i live in illnois and they treat this man like a god here but when u bring up the fact he was racist like this
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; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much 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.
they want no part why is this stuff left out apout Lincoln
2006-09-29
21:43:57
·
13 answers
·
asked by
ryan s
5
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ History
minion for one i have a associates degree in history. but i can tell you have never been to college about this. because the first thing a professor tells you is that the civil war wasn't over slavery. and that he only freed the slaves in the south is because it would cause chaos. funny thing is that he never freed the northern slaves. so take your own advice and take some classes.
just because he freed them didn't mean he thought they were ever equal to him
2006-09-29
22:10:25 ·
update #1
Schools do not label Lincoln "racist" simply because using this term -- esp. with its implication of active animosity and discriminatory actions-- does not accurately reflect Lincoln's views or his behavior.
I'm curious about who you have been reading. Is it diLorenzo or Bennett? Both present the "Lincoln was racist" view, but both are extremely selective in the quotes and other evidence they use. (The former, whom I have read, is downright shoddy in his http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/features/2004Feb/lincoln.htmlscholarship... a pity since his work as an economist is fairly decent). But neither is an established expert on this material. In fact, I can think of no leading Lincoln scholar or Civil War historian who shares your assessment, and they are all QUITE familiar with the passage you cite and others like it.
At any rate the quote you cite from the Lincoln - Douglas debates (1858) cannot be properly understood without understanding the political environment and how Lincoln was attempting to counter Douglas's tactics. Nor do they stand alone. You must also consider the many other things he said in these debates and thereafter (including his frequent and powerful appeals to the Declaration of Independence to argue for the equal rights of blacks as human beings), and more importantly the policies he supported and carried out as president.
To begin with -- your understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation is simplistic. It did not free slaves except in 'rebel territory' BECAUSE Lincoln did not have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to do so; the Proclamation was an exercises of his "war powers" against those in rebellion (an idea firs set forth by John Quincy Adams, in fact, and advanced by members of Lincoln's cabinet). But more than this, the cynical view of this measure ignores Lincoln's own remarks about it, and more importantly the many OTHER steps he took before and afterword to work for emancipation -- again by CONSTITUTIONAL means :
* supporting the changing of laws (which the Constitution provided for) to emancipate slaves in Washington (something he first advocated when a member of Congress)
* urging legislators in the border states, both before and after the Proclamation, to change their state laws
* in August 1864, when he was not sure if the war would be successful, he urged bringing as many slaves as possible behind Union lines to secure their freedom
* his agresseive and successful efforts (lobbying, logrolling....) to secure the passage of the 13th amendment (including his hastening the process of Nevada statehood to try to get another vote to ratify it.
Read more about these efforts at the following site (the whole is good, but the following pages are particularly helpful):
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=56&subjectID=3
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=41&subjectID=3
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=35&subjectID=3
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=36&subjectID=3
Some other examples:
* Lincoln insisted on EQUAL pay for black soldiers
* When the South refused to include blacks in the prisoner exchanges, Lincoln suspended the exchanges
* During the planning of the reconstruction of Louisiana, Lincon began to advocate SUFFRAGE for blacks, at least for those who were educated or who had fought for their country
* Lincoln expressed this support for suffrage in his last public speech (April 11, 1865)... and it is even said that Booth, when he heard this statement, became determined in his plans to assassinate the President (whom he had once only meant to kidnap)
Going back to the starting point -- even if Lincoln's views in 1858 are reasonably called "racist", must we assume no change in his views or actions? On the contrary, folks like Reconstruction expert Eric Foner note the CHANGE in Lincoln's views during the course of his Presidency (in part from seeing the behavior of black soldiers, meetin many blacks, perhaps esp. Frederick Douglass) and argue that he moved away from his former 'racist' views. (Incidentally, Douglass himself had much to say about how Lincoln treated him as an equal.)
I can scarcely do justice to the whole question, so here are a few essays that discuss it in greater length, and reach similar conclusions.
http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html
http://www.martinspencer.org/AL.pdf (more detailed. . . good essay)
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/features/2004Feb/lincoln.html
http://www.claremont.org/writings/010807leibsohn.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800b.htm
The closing statement of the last of these summarizes the basic point well:
"To apply 20th century beliefs and standards to an America of 1858 and declare Abraham Lincoln a "racist" is a faulty formula that unfairly distorts Lincoln's true role in advancing civil and human rights. By the standards of his time, Lincoln's views on race and equality were progressive and truly changed minds, policy and most importantly, hearts for years to come."
2006-10-03 16:40:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by bruhaha 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's mainly because actions speak louder than words. This is not to say that Lincoln said one thing, but believed and acted upon another (since clearly he seemed to believe in what he said). However, his actions were the most important to advance the position of the African-American race for the next 100 years, up until Dr. Martin Luther King. Obviously the laws outlawing slavery were thinly enforced, but it was a start in the right direction.
In addition, Lincoln accomplished a whole lot as a President of this country, ignoring racial issues. To keep the country together was obviously incredibly pivotal, and such challenges posed to an American President have been rarely equalled in importance and impact on the future.
These things, and many more that I haven't mentioned, are why history looks so favorably upon Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents.
2006-09-30 05:04:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dave 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Can you really call Lincon a racist when his comments were definatley on the liberal side of everyone else in the world. Do you think you would have thought differently. For what you said, I don't see a big problem with it, he's saying blacks and whites are two different cultures that can't live under the same set of laws. He's saying one must dominate the other or there would be utter chaos, he's not saying one is better than the other. Also, since the whites were educated it makes more sense for them to be the dominate. Anyway, elementary school isn't for independent thought, its to teach children how to think and the dumbed down version isn't wrong.
2006-10-02 06:27:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by . 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lincoln was not racist. He was a victim of the ignorance of the times.
Lincoln was a change agent. He was sufficiently different from his peers to make a paradigm shift that ended up being in favor of blacks--making him the ultimate non-racist of his time.
A racist would never have shed the blood of one white man in favor of something to help the people he was racist against.
Therefore, despite the words you report here, Lincoln's actions, and his penultimate role as the major catalyst for the end of chattel slavery of black people in the United States marks him as a non-racist.
I know about the 'favorite son' thing. Not only was I born and reared in Philadelphia, which worships, and I mean worships, Ben Franklin, but I did live in Chicago for 3 years, and got a taste of how Lincoln is adored in Illinois.
These are good things. These men embodied positive virtues and attributes, and I am glad that they are loved instead of, say, Hitler.
2006-09-30 05:27:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by nora22000 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I read your statement and there is no doubt in my mind that you are the most dangerous kind of racist there is. Lincoln was not actually a racist. he freed the slaves and all other people for political reasons.
re: He realized the union could not exist without unity and freedom for all human beings. It is pretty obvious that you don't know much about American history. I suggest you take some collage courses on the civil war. The truth is out there. Be smarter than you sound.
2006-09-30 04:54:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by minion 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Technically you're right (I think Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents we ever had) but you have to remember HE WAS A PRODUCT OF HIS TIMES. That made him feel and say things that we find morally unacceptable today. But he grew in his position as president. If you think that the American public is going bananas over the war in Iraq, just read about what the American sentiment was like way back then!! As you know it lead to the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans killed each other one way or another. He was NOT for slavery. But he also knew that he could NOT be so far ahead of public opinion that no one would follow him. As it was, he gradually brought about the destruction of slavery by following the dictates of the situation.
No president has done so much against such violent opposition.
2006-09-30 05:05:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
They probably don't teach it, in part, because it is immaterial and really not that important. The important issue is that Lincoln demonstrated that he was a truly great leader. He was able to do the right thing in spite of his own personal opinions and prejudices. A lessor man would have succumb to his personal biases and continued the evil institution of slavery. Lincoln realized that slavery was one of the main issues that was riping the union apart so he ended it ... and got assassinated for his efforts!
2006-09-30 05:21:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by cchew4 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The reason is that if you try to give the immature, ie school students, a fully nuanced picture from the word go they just won't get it. So you start with a simplified version and then fill in the details when their minds can stretch to understand them. It's called education.
2006-10-01 02:44:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Try reading the Emancipation Proclamation.
2006-09-30 04:53:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by starrynight1 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Don't you need atleast an 8th grade education to post on yahoo answers? Anyways, go back into your hole and commit suicide. I'm sure you won't be missed by more than 5 people.
2006-09-30 04:59:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by pokerkid80 1
·
2⤊
2⤋