be to not accept most of what you read on here, and from many so-called "revolutionary" sources, without looking into it heavily yourself. Certainly it is best to reserve extremist remarks where you very clearly know nothing. [/b]
Why'd he call John Brown crazy, then?

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:35 pm
Why'd he call John Brown crazy, then?
"John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate."
--From the February 27, 1860 Cooper Union Address

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 12, 2007 04:10 pm

Speech at Chicago, Illinois
July 10, 1858

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all."

I question the academic integrity of your comments. Any scholar of Lincoln-related history is well-aware of the man's hatred for the institution of slavery and his compassion towards African-Americans. As a President, his hands were tied in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation. His goal in symbolically freeing the slaves in the South was one of arousing class consciousness, in a sense. Word disseminated throughout the South and more slaves felt it possible and morally-decent (remember, many had grown up their whole life in slavery, being told by slave masters that this was their place in life, often putting religious connotations to it) to escape to the North.

Moreover, slavery was never necessary for Northern industry but the Dred Scott decision made it a legal practice. The Emancipation Proclamation barred the further expansion of the dying institution, thereby damning it following the Civil War.

I highly recommend you read David Herbert Donald's biography on Lincoln. You clearly have radical positions which I assume you adopted on this board. My best advice would be to not accept most of what you read on here, and from many so-called "revolutionary" sources, without looking into it heavily yourself. Certainly it is best to reserve extremist remarks where you very clearly know nothing.
Now we can make a big quote train if you would like where we have instances of him saying he hates slavery and other instances of him saying Africans didn't deserve to be treated the same as white men. You have just proven my point that he was a TWO FACED POLITICIAN. He was playing politics like they all do.

You can question my "academic integrity" all you want. I really don't care about your high horse, academic, scholarly bullshit. What I know of politicians and what I have read and been taught about Lincoln clearly shows that he didn't care. I wouldn't really expect him to care though. It would be mighty peculiar for a president of a government that was made to protect property owners to go directly against them. He was not at all trying to stir up class consciousness with the slaves. That would essentially be him working against himself and the power he held.

P.S. Lay off the pompous attitude because you really just sound like an ass overall. Oh yeah and I have no need to read anything about Lincoln because that would be a waste of my time. Thanks!

[Killer Enigma]

Now we can make a big quote train if you would like where we have instances of him saying he hates slavery and other instances of him saying Africans didn't deserve to be treated the same as white men. You have just proven my point that he was a TWO FACED POLITICIAN. He was playing politics like they all do.
You have yet to offer substantive evidence in support of your claim. I'm afraid I can't have "proven [your] point" because you have not made one in the first place.

That aside, I am well-aware that Abraham Lincoln held views which today would be considered racist. As I mentioned before, such views were characteristic of the times and were held by many prominent leftist leaders (certainly Marx, Engels, and Bakunin). However, Lincoln's detestation of the institution of slavery and his belief that African-Americans ought to be free from such oppression made inroads to the anti-racist consensus of today. Had Lincoln not freed the slaves and made a physical action destroying the institution, even if it had later been abandoned, it is certain that the rights of African-Americans would be more greatly restricted than they are today. Racism still exists but the progress that America has made in the last 150 years is directly attributable to the actions taken by President Lincoln, amidst many others.


It would be mighty peculiar for a president of a government that was made to protect property owners to go directly against them.
President Lincoln was a revolutionary leader. Marx and later Trotsky (in Terrorism and Communism) recognize the Civil War as being a revolutionary war fought for the abolition of slave property. Though a member of the Republican Party, Lincoln would find many allies on the left if he were alive today.


He was not at all trying to stir up class consciousness with the slaves. That would essentially be him working against himself and the power he held.
Once again, you attempt to judge Lincoln and hold him accountable with your [admittedly] warped historical perspective, no less through a 21st-century lens. When you admit that you have not read about Lincoln, nor do you intend to, you expose just how thoughtless, worthless, and impoverished your arguments are.

If someone were to make a harsh critique of a leftist theorist or leader which you highly respected, would you not wish to read the other side of the story? Wouldn't you question the validity of the claims being made? Wouldn't you research the topic on your own? Or is the truth only important when it works in your favor?

[midnight marauder]

Praise the lawd! The white man come to save us!

:rolleyes:

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 20, 2007 02:34 pm
Praise the lawd! The white man come to save us!
:rolleyes:
It is undeniable that Lincoln's efforts made inroads in tearing down much of the racism present in the country. He set a precedent for public leaders to come, whether it was followed or not.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 20, 2007 06:34 am
Praise the lawd! The white man come to save us!

:rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly.

[dannthraxxx]

god. damn.


i have heard so much bullshit about lincoln. fuck him, he was another white collar fucking snob president.


all rich people in power should burn.

[Killer Enigma]

i have heard so much bullshit about lincoln. fuck him, he was another white collar fucking snob president.
I think we have a scholar in our midst. Note the wonderful argumentation, the copious support for his claims, the civil delivery, and masterful punctuation. I'm not going to mention the logical fallacies or the hasty generalizations. This is the pinnacle of human debate.


all rich people in power should burn.
This sounds like something a 14 year-old punk rocker would say.

[RED DAVE]

Letter from Marx and the First International to Lincoln

http://www.marxists.org/history/internatio...coln-letter.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm)


Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.
RED DAVE

[Jude]

all rich people in power should burn.

This sounds like something a 14 year-old punk rocker would say.

I'm gettimg really depressed flipping through this forum after a few months of inactivity and seeing tht everyone just wants to unload on a crowd of right-wing assholes. undoubtedly, the right wing is full of assholes, but violence begets violence, and we can't just start a war!

[Faux Real]

Lincoln played his card well enough to come across in history as the "man who freed the slaves". He was indeed a racist, just that he, those bureaucrats and industrialists from the north realized slavery was no longer a profitable institution, and in addition to large plantations being scarce in the north at least, they'd might as well abolish the institution.

Lincoln was two-faced. He catered to those politicians in the North and South based upon what fit their agendas. He could give a damn about black people, he just wanted what he and his factory owning buddies did, profit.

How exactly have living standards raised for African Americans since the abolition of slavery? Why are the majority of African American males incarcerated? Why do most African Americans live in confined ghettos that are practically impossible to escape from? I do not see the positive results. They're minimal at best.

I don't care if he was "progressive for his time", the fact that he held reactionary views in a time where socialist and communist ideas were already being developed and to a small extent, attempted to materialize, make him not progressive enough. He and his successors have kept African Americans and just about every minority "in their place". Case in point.

Fuck slavery and fuck Abraham Lincoln.

[Killer Enigma]

In order to be taken seriously, one must post seriously. In order to post seriously, one must support their claims with evidence and refrain from fallacies and inductive reasoning whenever possible. I admit, I toyed with not responding to this message because it barely warrants even an initial read, much less a thorough rebuttal. However, given the argumentation of the indigenous population on revleft, these non-fact-based, rhetorical arguments might get a free pass and because I respect President Lincoln too much for that, I have decided to respond.


Lincoln played his card well enough to come across in history as the "man who freed the slaves". He was indeed a racist, just that he, those bureaucrats and industrialists from the north realized slavery was no longer a profitable institution, and in addition to large plantations being scarce in the north at least, they'd might as well abolish the institution.
I would like all to note the careful and considerate usage of facts and sources, especially the quotation of relevant passages from documents and textual support. I would also like to note that this message clearly shows that the author approached the material in an unbiased manner and made a clear and concerted effort to develop a rational opinion on President Abraham Lincoln.

Approaching any historical figure, Lincoln included, with a 21st-century lens is dangerous because it ignores context. It falls into the psychological phenomena known as hindsight bias, or "Monday morning quarterbacking". In our society nearly 150 years after the freeing of African-Americans from slavery, tolerance and racial equality is not only more widely accepted; it is recognized as fact.

In Lincoln's day (also that of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin, etc.), assumptions and beliefs which were second nature that would now be considered racist were held by many, right or wrong. With this in mind, is anyone so ignorant as to not see the progressivism inherent in a statement such as this, given by Lincoln on Oct. 13, 1858, in a debate against Judge Stephen Douglas:

"I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." (1 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800b.htm))

Lincoln may not have recognized blacks as equal in terms of ability, certainly racist by today's standards, but he did recognize their equal right to freedom from slavery, to the provisions set under the Constitution, and to treatment as a human being, rather than property.

Frederick Douglas, the radical abolitionist, said this about President Lincoln:

"In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race. He was the 1st great man that I talked with in the U.S. freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color, and I thought that all the more remarkable because he came from a State where there were black laws." (2 (http://www.trivia-library.com/a/president-abraham-lincoln-was-lincoln-a-racist.htm))


Lincoln was two-faced. He catered to those politicians in the North and South based upon what fit their agendas.
He catered to the South? Perhaps by declaring war on the Confederacy which had succeeded, by freeing the Southern slaves (largest percentage of their workforce), and by sending General Sherman in to burn down key Southern armament points he was really trying to foster their economy. Of all the anti-Lincoln arguments I have ever heard, this has never come up. Cheers.


He could give a damn about black people, he just wanted what he and his factory owning buddies did, profit.
Lincoln was an out-spoken anti-slave advocate his entire life, writing copious letters and documents about how much he detested the institution. Surely a scholar of your caliber would have read them, but for convenience sake I will repost relevant passages.

An August, 1855 letter to his friend, Joshua Speed:

"You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair to you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable." (3 (http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al03.htm))

A 1858 speech in Chicago:

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it..." (4 (http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al06.htm))

A September, 1859 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio:

"I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union."

"We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code." (5 (http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al15.htm))

Though Lincoln continually reiterated that he wished to preserve the Union and that there was no right to abolish slavery, all of this was said prior to him coming to power. The Emancipation Proclamation contradicted every reference he had made to wanting to preserve slavery, even though he detested it.


How exactly have living standards raised for African Americans since the abolition of slavery?
I would be appalled if another human being alive was unable to recognize that freedom from the formalized institution of slavery is a raise in living standards. You happen to be an exception.


Why are the majority of African American males incarcerated?
I know you put a lot of research into this claim. The U.S. Census Bureau found that in the year 2000, there were 6.1 million black males in the United States (6 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf)) while simultaneously the Department of Justice found in 2003 that approximately 2 million people were incarnated in America (7 (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/)). This means that even if black males composed the entire American inmate populace, it still would not be equivalent to 50+1% of their entire population.


Why do most African Americans live in confined ghettos that are practically impossible to escape from?
Certainly poverty is an abysmal lifestyle, one which capitalism spawns. But are not whites in Appalachia, Hispanics throughout the southwest, and Asians along the west coast in similar circumstances? This proves nothing in terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and the freedom of slaves "doing nothing".


I do not see the positive results. They're minimal at best.
Yes, freedom from the institution of slavery is a minimal positive result. Unfortunately, I cannot cure that kind of ignorance.


I don't care if he was "progressive for his time", the fact that he held reactionary views in a time where socialist and communist ideas were already being developed and to a small extent, attempted to materialize, make him not progressive enough.
Let's play "Who Said That?" First, an easy one.

"...one exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also across all divergences of political opinion ... [Jews have] that mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national character"

Hitler? Mussolini? Even Stalin? Wrong on all counts. This was radical left-wing anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (8 (http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm)).

How about this one:

"Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

A little bit tougher, but this is communist theorist Friedrich Engels, in an April 1887 letter to Paul Lafargue's wife, the son-in-law of Marx (9 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653368/posts)).

One more. This one is a bit tricky:

"as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like."

This is the man himself; Karl Marx in an 1862 letter to Engels in regards to political opponent, Ferdinand Lassalle (10 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm)).

Am I to believe that these men too were not progressive for their time?


Case in point.
You used this phrase incorrectly. "Case in point" is used to denote a particular case to support a claim or generalization which you have made. It is followed by an example or instance.


Fuck slavery and fuck Abraham Lincoln.
Real mature. Fortunately, you will grow up in a few years. In the mean time, never post an argument like this one again.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 13, 2007 10:48 pm
In order to be taken seriously, one must post seriously. In order to post seriously, one must support their claims with evidence and refrain from fallacies and inductive reasoning whenever possible. I admit, I toyed with not responding to this message because it barely warrants even an initial read, much less a thorough rebuttal.
Blah blah blah. Could you come across as more pompous-arsed than that?

Being taken "seriously" is not a priority of mine. I did not and will not support my opinions and claims in this thread with evidence because I'm not that worried about this one insignificant politician who could have been just about anyone else within his time of reference.

He catered to the South?
Uh huh.

Perhaps by declaring war on the Confederacy which had succeeded, by freeing the Southern slaves (largest percentage of their workforce), and by sending General Sherman in to burn down key Southern armament points he was really trying to foster their economy.
This was only after he realized that catering to them would not preserve the union.

Lincoln was an out-spoken anti-slave advocate his entire life, writing copious letters and documents about how much he detested the institution. Surely a scholar of your caliber would have read them, but for convenience sake I will repost relevant passages.
He should have recited those in the South. He did not.

I would be appalled if another human being alive was unable to recognize that freedom from the formalized institution of slavery is a raise in living standards. You happen to be an exception.
Relatively, I'd say African Americans still, along with immigrant workers, are at the "bottom of the barrel" in terms of living standards.

I recognize the formality of slavery and permanent human property has been abolished, but whether you agree with me or not, there is still part-time slavery either through prisons and wage-slavery. That includes as I've said before African Americans.

I know you put a lot of research into this claim.
My incorrect phrasing. African Americans are many times more likely than whites and a few times more than Latinos to end up in prison.

Certainly poverty is an abysmal lifestyle, one which capitalism spawns. But are not whites in Appalachia, Hispanics throughout the southeast, and Asians along the west coast in similar circumstances? This proves nothing in terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and the freedom of slaves "doing nothing".
That belongs in a different thread. My point still stands.

Yes, freedom from the institution of slavery is a minimal positive result. Unfortunately, I cannot cure that kind of ignorance.
Uh huh, because now rather than being full-time slaves they're part-time slaves. Unless of course they're in prison.

Let's play "Who Said That?" First, an easy one.
No thanks. I don't blindly idolize or dogmatically support any one historical figure. They all have their faults and that's why I don't take up their every single ideological viewpoint. Fortunately, unlike Lincoln, these radicals you've quoted have laid the framework from which a future society free of any sort of social or economic injustice may occur. Whereas Lincoln came up with...?

You used this phrase incorrectly. "Case in point" is used to denote a particular case to support a claim or generalization which you have made. It is followed by an example or instance.
Thank you for pointing that out.

Real mature. Fortunately, you will grow up in a few years. In the mean time, never post an argument like this one again.
Don't tell me what I can or cannot post, thanks. Now piss off kindly.

[Luís Henrique]

Lincoln lived in the XIX century. For that crime alone, he deserved a slow and painful death. How dared he to be born in the wrong period of History?!

Luís Henrique

[Killer Enigma]

Being taken "seriously" is not a priority of mine. I did not and will not support my opinions and claims in this thread with evidence because I'm not that worried about this one insignificant politician who could have been just about anyone else within his time of reference.
This is akin to me telling a child that in order to win a basketball game, one must shoot baskets. The child then not only refuses to shoot a single basket but s/he will not even play defense.

I must admit, your decision was predictable. I am glad that I actually have it in writing to point to as support for my claim that revleft posters, on average, practice very poor argumentation. You actually say that you (1) do not wish to be taken seriously (I ask you then, why would you even post, especially in a serious manner?) and (2) you refuse to support your claims with a warrant and/or evidence. This is typical of the anti-American, teenage "left". I hope that you either change your political affiliation so as not to tarnish the rest of us or you grow up relatively soon.


This was only after he realized that catering to them would not preserve the union.
This is a claim without a warrant or impact. You have already cast doubt on your credibility from your former claim and have all but discounted your own opinion.


He should have recited those in the South. He did not.
When Lincoln was running for President, he made a negligible amount of campaign stops in the South. His stance on slavery guaranteed that any attempts to gain votes there would have been fruitless and so he did not waste his time. However, many of the speeches I cited, including the Emancipation Proclamation, were directed to and widely read in the South.


Relatively, I'd say African Americans still, along with immigrant workers, are at the "bottom of the barrel" in terms of living standards.
Again, a man who declares that he will not support his claims with evidence and also tells his opponents he does not wish to be taken seriously cannot have a substantive, informed opinion on a matter such as this. Simply because I pity how fallacious your argument has been, here (http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c15a8daf7126234f56075 095441c6fa9&from=rss) is an article which you could have used in support of your statement.


I recognize the formality of slavery and permanent human property has been abolished, but whether you agree with me or not, there is still part-time slavery either through prisons and wage-slavery. That includes as I've said before African Americans.
This is common to all workers, independent of race. It is a problem with capitalism, not Abraham Lincoln. America was in no position to destroy capitalism because it had not fully developed. May I suggest that you enroll in your high school American History class immediately?


My incorrect phrasing. African Americans are many times more likely than whites and a few times more than Latinos to end up in prison.
Also predictable. Since neither you nor I can prove intent, we must look to what you actually said.


That belongs in a different thread. My point still stands.
One cannot make a point without support. You tried to pass off the argument that African-Americans are subject to poverty and exploitation. I refuted your claim by pointing out that such is common to all workers, regardless of race. If we were to discuss the validity of my statement, yes, that would indeed belong in a different thread. Instead, I quoted evidence to refute your claim, thus making it relevant to the thread. Your point cannot stand because you have not (1) supported it and (2) refuted my rebuttal.


No thanks. I don't blindly idolize or dogmatically support any one historical figure. They all have their faults and that's why I don't take up their every single ideological viewpoint. Fortunately, unlike Lincoln, these radicals you've quoted have laid the framework from which a future society free of any sort of social or economic injustice may occur. Whereas Lincoln came up with...?
Your logic is as follows:

(Thesis) Premises 1- Lincoln was a racist.
(Antithesis) Premises 2- Marx, Engels, and Bakunin would also be racist by today's standards. We cannot judge these men's ideas and practices without considering the historical context.
(Your synthesis) Premises 3- Marx, Engels, and Bakunin's racism was excusable because they wrote and established socialist/anarchist/communist theory. Lincoln did not. Thus, his racism is worse.

I suggest, if you have any respect for Marx or Engels, that you read his letter to Abraham Lincoln immediately after the Emancipation Proclamation. Before the Paris Commune, Marx widely looked to Lincoln's America and his freeing of the slaves as an operational example of what he proposed for the workers. (1 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm))


Don't tell me what I can or cannot post, thanks. Now piss off kindly.
My post was in the subjunctive mood and thus a suggestion, not an imperative. I gave this suggestion earnestly, hoping that you would not have to suffer embarrassment again (evident from your [predictable] reaction).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The main problem I have with Lincoln is his urging for a resolution with war by sending troops to Fort Sumter, but that's not entirely the fault of the Union.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:34 pm
The main problem I have with Lincoln is his urging for a resolution with war by sending troops to Fort Sumter, but that's not entirely the fault of the Union.
That is much more legitimate criticism. Marx did many writings on the American Civil War. Particularly on Fort Sumter, he wrote in October 1961 (1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm)):

"It is above all to be remembered that the war did not originate with the North, but with the South. The North finds itself on the defensive. For months it had quietly looked on while the secessionists appropriated the Union's forts, arsenals, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships and supplies of arms, insulted its flag and took prisoner bodies of its troops. Finally the secessionists resolved to force the Union government out of its passive attitude by a blatant act of war, and solely for this reason proceeded to the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston. On April 11 (1861) their General Beauregard had learnt in a meeting with Major Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter, that the fort was only supplied with provisions for three days more and accordingly must be peacefully surrendered after this period. In order to forestall this peaceful surrender, the secessionists opened the bombardment early on the following morning (April 12), which brought about the fall of the fort in a few hours."

Later, as you imply:

"The bombardment of Fort Sumter cut off the only possible constitutional way out, namely the convocation of a general convention of the American people, as Lincoln had proposed in his inaugural address. For Lincoln there now remained only the choice of fleeing from Washington, evacuating Maryland and Delaware and surrendering Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, or of answering war with war."

Perhaps a case can be made that by sending troops to Fort Sumter, Lincoln [inadvertently] encouraged the inevitable. However, as Marx pointed out, the South made the first act of war.

[smoy]

I think everyone up there who is saying lincoln was a racist and what not needs to take a better look at history ad this world. u have to take good things where u can n not always be so pessimistic. it doesnt really matter if lincoln was racist or not, he did free the slaves, regardless of his motives. He ended an institution which no one else given his position would have done. i believe in communism and im on your side, but everyone was racist back then, and it CANT be changed, so settle the fuck down about lincolns faults. he was an excellent man and president. and for that kid who said all rich ppl should burn or w/e fuckin do somethin about it dont just yell on a forum, lincoln did something about his beliefs whether they were correct or not he did something, what have you done?

[Question?]

The true patron saints of the black men were represented in that handful of fighters in Boston, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, and Theodore Parker, whose great courage and sturdiness culminated in that somber giant John Brown. Their untiring zeal, their eloquence and perseverance undermined the stronghold of the Southern lords. Lincoln and his minions followed only when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all.- Emma Goldman

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:36 pm

The true patron saints of the black men were represented in that handful of fighters in Boston, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, and Theodore Parker, whose great courage and sturdiness culminated in that somber giant John Brown. Their untiring zeal, their eloquence and perseverance undermined the stronghold of the Southern lords. Lincoln and his minions followed only when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all.- Emma Goldman
Where did you get the quote from?

[Question?]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 14, 2007 11:43 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 14, 2007 11:43 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:36 pm

The true patron saints of the black men were represented in that handful of fighters in Boston, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, and Theodore Parker, whose great courage and sturdiness culminated in that somber giant John Brown. Their untiring zeal, their eloquence and perseverance undermined the stronghold of the Southern lords. Lincoln and his minions followed only when abolition had become a practical issue, recognized as such by all.- Emma Goldman
Where did you get the quote from? [/b]
Minorities vs. Majorities (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1917/minorities-majorities.htm) by Emma Goldman

[syndicat]

I think part of the problem in this discussion is not differentiating anti-racism from abolitionism. They aren't the same thing. The white abolitionists were not necessarily free of racism in the sense of accepting ideas such as the inferiority of people of West African descent, compared to Europeans.

I say this despite being descended myself from white Christian abolitionists. My grandmother was anti-racist in her worldview but this was not necessarily characteristic of abolitionists. As an example, Theodore Parker was a major abolitionist in Boston. He would start every sermon in his unitarian church by placing a pistol on the podium and saying that if anyone came into his church looking for a slave "This is what they will face." Nonetheless, at the time of the Mexican-American war, he justified the U.S. attack on Mexico on the basis of the alleged inferiority of the Mexicans.

The slaves were freed, not by Lincoln, but by the combined efforts of the abolitiionist movement -- which was a mass movement -- and an immense uprising of the slaves themselves. As W.E.B. Dubois points out, there was during the civil war a vast general strike -- a go-slow -- on the plantations by the slaves. Once Lincoln accepted the idea of allowing blacks to fight in the army -- something he did not accept initially -- there was a vast movement of nearly 400,000 slaves who fled the south to join the Union Army to fight to liberate their people.

To keep the slaves on the plantations, the Confederacy was forced to assign a large part of its army to this task. This contributed very strongly to bringing down the Confederacy.

[Killer Enigma]

The slaves were freed, not by Lincoln, but by the combined efforts of the abolitiionist movement -- which was a mass movement -- and an immense uprising of the slaves themselves.
It goes much further than that. Ignoring President Lincoln as a key player in the abolition of slavery is just as incorrect as solely attributing the movement to him. There were popular uprisings and the abolitionists of the time were instrumental in promoting the idea of abolishing slavery but part of the reason John Brown's movement based around insurrection failed was because the slaves, as a whole, were not a class-conscious populace. Moreover, their disunity from being a part of differing states/plantations insured that this kind of unity would be impossible in the mere form of a popular uprising. What existed in the south was Gramsci's wet dream: Total cultural hegemony and a pro-slavery super-structure preventing a spontaneous (or cultivated) slave insurrection.

The movement to abolish slavery would have been impossible without Lincoln's anti-slavery stance during the Civil War, his choice to abolish slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation (culminating with the 13th Amendment), and his use of terrorism to suppress the Southern succession.

[syndicat]

the emancipation proclamation was a calculated wartime tactic. it encouraged a slave rebellion in the rebel states. but it didn't ensure it. if the slaves were so lacking on consciousness, why was there a vast go-slow, a general strike, on the plantations?

John Brown's raid failed basically because he was caught.

Looking to the great leader at the top was part of the problem. once the great leader was shot, his replacement, Johnson -- a southern ex-Senator who was a rank racist -- sabotaged all efforts to transfer the property of the planter class to the freed slaves. orders were sent down thru the chain of command to use the army to prevent slaves from seizing property.

850,000 acres accumulated by the Feedmen's Bureau -- a lot of it land confiscated from rebels -- was supposed to be given to the freed slaves, but wasn't. the Radical Republicans in Congress tried to impeach Johnson over his sabotage. the failure to transfer the property of the planter class to the freed slaves meant that a new semi-slave condition would be imposed on the freed slaves thru debt peonage and disenfrachisement thru vigilante terror. the ill-gotten profits from slaveowning were able to stay with the capitalist elite, north and south.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:25 pm
the ill-gotten profits from slaveowning were able to stay with the capitalist elite, north and south.
There was no real capitalist class to speak of in the south until after reconstruction ended. The south had no capitalist modes of production, no capitalist property relations; it was a slave-owning society that was based in agrarian production.

[syndicat]

to the contrary, capitalism in its early days relied on forms of forced labor. this is part of the way that a proletarian class was created. in 1547 in England a law was passed that anyone to enslave a vagrant or beggar, put them in chains, whip them, and force them to work for them. that's because a way that some of the dispossessed peasantry survived was thru begging. for a lower class used to controlling their own labor as peasants, it was hard to get them to agree to labor discipline of a boss other than forms of forced labor.

the owners of the plantations in the South invested capital in these ventures. they bought land, bought labor power. they sold commodities on commodity markets, such as cotton to the British textile industry. They then invested the profits in expansion, through purchase of additional lands and additional slaves.

in the early colonial society in North American capitalist plantation agriculture had to use forced labor, to get people to do the work, and this involved people enslaved for life, and people enslaved for a time, and it involved bonded workers from the British Isles as well as West Africa. but it was an early form of capitalist agriculture. that it was based on forced labor does not make it non-capitalist.

[autrefois]

I agree with Syndicat.

Many, if not most of the white abolitionists of the era would be considered 'racist' by current day standards.

For example, take the Free Soil Party, which was a northern based abolitionist party. They hated slavery, but also disliked blacks. The reason they wanted to free up soil, was to free up JOBS for the white folk.

Also, here is a quote from Lincoln, adressed to Sen. Douglas in a series of debates.

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of a race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the declaration of Independance, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to those rights as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects - certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is in my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man" ~Lincoln

I didnt edit out any of this quote. Notice I easily could have made him seem to support either side just by picking a bit out of it.

So there you ahve it, was he "racist"? I dont think so. Maybe by modern standards he has "racist" tendancies, or perhaps his words on the lesser intelligance of the black man were purely political. Either way, I would say that, although he isn't the equivilance of Malcom X or King Jr on issues of black equality, he did stand for the basic of black rights, even though they were probably derived from his love for the American constitution, not on moral backgrounds.

[Killer Enigma]

So there you ahve it, was he "racist"? I dont think so. Maybe by modern standards he has "racist" tendancies, or perhaps his words on the lesser intelligance of the black man were purely political.
I largely agree with you.


even though they were probably derived from his love for the American constitution, not on moral backgrounds.
What of his quote during an 1858 speech: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it..." (1 (http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al06.htm))?

[autrefois]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 04:50 am

So there you ahve it, was he "racist"? I dont think so. Maybe by modern standards he has "racist" tendancies, or perhaps his words on the lesser intelligance of the black man were purely political.
I largely agree with you.


even though they were probably derived from his love for the American constitution, not on moral backgrounds.
What of his quote during an 1858 speech: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it..." (1 (http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al06.htm))?
Yeah, thats what Im trying to say.

From my interpretation, Lincoln hated slavery, because of the rights of life, liberty, happiness that were explicitly stated in the Declaration, (as well as in the Constitution). So... slavery was clearly against the foundation of America, therefore, Lincoln believed it was wrong.

Theres no question that he was against slavery. Only that in 3rd grade we were taught Lincoln was anti slavery because he was a good person.

Maybe it was just purely political, not because he felt guilty. (I mean, blacks were probably worsened after the Emancipation Proclomation anyhow, with all the sharecropping and stuff)

[Killer Enigma]

Maybe it was just purely political, not because he felt guilty. (I mean, blacks were probably worsened after the Emancipation Proclomation anyhow, with all the sharecropping and stuff)
I wholly disagree. Institutionalized slavery will always be an unparalleled, grievous evil.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 09:41 am

Maybe it was just purely political, not because he felt guilty. (I mean, blacks were probably worsened after the Emancipation Proclomation anyhow, with all the sharecropping and stuff)
I wholly disagree. Institutionalized slavery will always be an unparalleled, grievous evil.
What exacted after the failure of reconstruction by the radical republicans was essentially de facto slavery for many blacks in the south.

[Pawn Power]

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 forever 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. --Abraham Lincoln
(my bold)


Yes, he was a product of his time...but he was also a racist.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+November 21, 2007 03:57 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ November 21, 2007 03:57 pm)
Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 09:41 am

Maybe it was just purely political, not because he felt guilty. (I mean, blacks were probably worsened after the Emancipation Proclomation anyhow, with all the sharecropping and stuff)
I wholly disagree. Institutionalized slavery will always be an unparalleled, grievous evil.
What exacted after the failure of reconstruction by the radical republicans was essentially de facto slavery for many blacks in the south. [/b]
The difficulties during Reconstruction cannot be attributed to Lincoln. Jim Crow laws and sharecropping would have occurred regardless of who freed the slaves. Simply freeing the slaves set the events in motion which have brought us to today, where the enslavement of African-Americans is no longer legal nor acceptable. Though still present, the prejudicial walls of separation between races are gradually being pulled down. One cannot deny that African-Americans are significantly more free than they were prior to Lincoln having freed the slaves.

If you wish to make the claim that African-Americans are still wage slaves, so are whites, Hispanics, Asians, and every other race which composes the international proletariat. This stems from the larger problem of capitalism, a problem which Lincoln was not in a position to solve.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 21, 2007 05:33 pm

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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 forever 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 say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. --Abraham Lincoln
(my bold)


Yes, he was a product of his time...but he was also a racist.
I am not sure as to what source you quoted from and whether or not your admission of the full quote was intentional, but the very next sentence reads:

"I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." (1 (http://www.abfition.com/abraham-lincoln/lincoln-quotes-slavery.htm))

Do you equally concede that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Mikhail Bakunin were racists in the same manner as Abraham Lincoln, as I have pointed out already using quotes from each? (2 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72162&st=0))

[The Gulag]

Unlike all other countries on Earth, the United States at the times was the only one to give those of African descent the right to vote. It is believed that John Wilkes Booth changed his plan from kidnapping to assassination partially because he was at a speech when Lincoln said that Freedmen should be given the right to vote.

[LSD]

What an utterly pointles thread.

Of course Lincoln was a racist, no one could have gotten elected to the Presidency in 1860 who wasn't a racist. And his speeches and writing make it eminently clear that he percieved certain races to be inferior to his own.

At the same time that is entirely typical of the time he was living in and so irrelevent in any analysis of the man or his role in history.

As for his importance in the abolition of American slavery, it's definitely exagerated in mainstream American history. The collapse of slavery was inevitable. The main reason the Civil War even started was that the southern states recognized that absent a centralized defence mechanism, their "way of life" was doomed.

Absent the war, slavery could have probably lasted another 20 years at most. Once the war came, however, the Union really had no choice but to implement abolition. To do otherwise would be to effectively restore the status quo ante bellum and rob the north of its victory.

I have no doubt that Lincoln believed slavery to be a moral wrong, but then so probably did Stephen Douglas and most other prominent northern politicians. But politics don't turn on morals

Lincoln could not and would not have freed a single slave were it not for the war. Nor did he ever indicate publically or privately that he saught to do so.

Abraham Lincoln was as personally responsible for "freeing the slaves" as Ronald Raegan was for "defeating communism".


Unlike all other countries on Earth, the United States at the times was the only one to give those of African descent the right to vote.

Actually several countries at that time permitted black citizens to vote, including Canada and the UK; that is, like the US they had no legal racial suffrage restrictions. Although in practice, like in the US, blacks were rarely able to excersize the franchise.

And, of course, by 1860 there were already the black republics in Haiti and Liberia, although neither were remotely "democratic" in any meaningful sense.

It should also be noted that several US states permitted black voting as far back as founding of the country, but nearly all rescinded those laws prior to the Civil War.

History's not as simple as your textbook would make it seem...