Abe Lincoln Was A Bigot

Lincoln was a product of his times. He was born and raised in that era and had the attitudes of the time and place.

Its unfair to judge historical people because of when they were born.

It is fair to ask, in what direction did they move?

People have no choice about where they start, but they do choose the direction that they travel.

 

Not really. Depends on the person/subject. Can somebody say Napoleon You will get attention if you write about him (and he's already more well covered as Lincoln).

Maybe slavery would be abolished a few decades later. We don't know what the fuck would have happened. Educated guesses, sure. But they get less educated and certain when they include a bigger period of time. On the long term, it will forever be arguable what would have been the worst option for everyone. I mean we are now attatched to these united states, but if we look objectively anything could have happened if it would have been seperated back then. For instance sanction the shit out of the southern states if the rest of the western world (incl. the northern states) cared so much about their way of producing cotton (OP shows already this would probably not happen as their president at that time did not really care that much about black slaves as is teached now).

 

It's highly probable that slavery would have been abolished later on. Really though, it's hard to speculate about other consequences that would have flowed from a victory for the south. America's role in 20th c history might have been very different. That could have had very wide implications. If it would have been better or worse is purely a matter of speculation.

Maybe it's worth remembering too that the first shots were fired by the Confederates.

 

History considers Lincoln a champion of blacks. The point of the thread is to show how history doesn't tell the truth. It's a 150 year old lie. What if the bible is a two thousand year old hoax?

 

That is not a good excuse for bigotry. A race of people thinking they are better than other races is what Hitler did to the Jews, and what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians. The bible says God is a Bigot.

 

I'm not reall sure about your comments on the bible or God or why you included them in this particular thread but I am fully with you on this part (and would have liked the post if it was just that):

As this is what this thread is about and it is a very valid point.

 

Lincoln's wife was deep into abolitionist thinking, and surely influenced him over time.

 

The bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people, and the rest of us are like dogs and swine. God says, thou shall not kill, and thou shall not steal. And then tells the Jews to go kill the owners of the land of "milk and honey" and take their land, to be the land of the chosen people. Another instance of history not telling the truth. i don't buy into God being a bigot. We all got off the same arc.

 

I see. Thanks for clarifying the link between those 2 things.

 

Wow, he does sound bigoted!

 

He was probably more pragmatic. It seems he as a president cared primarily about the coutry's future and not primarily about the future of ALL people in it. At least not at that point in time when he said that stuff.

Just because slavery was a key point does not mean the american civil war was started and fought primarily to end slavery (as is often simply portrayed, certainly in history lessons for kids I took notice of in the last few decades). No, it was about economics, industry, segregation, loss of power. The pragmatic line of Lincoln about keeping the country together says a lot.

 

The remnants of the confederacy haven't gotten over the Civil War, but now they're voting republican. Most of the red states are the south. They sure didn't vote Obama into office.

 

He swore an oath of office on inauguration day, and upholding that duty had to be his first responsibility. I think it goes without saying that the number one goal of any Presidency is to end up with as many states as you started out with. Anything less is an epic fail.

...all revolving around slavery.

North Carolina voted for Obama, the first time.

 

Sure. I wasn't criticizing him for being pragmatic. Just stating it.

Like I said. A key point. But not the prime reason they went to war. If there would have been just slavery and no economic problems because of it, or the chance on states seperating from the US, there would have been no war over it at all (most likely). Certainly not so many white soldiers willing to fight over it (let alone die for it) as they did.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Northern and Southern economies were both doing well. Without the issue of slavery, the chances of a US civil war would have been zero. Political literature for several decades leading up to the war were dominated by the slavery debate, and all the other issues directly tied to it. North and South didn't like each other very much, but they had limited need for interaction, in an era without modern transportation and communication.

The point of view you're writing from basically didn't appear until after 1865.

 

let's not forget the invention that greatly increased slavery in America
or the invention that helped bring it to an end

the cotton gin & the steam engine




although the steam engine did usher in a rather fucked up industrial revolution period where being a factory worker was in many ways as bad or worse than being a slave, at least in terms of working conditions & compensation.

it all comes down to $$$

 

So, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that all those white soldiers went to fight (and die) primarily to end slavery (free black slaves)? That the people in charge decided to start this war mainly because of that? And that all the years that they fought this war that was the main thing in their heads (soldiers, leaders incl. Lincoln) why they were doing it? Sure those people were there, but I am pretty sure it was not even the majority by far.

 

Simplified but yes. And power/influence. If the economy and the power of the states would not have been at stake (which it always is with such a loss of ground alone, so this is highly hypothetical to the point of nonsensical) the north would have waved the confederate south with all their slaves goodbye and wished them good luck

 

Society was much more accepting of violence back then, and warfare was considered the standard way of resolving almost any kind of a dispute. People were also much more trusting of authority figures. Illiteracy was common. There was no mass media, and most common people never traveled outside of the state where they were born, unless they lived near a border. A lot of regular infantry guys in the US Army back then couldn't have given you an in-depth explanation of the reasons for the war. Many joined because it seemed to be a popular thing to do at the time, and they thought it might be a brief adventure; an opportunity to possibly make a name for themselves. They didn't know enough about war to have any idea what they were getting themselves into. Preachers in church told them God was on their side, because slavery was evil, so He would surely give them a quick victory. Later on, the war got very personal after nearly everybody had lost a relative or friend or neighbor in battle. Eventually, every able bodied male got drafted, so there were lots of answers to the question, "Why are you in the army?"

At the top leadership level... remember, it was South Carolina that fired the first shots. The US government wasn't going to just take it. What country ever fails to respond to a direct attack? From the SC point of view, Fort Sumter had to go because it controlled traffic in and out of Charleston harbor.

 

The man has been dead for decades.
Whether historical figures are bigots and what the consequence of that are is a matter that St. Peter dealt with long ago.

I'm not sure what purpose is achieved by declaring historical figures "bigots", other that to make ourselves feel superior. And to excuse our inaction with the knowledge that "we're less bigoted than Lincoln (or Sanger or Einstein or ...)".

The value in studying history isn't in identifying flaws in past societies (shared by the members of those societies), but to see what people did with that.

Two of the most interesting figures in the history of race in the US are Harry Truman and George Wallace.
Truman, a southern racist who integrated the military.
Wallace, a segregationist who blocked the school house door with his body, and then went on to change his views on race and get elected to Governor again (4 times?) with ever increasing majorities of the black vote. (The black vote that he opposed in his first terms as governor.)

If we want to learn from history, look at what people did and how they changed themselves.
If we want to be self congratulatory, look at what people were and how things have changed since then.