1
   

An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult

 
 
Mexica
 
Reply Sat 15 Mar, 2008 10:15 am
"Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him."
~ Lerone Bennett, Jr.,
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, p. 114

The gigantic collection of myths, lies, and distortions that comprise The Legend of Abraham Lincoln is the ideological cornerstone of the American warfare/welfare state. It has been invoked for generations to make the argument that if the policies of the U.S. government are not "the will of God," then at least they are the will of "Father Abraham." Moreover, this legend - this false history of America - did not arise spontaneously. It was invented and nurtured by an intergenerational army of court historians who, as Murray Rothbard once said, are absolutely indispensable to any government empire. All states, said Rothbard, depend for their existence on a series of myths about their benevolence, heroism, greatness, or even divinity.

Since very few Americans have spent much time educating themselves about Lincoln and nineteenth-century American history (much of which has been falsified anyway), it is easy for members of what I call the Lincoln Cult to dismiss all literary criticisms of Lincoln as the work of "neo-Confederates," their code-word for "defenders of slavery" (as though anyone in America today would defend slavery), or "racist." Although they label themselves "Lincoln scholars," the last thing they want is honest scholarship when it comes to the subject of Lincoln and his war. They are, at best, cover-up artists and pandering court historians who feed at the government grant trough, "consuming" tax dollars to support their "research" and their overblown university positions.

But they've got a big problem (more than one, actually). The big problem is the publication of a 662-page book by the distinguished African-American author Lerone Bennett, Jr. entitled Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream. The book was originally published in 1999 and was recently released in paperback. Bennett was a longtime managing editor of Ebony magazine and, among other things, the author of a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., What Manner of Man. Although several "Civil War" publications have labeled yours truly as the preeminent Lincoln critic of our day, Forced into Glory is a much more powerful critique of Dishonest Abe than anything I have ever written. The Lincoln Cult, which would not dare to personally attack a serious African-American scholar like Bennett, has largely ignored the book instead.

When they are not ignoring the book and hoping that it (and the author) would just go away, they "have responded by recycling the traditional Lincoln apologies," writes Bennett. (Being a "Lincoln scholar" means taking some of Lincoln's unsavory words and deeds, such as his lifelong support for the policy of "colonization" or deportation of all black people in America, and dreaming up excuses for why he was supposedly "forced" into taking that position).

Bennett argues that "academics and [the] media had been hiding the truth for 135 years and that Lincoln was not the great emancipator or the small emancipator or the economy-sized emancipator." He presents chapter and verse of how the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, since it only applied to "rebel territory," and specifically exempted all the slave-owning/Union-controlled border states and other areas that were occupied by the U.S. army at the time. He quotes James Randall, who has been called the "greatest Lincoln scholar of all time," as writing, "the Proclamation itself did not free a single slave." It was the Thirteenth Amendment that finally ended slavery, he correctly notes, and Lincoln was dragged into accepting it kicking and screaming all the way.

So what was the purpose of the Proclamation? Primarily to placate the genuine abolitionists with a political sleight of hand, says Bennett, and to deter Britain and France from formally recognizing the Confederate government.

Since so few Americans are aware of these facts, Bennett correctly concludes that "the level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal and a rebuke to schools, museums, media, and scholars." This of course is no accident; it's exactly the way the state wants it to be.

Bennett is especially critical of how the Lincoln Cult uses black historical figures as pawns in its defense of "Father Abraham." For example, he contends that there is no way to get around the fact that Lincoln was a lifelong white supremacist, loudly proclaiming that he was opposed to "making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." He said far worse things than that, as Bennett documents. The typical response of the Lincoln Cult is to "find a slave or a former slave or, better, a Black officeholder to say that he adores Lincoln and doesn't care what people say . . . "

Why, one would ask, is such a distinguished African-American journalist so incensed over the Lincoln myth? It is because of his twenty years of painstaking research, resulting in this book, that proves, among other things, what a vulgar racist Lincoln was. Bennett provides quote after quote of Lincoln's own words, habitually using the N-word so much that people in Washington thought he was weirdly consumed by his racism. Bennett tells of first-hand accounts by some of Lincoln's generals of how they left a meeting with him during a crisis in the war in which the president spent most of his time in the meeting telling off-color "darkie" jokes (Lincoln's language). General James Wadsworth, for example, was "shocked by the racism in the Lincoln White House."

I will not repeat any of this language here; suffice it to say that Bennett has scoured Lincoln's Collected Works and demonstrates that he used the N-word about as frequently as your modern-day "gangster rapper" does. Bennett also describes how this has all been covered up by the Lincoln Cult. Despite the hundreds of examples that are right there in black and white in Lincoln's own speeches, "Carl Sandburg, who spent decades researching Lincoln's life, denied that Lincoln used the N-word." And "Harold Holzer, who edited a collection of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, was surprised that Lincoln used the N-word twice in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate." (Lincoln personally edited the transcripts of the debates, so there is no question that he said these things).

Bennett is also incensed by the fact that Lincoln never opposed Southern slavery but only its extension into the territories. Indeed, in his first inaugural address he pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery by making it explicitly constitutional with the "Corwin Amendment," that had already passed the U.S. House and Senate.

The reason Lincoln gave for opposing the extension of slavery was, in Lincoln's own words, that he didn't want the territories to "become an asylum for slavery and [N-word, plural]." He also said that he didn't want the white worker to be "elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave [N-word, plural]." It was all economics and politics, in other words, and not humanitarianism or the desire to "pick the low-hanging fruit" by stopping slavery in the territories.

Lincoln not only talked like a white supremacist; as a state legislator he supported myriad laws and regulations in Illinois that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship. Bennett gives us chapter and verse of how he supported a law that "kept pure from contamination" the electoral franchise by prohibiting "the admission of colored votes." He supported the notorious Illinois Black Codes that made it all but impossible for free blacks to earn a living; and he was a "manager" of the Illinois Colonization Society that sought to use state tax revenues to deport blacks out of the state. He also supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. As president, he vigorously supported the Fugitive Slave Act that forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to slavery for a bounty. Lincoln knew that this law had led to the kidnapping of an untold number of free blacks who were thrown into slavery.

It is understandable how a man like Lerone Bennett, Jr., armed with this knowledge, would begin to question The Legend of Abraham Lincoln.

Perhaps the most important reason why Bennett was motivated to spend twenty years of his life (and longer) researching this book is his knowledge of Lincoln's obsession with "colonization" or deportation. This was what Bennett calls Lincoln's "white dream," his dream of simply deporting all the black people out of America.

Bennett tells the story of how, near the end of his life, Lincoln was still "dreaming." He asked General Benjamin Butler to estimate for him how many ships it would take, after the war was over, do deport all black people from America. "Beast" Butler came back to him with an answer he didn't want to hear: There was no way that his dream could be accomplished with the sailing fleet that was currently at hand.

Bennett details Lincoln's obsession with "colonization" by describing how he proposed to Congress compensated emancipation of slaves in Washington, D.C. and the border states, accompanied by immediate deportation. (Lincoln used the word "deportation" as much or more than "colonization"). Thus, the purpose was not freedom for the slaves so much as it was to rid America of all blacks. It's a good bet that you were never taught this in school; read Forced into Glory and improve your knowledge of the real Lincoln (and of the excuse-making Lincoln Cult that has mis-educated generations of Americans).

Many Americans are aware that Lincoln once said something about America being "the last best hope" on earth. Numerous books have been written about Lincoln with those words in the title. But the context of these words reveals Lincoln's darkest side, not his "greatness," as the Lincoln Cult maintains. The context is that these words were included in Lincoln's plea to Congress to "colonize" any freed slaves. He did not believe a multiracial society was desirable and, as Bennett says, seemed "terrified" at the prospect of inter-racial marriage. Colonization was what he meant by "the last best hope" for America, as Bennett shows. "In support of the White Dream," he writes, "Lincoln mobilized the State Department, the Interior Department, the Treasury Department, and the Smithsonian Institution . . . . Lincoln's ethnic cleansing plan was the official policy of the American government." Perhaps this is a possible reason why the same government did next to nothing for the ex-slaves after the war.

Bennett doesn't buy into the Lincoln Cult's tall tale that he "evolved" during the war and embraced equality. He quotes the man Lincoln had put in charge of "Negro emigration" as saying that Lincoln "remained a colonizationist and racist until his death."

The real heroes, in Bennett's view, are the genuine abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips. Lincoln was never an abolitionist per se and, in fact distanced himself and ridiculed them whenever possible.

January 12, 2008

Thomas J. DiLorenzo professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum/Random House).
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,174 • Replies: 43
No top replies

 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 05:24 pm
In the 1960's, in NYC high schools, students were taught that the Civil War was fought for economic reasons - tariffs on goods that the South wanted tariff free. This would force the South to buy goods from Northern factories. We were also taught that the South wanted the territories to become slave states so that the South would not be out voted in Congress. Slavery was not the reason for the Civil War. This put Lincoln in the role of President of the Union during a war. His Emancipation Proclamation, in some people's opinion, was to prevent the Civil War ending in a stalemate and an armistice. Lincoln, in effect, possibly wanted total surrender, similar to what the US wanted from the Axis Powers in WWII.

There were very few non-racist Whites in Lincoln's time. But, to think his legacy, for any supposed racist views is lessened, is a red-herring for what he did - he preserved the Union. Slavery was the economic engine for the South, where cotton was king, as they said. To look at slavery then, from a 21st century morality, is not understanding history of that era.

If anyone believes the opinion in this post lessens his greatness, it doesn't. If one chooses to personally think less of him for any supposed racist views, that's a personal decision.
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 07:12 am
Foofie wrote:
But, to think his legacy, for any supposed racist views is lessened, is a red-herring for what he did - he preserved the Union.

If anyone believes the opinion in this post lessens his greatness, it doesn't. If one chooses to personally think less of him for any supposed racist views, that's a personal decision.


Well, the opinion and facts of the article are not made, in my estimation, to speak against Lincoln's leading of the fight to quash the Rebellion; rather, I'd say the author of the article was criticizing, what he called, the "Lincoln Cult" and the "distortions" concocted and used by this cult to produce a "false history," which in turn has helped to create "The Legend of Abraham Lincoln."

And I'd say that your statement presupposes that everyone is of the opinion that Lincoln was great. Like you said, it is your personal choice to think Lincoln great, but not every shares your opinion of this white supremacist. And some object to revering him as the "Great Emancipator," when the Emancipation Proclamation kept slavery in tact in those territories over which he had control and only outlawed slavery in those territories he didn't control.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 07:48 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
Thomas di Lorenzo wrote:
Although several "Civil War" publications have labeled yours truly as the preeminent Lincoln critic of our day...

Lincoln "critic" maybe, Lincoln "scholar" -- not so much. DiLorenzo is an apologist for southern secession and, well, something of a nutjob. I'd view everything he says with a good deal of caution.
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 08:01 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas di Lorenzo wrote:
Although several "Civil War" publications have labeled yours truly as the preeminent Lincoln critic of our day...


Lincoln "critic" maybe, Lincoln "scholar" -- not so much. DiLorenzo is an apologist for southern secession and, well, something of a nutjob. I'd view everything he says with a good deal of caution.
Thanks for the heads-up, but I generally view what people say with a good deal of caution.
And to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with being an apologist for southern secession. I'm not saying that it isn't "wrong" or "bad"; just that I think that it is possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 08:30 am
BBB
bm
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 09:18 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
Mexica wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up, but I generally view what people say with a good deal of caution.

Well, that's not a bad policy, but I see little evidence for it here. I'm not sure if you agree with DiLorenzo or Bennett or Morris, but posting their remarks uncritically suggests that you may have some sympathy for their point of view. If that's true, then I would hazard a guess that, in this case, you may have thrown caution to the wind.

Mexica wrote:
And to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with being an apologist for southern secession. I'm not saying that it isn't "wrong" or "bad"; just that I think that it is possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession.

And what case is that?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 09:24 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
bm


Ditto
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 09:30 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
Well, that's not a bad policy, but I see little evidence for it here. I'm not sure if you agree with DiLorenzo or Bennett or Morris, but posting their remarks uncritically suggests that you may have some sympathy for their point of view. If that's true, then I would hazard a guess that, in this case, you may have thrown caution to the wind.

I see, so you're saying that to agree with the whole or any part of this article, or to even post a idea that goes against the grain, is akin to throwing caution to the wind - an interesting point of view, to say the least. And you say DiLorenzo is a "nutjob"? That too, is interesting.

And what case is that?

I don't really have a case prepared; that's why I wrote that i think it is possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession. But I'm inclined to think that the South had the Constitutional right to withdrawal from the Union.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 10:01 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
Mexica wrote:
I see, so you're saying that to agree with the whole or any part of this article, or to even post a idea that goes against the grain, is akin to throwing caution to the wind - an interesting point of view, to say the least.

No, I'm saying that to post their views uncritically suggests that you have not practiced the kind of caution that you claim to use on everyone's statements. Now, of course, I could be mistaken, but you have given me no reason so far to think that I am.

Mexica wrote:
And you say DiLorenzo is a "nutjob"? That too, is interesting.

I'm glad you think so.

Mexica wrote:
I don't really have a case prepared; that's why I wrote that i think it is possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession. But I'm inclined to think that the South had the Constitutional right to withdrawal from the Union.

That's fair, I'm not asking for a legal brief here. But this is your opportunity to explore the issue in greater detail. After all, if the south was justified in seceding, then Lincoln really was a horrible tyrant after all.
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 10:33 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
No, I'm saying that to post their views uncritically suggests that you have not practiced the kind of caution that you claim to use on everyone's statements. Now, of course, I could be mistaken, but you have given me no reason so far to think that I am.

No, you you wrote that if I had "some sympathy for their point of view" then I "may have thrown caution to the wind." Well, keeping in mind that that everyone may throw caution to the wind, it sounds to me that you're passively saying that since you got the impression that I sympathized with all or part of the article, I wasn't cautious. Granted you didn't come out and say that, but that is the impression I got. If that is correct, and you think me less than cautious, because I agree with part of this article, then I'd say you have a myopic outlook on dealing with points of view that differ from your own; rather than state why you disagree, you simply say you're not being cautions or you're a "nutjob." If you're not saying that, then your passive statement or possible mistake is meaningless to me.

But this is your opportunity to explore the issue in greater detail. After all, if the south was justified in seceding, then Lincoln really was a horrible tyrant after all.

Likewise, it is also your opportunity to explore the issue in greater detail.
Again, I merely said i think it possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession.

As for Lincoln, being a tyrant: I neither said nor implied that, but he was, in my opinion, a white supremacist, and that would, I think, go against the grain.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 11:03 am
The South's "case" for secession was pretty thin--it was based on the IXth and Xth amendments to the constitution:

Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Southern jurists, apparently with straight faces, alleged that as the Constitution provided no mechanism by which a state may be expelled from the Union, the right to withdraw from the Union was reserved to the States and the people. To make sure of their case, they held secession convention, to ratify their withdrawal from the Union. In the case of the western counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the eastern counties of the State of Tennessee, that entailed a good deal of voting skulduggery.

Mr. Lincoln's case, however, was rather straightforward. Having seceded, states in the South seized customs houses and detained Federal officers, particularly United States Marshals. Lincoln responded by calling for volunteers from the States, knowing he would need large amounts of manpower, and avoiding the unreliable and often politically motivated militia, with the attendant issues of length of service and compensation. Each step which the Southern Confederacy took to establish themselves as in independent nation risked a violation of the Constitution, so long as the United States Congress refused to acknowledge the right of secession.

In Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution:

(Congress shall have the power) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

As soon as the Southern Confederacy took measures to levy taxes and impose duties, they were in violation of this paragraph.

(Congress shall have the power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Same story here.

(Congress shall have the power) To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


At a stretch, based on these two paragraphs, the Confederate States were in violation as soon as they issued their own currency.

(Congress shall have the power) To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

This one should be rather obvious.

Given that the first act of each state which seceded was to order the withdrawal of their Congressional delegation, they simply assured that the composition of Congress was such that any measure alleged to based upon these powers would pass easily.

They also played into Lincoln's hands in that the United States government defined their actions as rebellion, and therefore Lincoln could allege that he was justified in invoking Article One, Section 9, the second paragraph:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Lincoln's first suspension of writs was declared unconstitutional by Chief Justice Taney, a Marylander and one might say a rabid supporter of slavery. Lincoln got around this in his second Habeas Corpus proclamation by citing the public safety, and limiting the suspension to areas under military control.

Article One, Section 9 also holds that:

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

So long as the United States government did not recognize the right of States to secede, the actions of the Confederate States government in establishing their own imposts and commercial regulation could be construed as a violation of this paragraph.

The most damning constitutional argument to the actions of the Confederate States, however, is the entirety of Article One, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


With the putative constitutional argument of the Southern Confederacy only informally adduced, and never reviewed (Lincoln was certainly unlikely to seek Mr. Justice Taney's opinion on the matter), a good argument could be made that the President was well within his powers to punish a rebellion, and on which violated so many portions of the constitution.

I am not a great admirer of Lincoln, for a variety of small and mostly unimportant reasons. But i see no good argument for secession based on the Constitution, and i see many arguments--some good, so dubious--for the Presidents behavior.

The best objection--and it is a thin one--to Lincoln's actions is that he was a minority President. There have been many a minority President in our history, nearly a third of all of our Presidents. It is not a very good reason to question the authority of the office, when so many minority President's have sat and governed without any challenge to their authority on such a basis.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 11:05 am
Re: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cul
Mexica wrote:
No, you you wrote that if I had "some sympathy for their point of view" then I "may have thrown caution to the wind." Well, keeping in mind that that everyone may throw caution to the wind, it sounds to me that you're passively saying that since you got the impression that I sympathized with all or part of the article, I wasn't cautious. Granted you didn't come out and say that, but that is the impression I got. If that is correct, and you think me less than cautious, because I agree with part of this article, then I'd say you have a myopic outlook on dealing with points of view that differ from your own; rather than state why you disagree, you simply say you're not being cautions or you're a "nutjob." If you're not saying that, then your passive statement or possible mistake is meaningless to me.

I am not going to continue this tedious exercise in analyzing your usage of the word "caution." If you have, for some odd reason, taken offense at my assertion that you may have "thrown caution to the wind," then I suppose I'll just have to learn to live with that.

Mexica wrote:
Likewise, it is also your opportunity to explore the issue in greater detail.
Again, I merely said i think it possible for some to make a strong and moral case for southern secession.

It's not my thread. If you're not interested in the subject, then so be it.

Mexica wrote:
As for Lincoln, being a tyrant: I neither said nor implied that, but he was, in my opinion, a white supremacist, and that would, I think, go against the grain.

Why do you think he was a white supremacist?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 11:23 am
Lincoln was a white suprematist? Wow, imaginations grow don't they?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2008 07:00 pm
Hoy es Cinco de Mayo. Feliz Cinco de Mayo. Viva el Mejico. Viva los Estados Unidos. Todo el mundo sea alegre. El Presidente Lincoln era una persona muy importante. El fin!
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 10:48 am
I am not going to continue this tedious exercise in analyzing your usage of the word "caution." If you have, for some odd reason, taken offense at my assertion that you may have "thrown caution to the wind," then I suppose I'll just have to learn to live with that.
-joefromchicago

lol

First, it was youWhy do you think he was a white supremacist?
-joefromchicago

Because he believed that blacks were inferior to whites.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 11:16 am
Why do you think he was a white supremacist?
-joefromchicago


Because he believed that blacks were inferior to whites.
-Dona Mejica

In the mid nineteenth century that wasn't a white supremacist as we now think of that terminology. That was the scientific belief in that time period. Sad, but true. Many abolitionists didn't believe in equality of the races either; they just realized that slavery was a sin.
-Senor Foofie
0 Replies
 
Mexica
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 11:38 am
Foofie wrote:
In the mid nineteenth century that wasn't a white supremacist as we now think of that terminology. That was the scientific belief in that time period. Sad, but true. Many abolitionists didn't believe in equality of the races either; they just realized that slavery was a sin.
-Senor Foofie

Science and belief mix as well as oil and water.
Try again, SeƱora Foofie.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 03:29 pm
Leaving aside that Mexica has absolutely no basis upon which to assert that Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites, it is ironic that she is puking up this kind of propaganda, given what Lincoln's opponent in both the 1858 Illinois contest for the United States Senate, and the 1860 election, Stephen Douglas had to say in the Lincoln-Douglas debate which took place at Galesburg:

"This Government was made by our fathers on the white basis . . . made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever."

Lincoln denied that the Declaration of Independence inferentially excludes minorities.

Frankly, i think Mexica, who has always shown a distinct contempt for the United States, is just making sh*t up to sustain what passes for an argument on her side. What is hilariously ironic, though, is to see a Mexican citizen wailing about Lincoln being a tyrant--that from the nation which bred and was ruled by the likes of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, or Porfirio Diaz. Of course, on such a basis, one could claim that any Mexican familiar with their own nation's history should be an expert on tyrants.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 06:11 pm
Mexica wrote:
Why do you think he was a white supremacist?
-joefromchicago

Because he believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

Lincoln's views on race shifted over time. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it was pretty clear that he didn't want to socialize with blacks, but he recognized that they were created equal in the Jeffersonian sense. I'm not sure if his position could be characterized as one where whites were superior to blacks as opposed to one where whites were different from blacks.

In any event, even if Lincoln believed that whites were superior to blacks, that still wouldn't have made him a white supremacist. At most, it would have made him a white chauvinist. A white supremacist believes that whites should rule over blacks. That hardly fits with Lincoln's statements.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 04:14:14