He said "I am not, and never have been, in favour of equality of white and black races. I am not, and never have been, in favour of letting Negroes have governemtn posts or marry white people" I am expecting a HUGE backlash and i am prepared for it, possibly.

No harsh words, just curiosity

where did you find this and can it be verified?

Yep, no surprises. He didn't like slavery, but he thought it best if the slaves were freed and sent to Liberia.

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

slighty different version

That's right. He didn't believe in enslavement, but he didn't believe in equality, either. As IC said, he was in favor of the colonization plan; sending the slaves to their own free country in their own free land: Liberia.

For the first half of the War, he didn't even want to end slavery. I don't recall the exact words, but he said something along the lines of "if I could save the unity of the nation without ending slavery, I would." So, he valued the Union more than he did emancipation. I guess he only went along with the abolition thing when he felt he could get away with it and still win the war.

For the first half of the War, he didn't even want to end slavery. I don't recall the exact words, but he said something along the lines of "if I could save the unity of the nation without ending slavery, I would." So, he valued the Union more than he did emancipation. I guess he only went along with the abolition thing when he felt he could get away with it and still win the war.

It's not so much that he didn't want to end slavery, just that it was more pressing for him to keep the country together, and he wanted to do that by any means possible. As the war went on, though, it became politically advantageous on an international level to abolish slavery. It was certainly something he wanted to do, but not something he would have done outside of the war. The Republican Party was founded to be anti-slavery, but it sought to stop free territory in the West from allowing slavery. This was better at getting them elected than burning the Constitution as a deal with the devil, as the more radical abolitionists did.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy much, but he did want to end slavery. It's just that as a shrewd politician, he worked to end it when it would be to his greatest advantage.

Conditional morality.

Yes 123434324

This isn't exactly news, is it?

I read it in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" back in the 1980's.

I read mine in horrible history

This is well known. By modern standards, almost everyone, including most blacks, were racist then; I can't necessarily blame them for thinking that whites were superior; after all, whites had civilization, what did Africa have? Now of course, we understand that technology level doesn't equal intelligence, and that whites and blacks do not have significant differences; but it was a common mistake then.

But more importantly, as much as Lincoln thought that blacks could not fit in in the US, he still thought they needed to be treated equally. By the standards of his time, he was very racially enlightened.

Meh, everybody back then was racist.

Um yeah he probably was to a degree, but then so was almost every white person around the world to a degree also. :rolleyes:

^^ Tis true.

A lot of black people, too.

At any rate, to my mind it does not detract from his greatness.

1. Consider all of the statements in that very web page that support equality, and compare them to that contrary statement. If he only says it once or twice, does that mean it's what he believes?

2. He was in a debate with Stephen Douglas. It was probably critical, and, well, facts get twisted when politics are involved

who knows though, maybe he was. Like was previously mentioned, almost everybody back then was racist to some degree. All I can say is basing his view of blacks on a single passage isn't the best idea

It is no surprise at all. Almost all abolitionists, I would wager, beleived in the inferiority of the black race. They still thougt that enslavement was wrong, though.

Judging a man that lived 150 years ago on our own morals is quite ignorant- in his own day, I am sure he was considered a crusader for black rights.

I don't see why the OP expects a backlash, as though this were some controversial statement or something.

However, it's not true that everyone in the nineteenth century was racist. Certainly most people were, but by no means all. Furthermore, it's not commonly realised that white people (at least) were typically more racist towards the end of the nineteenth century than they were at the start. You can see this if you study the missionary movements. The first Protestant missionaries, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, were typically quite enlightened people who didn't think that race made much difference; note that these were generally the same people who believed in the abolition of slavery, and yes, they did think slavery was wrong because black and white people should be equal. By the second half of the nineteenth century, however, the ideal of overseas mission had become swamped by the idea of empire, and instead of going out to evangelise people who were their equals, missionaries now went out to civilise the lower races. A misapplication of Darwinism was one of the factors behind this.

Thus, although Lincoln's racism is somewhat excusable given the prevailing standards of the 1860s, I do not regard it as wholly or even mostly excusable. The notion of racial equality was perfectly available to him, just as it was to anyone else, had they simply taken the time to reflect.

Because it's the sought of thing i have had a backlash from before.

What many people don't realize is that there were also black families that held slaves in the US during that time. It wasn't just whites.

Also realize, that slavery was not a major issue until 1863 when the threat of outside nations declaring the CSA as a soveirgn nation and joining them in their fight against the Union.

Because it's the sought of thing i have had a backlash from before.

Well, there is a great deal of irony in it, I suppose, when you think of Dr. King speaking on the steps of a temple dedicated to a white supremacist...

Slavery may not have been a big issue in the US before 1863, but it certainly was in other countries.

Well the US were one of the last ("civilised") states to have slavery. Slavery was abandoned in Germany at last 1815 (in most states even before so Prussia since 1713), when Britain managed to ban Slavery in Europe. In the colonies slavery was still used, but mostly banned soon after. Nevertheless Spain did not ban Slavery on Cuba until 1880, Brazil until 1888 (that was the cause for the loss of the Emperor's crown to Diego II.) and in Prussia there was made a law in 1852 liberating all Slaves entering Prussian soil. The former owners were not allowed to get any compensation. Slavery was still used (and is still used, also hidden) in Arabia though, leading to some wars in the colonies about 1884, when Germany and Britain tried to stop slavery in East Africa.
Today some African countries still have slavery tolerated. There are also other states in which slavery like conditions are. Brazil and India are among them.

Adler

He wasn't racist. He just believed that the two races were intrinsically different and could not mix in any way what so ever. Thus, he supported sending the slaves back to Africa...

He wasn't racist, he was following the beliefs of his time period, of biogenetic superiority of the white race. I don't really like these kinds of threads. Just because someone in the past, who is usually revered, did something bad, it doesn't mean they're a bad person. You must look at the context and background of when he/she did the "atrocity".

I don't see why the OP expects a backlash, as though this were some controversial statement or something.

However, it's not true that everyone in the nineteenth century was racist. Certainly most people were, but by no means all. .


It depends on what part of the US you were living in also, out west there were many black cowboys and although probably not treated equal to whites were definately treated better than in the east

I don't see why the OP expects a backlash, as though this were some controversial statement or something.

I can see where he might expect a backlash. In our American primary school (K-12) I recall being taught that the Civil War was based entirely off of slavery. States Rights was taught, but I was taught it was used by the CSA so they could choose to have slavery or not. I was taught that the north did not hold to slavery in any way and that the CSA were all slaveholders.

It wasn't until I took a specialized course on the Civil War that I learned the above is wrong. I do not recall learning in primary school about the tarrif acts of 1828 and 1830, or how that both blacks and whites owned slaves, or the many other discrepencies I learned from primary school.

Don't get me wrong, our teachers in primary school were still good teachers, but they were educated in a more broad aspect rather than being focused.

What I'm trying to say is, that many Americans were taught incorrectly about the Civil War and I can understand how they could take offense at the OP's statement due to their lack of knowledge. Recall that we as Americans were taught that Abraham Lincoln was the one who ended slavery and that he is a hero. Few know his wife was almost charged with treason, or that many of his brother-in-laws were Confederate officers.

[Methos] Yes, reminds me of the old joke told in Oxford, where Jesus College and Lincoln College are next to each other: an American tourist comments that he can't tell the difference between Lincoln and Jesus, and someone else retorts that few Americans can.

I must say that I have never studied American history in the slightest and even I know that the account of the American Civil War you attribute to your teachers is wrong. It's alarming that American history teaching should be so distorted - almost reminds me of Japan, where children are not taught about the atrocities committed by the Japanese in the past and who therefore grow up with the assumption that anyone who talks about them hates Japan. The British education system is hardly ideal but I don't think we have anything like this.

He wasn't racist, he was following the beliefs of his time period, of biogenetic superiority of the white race.

Well, that's racist. You may say that he wasn't to blame for being a racist, or that being racist wasn't bad at that time, but that doesn't make him not a racist. And as I pointed out, it's far too simplistic to assume that racist beliefs were universal at that time.

The Americans needed a Civil War hero other than the generals of the CSA so they picked Lincoln.

Yes.

Everyone is racist.

To a certain degree: Yes. Or does anyone of us has not at least hidden, well, resentiments against other people?

Adler

"Everyone's A Little Bit Racist"... now that's the second time I've cited an Avenue Q song today on this site. What am I becoming?

Seriously, it is perhaps only human nature to have an instinctive distrust of those who are different, whether that's a matter of race, religion, nationality, class, occupation, or even gender. The racist (or other variety of bigot) is the person who indulges that distrust and makes it determine the whole way in which they think of and deal with the group in question. The non-racist is the person who either lacks that distrust in the first place or recognises it for the irrational prejudice that it is and ignores it until it withers away for lack of nurture.

I think we are also forgetting that people also change with time. For all we know he started out completley racist, and grew to be tolerent. His meetings with Fredrick Douglas would make you think that was the case anyways.

Indeed, and had he had the chance to live to our day, his attitudes may have been completely "acceptable".

Slavery does not equal racism.

Slavery does not equal racism.

who claimed that? last year...

That makes him normal for his day. What makes him exceptional is that he opposed slavery anyways.

I read mine in horrible history

Those books were awesome, its why im doing a degree in history right now! still using them as my only soure of info as well :mischief:

To a certain degree: Yes. Or does anyone of us has not at least hidden, well, resentiments against other people?

Adler

I dislike certain cultures not the actual races themselves. Saudi Arabia is a case in point, or aspects of Chinese culture for example. I don't hate Arabs or Chinese and I normally socialise with people from those countires.

I also tell alot of racist jokes (black, polynesians, jewish, irish, french and polish mostly). Theres even the odd German joke here flaoting around (most about the war or German sense of humor.

German comedian stands up on stage and commands the audience to laugh.

Being a little racist is OK if not natural. Its when you start hating people because they are XYZ ethnic group you have problems.

Your lying. He wasn't racist. DUH!!! If he was, the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't exist.

Your lying. He wasn't racist. DUH!!! If he was, the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't exist.

Maybe he was just less racist:p

Maybe there is a world of difference between thinking that blacks are in some way inferior to whites, and thinking that they should be completely subjugated by them?

Maybe there is a world of difference between thinking that blacks are in some way inferior to whites, and thinking that they should be completely subjugated by them?

Funny. That's the exact argument Lincoln was making in the OP quote of the Lincoln Douglass debate!

Well, yeah . . . there are many varying degrees of racism, and a lot of them aren't encountered often these days.

Whats with the revival of threads about the Civil war lately?

Something strange is going on :hmm: