For those who believe that Abe Lincoln is a abolitionist....?

Question

Please google what historian Lerone Bennett Jr. wrote about him then answer a question.....

Has your opinion changed? HOw so?

telluwhat

what the ...are you babbling about?

Please be clear.

Cupcake....

the quotes you spoke of were written by men in Abe's social circle. .. agree? Heed the caution you give to me.

Also this is not new information.

A vaiety of books by authors of various times say the same thing. I have studied history as a major.

PEOPLE PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED WHICH INCLUDES GOOGLING THE NAME.

Please READ the quote then comment on it. Dont speculate as to what it MAY say!!

*sigh*

Answer 1

Didn't need to read the article.

Abe said, in writing, that if all he had to do to keep the Union together was keep the Blacks enslaved, he'd do it.

Abe established Liberia on the coast of West Africa to deport slaves once the war was over (didn't happen because it soon proved to be a logistical nightmare).

The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery only in the South, where he had no jurisdiction, and preserved it in the North, where he could have abolished it. In short, it accomplished nothing.

All I know is that Bush sure could have used P.R. Manager!

Answer 2

Is Bennett from the south?

Don't believe everything revisionist historians are putting out. If you want to know the truth, go to the original sources like the letters and documents that Lincoln wrote as well as what others who lived at the same time wrote about him. They will reveal the real man better than some idiot who can't get published any other way than to try to spoil a man's reputation based upon conjecture and not fact. Lincoln was involved in the abolition of slavery movement before he was president, though not as active as those who would have invoked violence. He was involved in Congress when they decided the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise in the 1850s which tried to regulate slavery's expansion into new states. You need to see the Ken Burns film on the Civil War. You will see the real Lincoln there. Lincoln would have presented the Emancipation Proclamation in 1861 if his generals had given him an earlier victory in battle then. As it was, he had to wait until there was the surety of the union ultimately winning to give it in 1863. Otherwise it would have been an empty gesture if the south had gained final independence.

I also know this, had Lincoln lived to complete his second presidential term, the reconstruction of the south would have been much different than it was. He was the one who said, "...with malice toward none..." in trying to reunite the country after the war. Don't believe everything you hear as being "new" insight into what went on then.

I also would like to know why during "Black History Month" in the public schools that no one ever mentions Mr. Lincoln. Without him, there wouldn't be any black history to speak of in the US. Mr. King and all the rest would still have worn chains forged hundreds of years earlier since the US was the last of the democratic nations of the world to prohibit slavery.

Answer 3

I have been aware of many different insights to Abe Lincoln and his presidency. He would probably be shocked that he is so famous today. To me he was an underdog. Born in poverty, taught himself to read and faced a very stressful job while struggling with depression, as well as having his son die during his term. What I like most about him was his ability to deliver a speech from his heart , after writing it himself. Presidents today have their speeches written for them. I think I would have enjoyed a conversation with him had I been born in that time. He was a great person more than a great president. He was also just human like the rest of us and should not be held up on a pedestal.

Answer 4

I studied the American Civil War in High School History 1, using a text called "Select Documents",I have not googled that history as history is perpetually re-written as both truth and lies or just plain out and out bullshit that is re-made as if a Hollywood movie..I respect your intrinsic belief in what you may read..but the point is...He was a politician First! LOL. One of the ways to change the past is not to repeat it in the present or future.

Answer 5

Abe wasn't just put on this earth to set the slaves free.

but during is office tenure the slaves were indeed freed.

yes he had something to do with it, yes it took a long time and yes not all slaves were freed when the law was passed and yes some slaves decided to stay and become indentured servants.

this man can have his opinion, but my god are we suppose to change every rule we have learned over the years because of one man?

Answer 6

when i googled him, the only thing that came up was all the books he wrote...no real information on the subject.

but to answer your question, i have taken this qoute from abe's 1961 inaugural speech:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

~~~>I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. <~~~~~~

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. "


so basically, he had no intention on interferring with slavery...and the states who practiced slavery could do what they wanted to with their slaves even if it was "among the gravest of crimes". in my opinion, american slavery was one of the gravest crimes in world history.

here's your abolitionist people.

Answer 7

Well here goes... please try to stick with me

I'm well aware of the things he's written... but I do not buy his conclusions.

In fact, anyone who knows much about Lincoln knows the things Bennett cites, but he also knows their CONTEXT and the MANY OTHER things Lincoln said and did, things Bennett mostly ignores or lightly dismisses. Bennett is, sad to say, a cherry-picker. He trades on what a lot of people may not know about Lincoln, or may have misunderstood, and shocks them into thinking Lincoln fans have been withholding something. And he draws a portrait of the man that is MORE misleading than many uninformed popular ones.


But, correcting several errors others have listed here, as well as some of Bennett's, the truth is:

1) LINCOLN'S POSITION ON SLAVERY
Lincoln was not an "abolitionist", but he WAS a "free soil" Republican who hated slavery and openly declared his belief that it was morally wrong, even if he did not have the authority (no, not even as President, at least not under normal circumstances) to override state laws to free slaves.


2) RACISM?
Lincoln was a man of his times -- he MAY have shared some "racist" views with MOST whites of his time (including most abolitionist), though if you look closely, the ONLY time he expressed anything approaching racist POLITICAL views, was when he was trying to sidestep Stephen Douglas's attacks on him during their Senate campaign.

BUT even then his OVERWHELMING emphasis in this area was that a black man was as entitled to the Declaration's "inalienable rights" as any other. And he repeatedly insisted that slavery was morally WRONG, not right or even "neutral" as Douglas seemed to try to have it.

3) POLITICIAN! (in a GOOD way)
Lincoln was also a politician -- in the GOOD sense, meaning, he had an understanding of HOW and when things could be accomplished, what moves might totally derail a plan, and what might prepare them to accept it.

One esp important example here is his oft-cited open letter to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862. That's the one where he said he would free all, some or none of the slaves IF the move would restore the Union. That DATE is important, because on JULY 22 Lincoln made his Proclamation plans known to his cabinet, and on SEPTEMBER 22 he issued it, having taken Seward's advice to wait for a military VICTORY before doing so.

In other words, even as Lincoln was writing to Greeley, he was all ready to release the proclamation. Thus that letter was a way to prepare people to ACCEPT the Proclamation. (Once the Proclamation was release, Greeley quickly understood this... sadly, some folks today have not yet caught on.)

This should be a warning about making assumptions about someone's views or poliices based on a few snippets without any real context. Check WHEN something was said, and under what circumstances, and what the person then DID (and, for that mattter, check ALL of what they said on the matter).

4) COLONIZATION?
Lincoln did NOT found Liberia!! That happened a bit earlier -- 40+ years!--during MONROE's term (hence the capital name, "Monrovia'). Yes, he did for quite some time advocate colonization, as did many others. But you should at least know:

a) He advocated VOLUNTARY colonization NEVER mandatory

b) A central reason he thought this was necessary, was his fear that the two races COULD not live together, and that blacks would never be treated equally in America, BECAUSE of the history of white abuse and prejudice against them

c) The possibility of colonization was a "carrot" he thought might open slave-holding states, beginning with the loyal border states, to adopt programs to EMANCIPATE their slaves.

d) Once the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, he NEVER again advocated colonization


5) EMANCIPATION EFFORTS
Lincoln did MUCH to free slaves, but had to work within legal, Constitutional bounds, and what the public would bear..

a) Long BEFORE the Emancipation Proclamation (back in 1861) he made many efforts to persuade the border slave states that had not seceded to adopt voluntary compensation programs (and sought federal funds to reimburse them). He hoped to then expand this to the South, beginning with border states. If this worked the breach between the sections might be overcome, and the Union restored, by removing (or 'abolishing'!) the source of the problem

b) The Emancipation Proclamation did indeed free slaves -- it declared that all who had escaped already would NOT be returned, and assured that any who escaped thereafter would be free, and that AS the Union armies were able to take an area its slaves would IMMEDIATELY be free.

(Note that nearly everyone in Lincoln's time --North AND South -- understood this as the point and effect of the Proclamation... and greatly rejoiced and praised Lincoln or strongly attacked him for it.) Note that PART of the Proclamation involved ORDERING the armed forces (as their Commander in Chief) to assist slaves who fled.

Incidentally, Bennett and others say much about how the slaves "freed themselves". I see no reason why we can't see the two as working TOGETHER. Certainly, the Proclamation ENCOURAGED slaves to flee their chains (free themselves), BECAUSE it provided guarantees and military support for their effort. In other words "Lincoln freed the slaves" and "the slaves freed themselves" can BOTH be true!

c) Lincoln had NO authority under the Constitution to simply declare slaves free in states that were NOT in rebellion. And had he attempted to do so, these states --which at certain points ALMOST shifted allegiance -- might well have seceded too... and the WHOLE cause would be lost. (That's the proper political concern with doing what is POSSIBLE.)

(And if he thought he could weather all that, and so had still attempted broader Proclamation, the same Supreme Court that had given us the Dred Scott decision would have quickly slapped him down... as they had already done with some other wartime measures by Lincoln.)

d) After the Proclamation, Lincoln actively worked lobbying Congress to secure a PERMANENT end of slavery (fearing the courts might nullify the Proclamation after the war). This including a lot of logrolling of votes for the 13th amendment, and pushing for a quick recognition of Nevada as a state, to gain more votes for the amendment's ratification. (He was exultant when Congress passed it in January 1865 and indicated his approval by SIGNING it, even though there is no need for a President to sign amendments.)


6) WHAT OTHERS SAID
You might, for starters, read all of what Frederick Douglass said about him (and NOT just the "white man's President" comment which many take COMPLETELY out of context), and his admiration for what Lincoln had done AND for the fact that Lincoln welcomed him openly and treated him as a MAN, not as in any way inferior. (So much for the "personal racism".)

Answer 8

No it hasn't. You know why? I don't let everything I read affect my thoughts on a certain topic.