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, Señora Foofie.
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.
Here are some Lincoln quotes that do provide a "basis upon which to assert that Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites" and a racist:
Mexica wrote:Here are some Lincoln quotes that do provide a "basis upon which to assert that Lincoln believed that blacks were inferior to whites" and a racist:
You forgot to include this statement from the first debate:...I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, [i]he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man[/i]. [Great applause.]
Bennett derisively cites several historians who have made Lincoln "the patron saint of the Declaration of Independence. J.G. Randall said `the Declaration of Independence was his platform, his confession of faith.' Roy P. Basler [the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works] said `democracy was to Lincoln a religion'" (p. 311). Bennett comments: "If so, it was a Jim Crow religion with a separate-but-unequal Holy Writ" (p. 311-12).
How can Bennett say this? If he admits that the equality clause of the Declaration was central to Lincoln, has he not given away his case? The Declaration says that "all men are created equal," and no one, not even Chief Justice Taney, doubted that blacks were human beings.
Bennett shows himself fully equal to the challenge of this objection. He places great stress on Lincoln's distinction between "natural" and "political" rights. No doubt blacks, like all other human beings, possess natural rights; but rights of citizenship are an entirely different matter. Further-and this is crucial to Bennett's analysis-all essential political rights are prerogatives of citizenship. Natural rights, apart from citizenship, count for next to nothing in Lincoln's conception.
As our author notes, Lincoln expressed himself with complete clarity on the point. He cites the following, which he terms "so shocking that the best thing for us to do is to get out of the way and let Lincoln speak." Lincoln stated: "Negroes have natural rights, however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here . . . no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind" (p. 315).
For Lincoln, then, the question of blacks' rights in the United States could not be answered by looking at the Declaration in isolation. To do so would be to seek guidance from bare abstractions: Bennett terms these "Declaration A." Only by interpreting the Declaration within the concrete historical circumstances of America's founding ("Declaration B"), can one grasp a proper policy towards blacks.
If one interprets the Declaration in this historically sensitive way, Lincoln argued, blacks have little or no place in the American polity. During his debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, Lincoln left little room for doubt about this, and Bennett cites statements that, if made today, might earn Lincoln an indictment for incitement to hate crimes. In the debate at Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln stated: "Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. . . . I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship" (p. 305).
Lincoln, then, did not wish political rights to be extended to blacks. But why not? Here is where Lincoln might encounter legal troubles today. He thought that America was a white man's country. Whites had founded the nation (exercising their natural rights under the Declaration) and had extended the rights of citizenship to other free, white people, not to blacks.
I didn't forget that statement. I purposely left that out, as it did not support or even conflict with my opinion that Lincoln was a racist.
"But how," you might ask, "can you say Lincoln was a racist, if he admitted that blacks were entitled to the rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence?" Lerone Bennett offers his us his take on what seems like a conflict ideas within Lincoln's statements:
Yeah, I kinda' figured that.
Considering that this thread is concerned with whether or not Bennett's thesis is correct, it is unavailing for you to quote Bennett in support of himself.
It seems clear to me that Lincoln was, indeed, a racist. But perhaps your cautious reading of his statements leads you to another conclusion. In which case, we'd should resolve to disagree on this matter.
Now, if you contend that Lincoln held racist views in 1858, we have no disagreement. If you contend that Lincoln never changed those views, then we will indeed have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure why you think we'd disagree. I never claimed that Lincoln wasn't a racist.
joefromchicago wrote:Good.Now, if you contend that Lincoln held racist views in 1858, we have no disagreement. If you contend that Lincoln never changed those views, then we will indeed have to agree to disagree.
What leads you to believe that he was no longer a racist in 1865? Did he offer opinions that countered those quoted above?
It is pretty clear that you cannot contain your contempt for opinions (or the people who harbor those opinions) that radically differs from your own, and rather then rationally and intelligently counter or question those ideas, you emotionally and irrationally charge things you cannot possibly know and tap-out irrelevant gibberish on your keyboard. In short, it is you who "makes up" and spews "sh*t."
Asserting an opinion that differs from yours is sign of "distinct contempt for the United States"? Talk about sub-moronic drivel!
The only way I'd could "make up sh*t," would be to squeeze that overly sensitive head of yours.
But then whether or not Lincoln was a racist at some point in his life is not really the issue here. If I understand him correctly, Bennett argues that Lincoln was not only a racist, but that he was always a racist (or, as Di Lorenzo puts it, that Lincoln was a "lifelong white supremacist"). That, I am convinced, is incorrect. As I mentioned before, Lincoln's views on race changed over time. The positions that he took in 1858 were not the same ones he came to espouse in 1865.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union "
I'd agree that simply calling Lincoln a racist would not by itself deepen one's understanding of Lincoln. However, explaining why one considers Lincoln a racist, would, I think, help deepen one's understanding of Lincoln. In this sense, I think it very much facilitates debate. I mean, our discussion, after all, was started by me stating that Lincoln was a white supremacist and your question of why I thought him such.
Well, to be clear, Bennett did not say that Lincoln's views on race didn't change over time; what he argued, so far as I can tell, and what you also noted in a previous post, was that Bennett thought Lincoln a lifelong racist.
It seems strange to me that you are now saying you are not taking a position one way or the other, given that you seemed to be arguing against the notion that Lincoln was a lifelong racist when you wrote:
Quote:But then whether or not Lincoln was a racist at some point in his life is not really the issue here. If I understand him correctly, Bennett argues that Lincoln was not only a racist, but that he was always a racist (or, as Di Lorenzo puts it, that Lincoln was a "lifelong white supremacist"). That, I am convinced, is incorrect. As I mentioned before, Lincoln's views on race changed over time. The positions that he took in 1858 were not the same ones he came to espouse in 1865.
Now, here you write, "that, I am convinced, is incorrect." So, what were you "convinced was incorrect," if not the idea that Lincoln was a lifelong racist?
First off, I'd suggest to you that your saying "Lincoln's attitude, in regards to race, changed" is a bit vague. In what way would you argue they changed? How would you characterize Lincoln's attitude before this "change," and how would you characterize his attitude after this change? You wrote (if you wrote more on this, please let me know) that it was clear in 1858 that Lincoln "didn't want to socialize with blacks." You also so went so far as to say, "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." Are you suggestion that in 1965 Lincoln wanted to socialize with blacks and that he thought whites and blacks were the same?
Furthermore, in what way would you argue that Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation or his support of the 13th Amendment reflects a shift in his ideology? In other words, how does his support of the 13th Amendment counter, to use one example, Lincoln's earlier statement of: "I will say, then, that I am not nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people?"
As far as I can tell, Lincoln had never been a proponent or advocate for the institution of slavery - although he did support the proposed Corwin Amendment. In fact, he did mention in 1858 that his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves " It seems to me that his support of the 13th Amendment was in keeping with his earlier feelings of wanting to free all slaves. But, as highlighted earlier, while Lincoln believed blacks had natural rights, they didn't, he felt, on the basis of their race, enjoy political rights. And since the there is no mentioning of granting political rights to blacks in the 13th Amendment, I do not see how you can conclude that his support of it represented a shift in his ideology in regards to the interrelationship between blacks and whites.
In short, Bennett argues the Emancipation Proclamation was, as DiLorenzo summarizes, a war measure designed to "placate the genuine abolitionists with a political sleight of hand...and to deter Britain and France from formally recognizing the Confederate government." This site makes a similar point "The Emancipation Proclamation probably did have an impact overseas, as it may have been a factor in convincing the English not to ally themselves with the confederacy."
So, Lincoln issued a proclamation over a year-and-a-half after hostilities break out, and the effect of it is that no slaves were freed and it "probably convinced the English not to ally themselves with the confederacy." Again, this seems more like a war measure in keeping with his primary goal of preserving the Union, and not some representation of a shift of his ideas in regards to race relations between blacks and whites.
Maybe, he wouldn't have advocated for those measures 1858, but there is nothing to suggest that it was because of ideological reasons. But even so, saying "Lincoln would not have advocated those or similar measures in 1858" is not, in my opinion, the same as saying he retracted or contradicted, in anyway, his earlier racist statements.
There is no record - none that I have ever read - of Lincoln ever retracting or even contradicting his racist statements. So, I presume to conclude that Lincoln held those views in 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and until his death in 1865. Now, if you know of any evidence that indicates otherwise, please, by all means, share and explain why you think it contradicts his earlier racist statements.
So, at first, you do take the position that Lincoln wasn't a lifelong racist, and then you say that taking a position on whether or not Lincoln was a racist is of no interest to you. So, I find your contradictory statements to be confusing.
I agree. But what I asked, and what you have yet to answer, was: 1.) In what way, would you say, Lincoln's views on race changed? 2.) How do you characterize Lincoln's attitude on race before this "change," and how do you characterize his attitude after this change?
So what point are you making here? Are you suggesting that Lincoln's "genuine" relationship with Douglass in someway contradicts his racist statements? If you are not saying it contradicts his (as you prefer them labeled) "white chauvinistic" statements, what is your point in mentioning his "far more intimate relations with blacks" and his "genuine" relationship with Frederick Douglass?
Who thought freeing the slaves would "automatically" entitle them to "all of the political rights enjoyed by freemen," Lincoln?
As you wrote: "where's your proof?"
Probable? Again, where's your proof in support of your opinion?
Why do you conclude that it was "highly likely" that Lincoln thought emancipation would be enough to grant freed slaves political equality and social equality? After all, there were many free blacks in the North and they weren't considered the political or social equals of whites; and Lincoln was very familiar with that fact. In fact, it is reported that Lincoln supported the "Black Codes" of Illinois. And those codes worked well to deny free blacks political and social equality. So, it seems unlikely to me, that Lincoln really thought that emancipation would "automatically" lead to political and social equality for freed blacks. But again, please do explain why you think otherwise.
So what are you saying: that Lincoln's support of the 13th Amendment (an Amendment that didn't grant blacks political or social equality) in some why contradicts: his statements of not wanting to grant blacks political and social equality, or his support of and efforts to deport free blacks, or his support of the Black Codes of Illinois? If you're not saying that, what are you saying?
I submit that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves on the day it was issued, because Lincoln made sure it did not. He could have freed slaves that resided in states that were not in rebellion; but he didn't. So, it hardly seems to me that Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation was out of some epiphany on racial equality, or that it represents some "change" or "shift" in his thinking in regards to race relations between blacks and whites.
Where's your proof?
-joefromchicago
What is it that you'd like me to show proof of?
Maybe, he wouldn't have advocated for those measures 1858, but there is nothing to suggest that it was because of ideological reasons. But even so, saying "Lincoln would not have advocated those or similar measures in 1858" is not, in my opinion, the same as saying he retracted or contradicted, in anyway, his earlier racist statements.
