One disagreement. Lincoln was a compromiser as President, at least so far as slavery was concerned, until well into the War. He didn't offer to let the South keep Fort Sumter, but he did offer to let the South keep slavery, so long as Slavery was not allowed to spread to any new territories. The South knew that if their "institutions" and economic approach didn't spread into new territories then Northern industrial practices would spread there instead, further adding to the power of the North and weakening their own power, thus dooming their "peculiar institutions" and eventually ending their way of life.
Except when forced Lincoln was a gradualist. He believed in holding what he could hold and gaining what he could gain short of forcing a show down. His hand was weak unless he went to the all out warfare that he knew would cost us so much in both blood and treasure. He was desperate to avoid that warfare if he could, even if it meant leaving the slaves in the South alone (at least officially). His fight was at the margins and to keep the Union together, trusting in his understanding of economic reality and human nature to make the changes he wanted without a war, eventually.
I happen to think that he was willing to go too far in backing off as I detest the very notion of slavery. Therefore I don't disagree with your characterization of Obama and his view of the current situation. What's amazing, given your spot on analysis, is how few people who do have ancestors who were slaves see the analogy as you express it.
I say all of the above as a proud son of the South. Though my direct ancestors never owned slaves I know that relatives did and were made wealthy by that horrible practice. My own namesake, my grandfather, was Sheriff of a county in southern Mississippi during the depression... for one term. That's because of one thing, he "had no truck with the Klan." He wouldn't let them operate openly while he was sheriff. They voted him out next election. I never knew him as he died before I was born, but I'm proud to bear his name, and also proud of the things about my region of the country that are good and honorable. But I'm not blind to the past.
Of course, I could tell you about my direct knowledge of race issues in the North....
What was "historic" about it? Wasn't Shirley Chisholm the first African American Democrat Presidential candidate?
That was in 1972, over 30 years ago.
I made my statement the way I did so that lurking liberals who are gleefully dubbing Obama the "New Lincoln," will be forced to say how Lincoln's life has anything in common with Obama's. I'm from Illinois, but I'm not running around comparing myself to Abe.
The libs should not be permitted to place Lincoln's mantle on Obama's shoulders without being forced to explain exactly what they are implying by the comparison.
It's apparent that libs are attempting (big time) to take some of Lincoln's aura, so they can rub it off on Obama.
When the libs refer to Lincoln, they do not take all the facts into account, as you did. They should be forced to explain what they mean.
I'm not going to let libs get away with this.
Exactly.
For someone who has virtually no experience in govt. he is way out of his league.
I stand by my original prediction that he will be come Hillary's VP(gopher)and he and Bubba will Rock star their way to fame in the final few months of the election war(with the DBM frantically in tow opening doors and feeding their stars shrimp and baloney) while Hillary takes a long deserved vacation back to Alaska in search of someone else who will wear a pants suit while running for President.
Thank you for this post re: Lincoln's approach to the South and slavery.
I posted earlier that I got two opposite stories in one day, yesterday...and they were both from black men.
Go figure.