New book sheds new light on Lincoln's racial views

Joined Mar 2010
5,417 Posts | 8+
USA
New book sheds new light on Lincoln's racial views - Yahoo! News

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-after-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098"]Amazon.com: Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement (9780826219091): Phillip W. Magness, Sebastian N. Page: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HTSa-D4HL.@@AMEPARAM@@51HTSa-D4HL[/ame]
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
I saw the same story here in my local paper about it. I plan on getting this book.
But I"m sure all the ardent Lincoln-philes will be trigger happy to dismiss this book as pure bunk.
 
Joined Aug 2010
8,654 Posts | 844+
VA
Nothing new there really, it's covered in Eric Foner's book on the subject IIRC.
 
Joined Nov 2010
6,237 Posts | 20+
Indiana
What is needed is not another book that says that Lincoln had a 19th Century racist view of Blacks but a book that puts his views in context.
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
I see this book as bringing to light a small stepping stone of Lincoln's thinking of the time that many may not know about.
 
Joined May 2009
14,691 Posts | 61+
A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
What is needed is not another book that says that Lincoln had a 19th Century racist view of Blacks but a book that puts his views in context.

Agreed. Lincoln said publicly that he didn't believe blacks were the intellectual or moral equals to whites. What he DID believe was that slavery was a blight on the face of humanity-on this he was consistent. That he was a bigot is no real surprise. So were other prominent northern citizens such as William Tecumseh Sherrman and half of Lincoln's cabinet. Almost all of the impetus for abolition came from New England

Above all else, Lincoln was a pragmatic politician and a product of his time and place. He stated publicly that he would free none, some, or all of the slaves if it would preserve the Union. When he decided on the EP it was more about practical politics than any egalitarian views. Having concluded that there was no way to bring the south back into the union short of prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion, there was no longer any reason to mollify the South.

On the other hand, there were enormous political benefits to emancipation. We have to remember that one of the goals of the Confederacy was British and French intervention ala the AR, and in fact there was a real possibility of such intervention. With the EP, Lincoln put British public opinion squarely into the Union camp. It is unclear exactly where the Palmerston government stood on recognizing the CSA, but clearly British public opinion played a large role.

In short, Lincoln had everything to gain, and nothing to lose politically by emancipating the slaves.

Lincoln was a smart enough politico to know that he had an enormous practical problem with peace and emancipation. How do you integrate the millions of blacks into a society with equality? We're still struggling with that question even today. It should be no surprise that Lincoln would attempt to take the easy way out by repatriating black Americans to their ancestral homeland. Out of sight, out of mind if you will.

As noted earlier, none of this is new.
 
Joined Nov 2010
1,314 Posts | 1+
Nothing new there really, it's covered in Eric Foner's book on the subject IIRC.

Foner's done some good work, but he is a Lincoln-worshipper at heart. I've seen interviews and he gets misty-eyed when talking about our 16th president
 
Joined Apr 2010
1,297 Posts | 2+
As an aside, imagine if slavery had been allowed to continue, and over the generations we had a whole mix of white-black combinations. What makes a black a black, or a white a white? And if it depends upon where they were born, that adds in another whole layer of complexity.
Slavery under the then-current system of legal rights was bound to come apart at the seams sooner or later. Lincoln probably appreciated that aspect as well as the moral aspect.
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
Foner's done some good work, but he is a Lincoln-worshipper at heart. I've seen interviews and he gets misty-eyed when talking about our 16th president

Very true on all points. While in college my History Dept. Chair and I were chatting and I brought up Foner's name and he replied, "That communist". I dropped the topic in a hurry. :lol:
 
Joined Jul 2008
5,397 Posts | 1+
Sharkland
Agreed. Lincoln said publicly that he didn't believe blacks were the intellectual or moral equals to whites. What he DID believe was that slavery was a blight on the face of humanity-on this he was consistent. That he was a bigot is no real surprise. So were other prominent northern citizens such as William Tecumseh Sherrman and half of Lincoln's cabinet.

Yep. To view people of the past as being as horrible and ignorant as modern day bigots would be completely unfair.

The resources and access to those resources for bucking this ignorance was not what it is today.
 
Joined Mar 2011
464 Posts | 0+
Yep. To view people of the past as being as horrible and ignorant as modern day bigots would be completely unfair.

The resources and access to those resources for bucking this ignorance was not what it is today.

I'm not so quick to give them a pass on this. Ben Franklin changed his views on the inferiority of Blacks, based on his own observations. I find Lincoln's bigotry, almost 100 years later, inexcusable. He was not an ignorant yocal.
 
Joined Jul 2008
5,397 Posts | 1+
Sharkland
I'm not so quick to give them a pass on this. Ben Franklin changed his views on the inferiority of Blacks, based on his own observations. I find Lincoln's bigotry, almost 100 years later, inexcusable. He was not an ignorant yocal.

Perhaps you are right but you have to consider many other factors.

Firstly, not everybody has the time to investigate so many different things like Ben did.

Abe was a very busy man, especially around the time that he was in his political career when things like this mattered.

Do we know for sure that this information, whether in text or in hown own experiences with blacks, was easy to come by?

I agree that we shouldn't just give him a pass, but I was specifically arguing against assuming that his resources were anything like the resources people have today.
 
Joined Aug 2010
8,654 Posts | 844+
VA
Perhaps you are right but you have to consider many other factors.

Firstly, not everybody has the time to investigate so many different things like Ben did.

Abe was a very busy man, especially around the time that he was in his political career when things like this mattered.

Do we know for sure that this information, whether in text or in hown own experiences with blacks, was easy to come by?

I agree that we shouldn't just give him a pass, but I was specifically arguing against assuming that his resources were anything like the resources people have today.
What baffles me is that many of those harping on about Lincoln are perfectly willing to give the Confederacy a pass.
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
Maybe the CSA Founding Fathers were thinking of this...
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


The CSA felt it was within their rights as citizens to act accordingly to their conscience.
The Founding Fathers of Jefferson, Washington, Adams etc, felt no less stirring in their
causes for 85 years earlier. A rebel is a rebel.
The CSA rolled the dice and they lost. Game over and its a race to besmirch the losers.
No free pass for the CSA, just a failed rebellion
of perceived abuses.
 
Joined Apr 2010
1,297 Posts | 2+
Maybe the CSA Founding Fathers were thinking of this...
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


The CSA felt it was within their rights as citizens to act accordingly to their conscience.
The Founding Fathers of Jefferson, Washington, Adams etc, felt no less stirring in their
causes for 85 years earlier. A rebel is a rebel.
The CSA rolled the dice and they lost. Game over and its a race to besmirch the losers.
No free pass for the CSA, just a failed rebellion
of perceived abuses.

Rebellion is hardly within their rights as US citizens. There is no such thing as a CITIZEN of any state after the Constitution was ratified.

What if the city of Atlanta wanted to secede from the CSA? Would you cut them as much slack as you have the CSA? The CSA would have put them in their place quickly.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top