Posted on 08/13/2003 6:57:47 AM PDT by bedolido
While doing my weekly shopping at the Jewel-Osco, I overheard a very unusual conversation. It was between two young baggers who were talking about an article one of them had read regarding President Lincoln. Both men happened to be black. One of them informed the other that President Lincoln cared nothing about blacks and was actually a racist. I was stunned. I wanted to interject a million things to their discussion but I didn’t. Instead, I silently watched the checker ring up my order. The incident immediately brought to mind the old commercial from the seventies where tears run down the eye of an Indian brave as he paddles across a river filled with pollutants. I felt like that Indian as I listened to President Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, badmouthed by a couple of assistants in a grocery store.
This was the same Lincoln who, during a triumphant walk through Richmond, told a group of bowing slaves to get up because the only king they should bow to was Jesus Christ. I wanted to explain to the clerks that men should be judged by the standards of the days in which they live. Some of Lincoln’s opinions may seem outlandish today, but during the 1860’s he was one of the most enlightened men on the continent. By the standards of the nineteenth century, black Americans had no better friend than Abraham Lincoln.
Race is the biggest taboo issue in America today. Almost everyone acknowledges this but acknowledgement does not make our dialogues any smoother. I discovered this for myself the other day after I wrote a column about rap music. It was a favorable elaboration upon one wrote for City-Journal by John McWhorter. Based on my observations of urban youth, I supported McWhorter’s claim that rap music keeps blacks down through its celebration of pointless rebellion, violence, and nihilism. I received many irate responses. One of them turned into a ten email debate with a reader. By the end of the discussion, we knew a great deal about one another and, vicariously, quite a bit about discussing race in America.
Our little dispute could well have been a microcosm of the nation as a whole. It is unfortunate that I, and numerous other Caucasians, do not always emphatically state our views when asked. Yet, there are major hazards to beware of when addressing race. You never know what the reaction of the person you’re speaking to may be and no one wants to get fired over a conversation.
I could tell that the young man at the other end of the server was not used to dealing with white people like me. He only knows whites who defer to him and agree when he says that he has been wronged. He has been conditioned into thinking that all whites will apologize for their ancestry. I, absolutely, and under no circumstance, will ever apologize for my ancestors. In fact, thank G-d for my ancestors! I wish there were more Americans like them.
He began our exchange by telling me that I shouldn’t be writing about rap music at all as I don’t know anything about it. He also believes that there is nothing wrong with it and that it doesn’t harm anyone. I countered by stating that, while it’s true that I don’t know all the names of the famous rappers, I have unfortunately been subjected to a ton of it and know firsthand adolescents who emulate the words and actions of their favorite stars.
The dialogue went downhill from there (if that’s possible). There was practically no common ground between us, yet I think that is how it should be. White Americans, if they honestly responded to the claims of black separatists and black powerites, would hear little with which to agree.
Most Caucasian Americans are hard-working and middle class. There are very few like Bill Gates or Paul Allen. Most of us make a decent wage and are content with it. We oppress no one. No ancestors of mine were in the United States before 1910, but, even if they were, it would be superfluous as I personally have committed no wrongs to anyone. I told the young man that white guilt is one of the most pernicious influences within our society. Although this white guilt has not hurt our economic success, it has made many whites regard themselves as being morally inferior to the rest of the population.
He made the point that “institutional racism” is the reason many blacks “have not made it.” I told him there was no such thing. It is a creation of the university Marxists who have substituted “African-Americans, Hispanics, women and gays” for the word “proletariat.” The entire concept of “oppressed” and “oppression” is merely idiotic Marxist claptrap. It’s a product of juvenile leftists and should be disregarded. Besides, if there were such a thing as institutional racism no blacks would have ever made it. They’re be no Cedric the Entertainer’s, Deion Sanders’, Tiger Woods’ or Halle Berry’s. If there were any truth in the flawed rubric of institutional racism, all the aforementioned successful blacks would have been poor sharecroppers rather than cultural icons.
We, of course, also clashed on affirmative action. He regarded it as a prerequisite for black success. He said, “The Supreme Court finally got it right.” I, on the other hand, think, “The Supreme Court wrote more legislation.” Clearly, affirmative action is one of the reasons blacks have not been more successful since 1970. You can’t put an average student in Cal Tech and expect them to flourish. They fail and the race hustlers could care less how the experience impedes their future development. Even more grievous, is that affirmative action gives racism the imprimatur of the state. A federal stamp of approval compounds its evil.
Towards the end of our exchange, the reader admitted that he felt blacks should not have to work more than one job and do overtime to get ahead in life. Their route should be more direct. He felt long hours were for immigrants and that “we’ve already played that game.” He argued that blacks have put their blood and sweat into this country’s infrastructure and deserve reparation for their effort.
Honestly, I have no respect for this argument whatsoever. The request for reparations could not be less valid. Blacks in America already have the world’s greatest reparation: United States citizenship. Every single one of the reader’s racial cousins in Africa, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, would kill to be in his shoes. They would stow away in a mouse trap just to get here and have an opportunity to be Americans. Most of them fantasize about an existence without murderous kleptomaniac dictators and having children who are free from disease. America is opportunity and blacks are no different from whites in that we all should be forever thankful that we somehow got to these shores.
I discovered that I profited greatly from this reader. Christopher Hitchens, in his fascinating book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, informs us that the great thing about argumentation is that both sides refine and modify their positions which doing it. I hold this to be true and my exchange with the young man is evidence of it.
In this particular argument, I realized something that I never had before. Clearly, it is conservatives like me who care about poor blacks (most, in fact, are middle class) as opposed to the pseudo-liberals. We offer them the best route for advancement. We want to challenge them and make them stronger. We resist the desire to infantilize them. By treating them like adults and inculcating responsibility through achievement, they will prosper just as every other group of Americans have before them.
My opponent, perhaps unconsciously, wants them to stay poor so he can continue to berate America and critique our way of life. Were their lot to suddenly improve, he’d have no positions and no identity.
Before this conversation, I never realized just how much that I am rooting for poor black folks. I want them to be as productive as everyone else and to “make it” in America. I want no less for them than I do for myself. It would please me to no end if all our citizens were grateful for what they have. No white people get anything out of a major percentage of the population being resentful and angry.
Racial harmony can only be achieved if we treat one another as individuals and not as members of fictitious classes. If you want to be oppressed you’ll find a way to be oppressed, and such a condition damages society as a whole. Racism is wrong in any of its manifestations. We will never all get along if we continue to pretend that some of us, due to the melanin content in our skin, are better than others. Period.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
Prove it. Until then, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
"I have outlived most of my compatriots having to do with the events treated of, and my mind is free from almost every possible prejudice, and in a position where the temptation is strong to obey the maxim, de mortuis nil nisi bonum, so that I trust nothing will be said save where it is necessary to the cause of truth...I am conscious of but one regret for this delay, and that is that in the course of nature it is not probable I shall live so long as to be able to hear all the criticisms, as I am certain many will be made, upon this book, so that I can reply to them, attempting to correct everything that is wrong or mistaken in such criticisms, in justice to those that may be affected by such mistakes, as well as to answer any misstatements hereafter made against the matter of the book, or any attempted contradiction of any fact stated therein, or any new offshoot of calumny against the author." - Butler, preface to his autobiography, 1892 (emphasis added)
Butler died only a year later.
Evidently, all you need to be is a Halfbright scholar.
He must have worked on the idea of voting rights for Black's posthumously because at the cabinet meeting a few hours before he was shot, Lincoln continued to say voting rights was an issue that belonged solely to the States to decide for themselves.
Excerpted from:
Lincoln and Johnson
Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority
First Paper
by Gideon Welles
Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, pp. 526
Louisiana, he said, had framed and presented one of the best constitutions that had ever been formed. He wished they had permitted negroes who had property, or could read, to vote; but this was a question which they must decide for themselves. Yet some, a very few of our friends, were not willing to let the people of the States determine these questions, but, in violation of first and fundamental principles, would exercise arbitrary power over them. These humanitarians break down all State rights and constitutional rights.
He must have worked on the idea of voting rights for Black's posthumously because at the cabinet meeting a few hours before he was shot, Lincoln continued to say voting rights was an issue that belonged solely to the States to decide for themselves.
You -know- that is not true. Lincoln advocated voting rights for black soldiers privately in 1864, and publicly a year later.
"I barely suggest for your private consideration whether some of the colored people may not be let [to the elective franchise] - as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks."
--letter to Michael Hahn (Gov. of Louisiana) 3/13/64
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
Note the date. It was over this speech that Booth vowed to kill Lincoln, and three days later, he did.
So Lincoln's ideas grew and changed over time. Those that would attempt to besmirch Lincoln's memory want to focus on Lincoln's comments during the 1850's and exclude what he said as president because it doesn't suit them. The record shows that by the end of his life, Lincoln was coming to the conclusion that blacks deserved ALL the rights of citizenship.
Walt
What's silly is to think that this story has credence when there is no mention of it or reference to it between 1865 and 1892.
The story --cannot-- be given historical credibility -because- it cannot be confirmed.
It is really just that simple. All you can say when you present this story is that, "Butler said Lincoln said."
Walt
In Wlat's world, Lincoln and the Constitution are shapeshifting critters.
[Wlat] You -know- that is not true. Lincoln advocated voting rights for black soldiers privately in 1864, and publicly a year later.
[nc] Advocacy is not comprised of "I barely suggest for your private consideration," nor by "I myself would prefer." That other congenital liar, Bill Clinton, could not have done a better job of using weasel words. Get over it. What Lincoln DID was approve the Louisiana constitution in a form that left it up to the the state and gave no voting rights to Blacks. That was the logical and absolutely predictable consequence of Lincoln's actions. Lincoln is responsible for the logical and predictable consequences of his actions.
[Wlat]
"I barely suggest for your private consideration whether some of the colored people may not be let [to the elective franchise] - as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks." --letter to Michael Hahn (Gov. of Louisiana) 3/13/64
Note the whole letter:
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 7, p. 244
[LINK]
To Michael Hahn1
Private Executive Mansion, Hon. Michael Hahn Washington,
My dear Sir: March 13. 1864.
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first-free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a Convention which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in---as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone. Yours truly A. LINCOLN
Annotation
[1] ALS, owned by Roger W. Barrett, Chicago, Illinois; ADfS, DLC-RTL. In an election held on February 22, 1864, Michael Hahn defeated Benjamin F. Flanders and J. Q. A. Fellows for governor. The new constitution drafted by the convention which met beginning April 6 and adopted at an election held on September 5, 1864, contained no provisions for Negro suffrage.
[Wlat]
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." 4/11/65 Note the date. It was over this speech that Booth vowed to kill Lincoln, and three days later, he did.
Once upon a time, a bad man heard a speech and vowed to kill the greatest man to walk the earth since the Nazarene, and he then did it. And that, boys and girls, is Liberal history.
[Wlat] So Lincoln's ideas grew and changed over time. Those that would attempt to besmirch Lincoln's memory want to focus on Lincoln's comments during the 1850's and exclude what he said as president because it doesn't suit them. The record shows that by the end of his life, Lincoln was coming to the conclusion that blacks deserved ALL the rights of citizenship.
Note the date below. April 14, 1865 is NOT from the 1850's. After the Last Cabinet Meeting, Lincoln's ideas neither grew nor changed. Sometimes your logic supports that notion that you have been advocating too much Father Jack.
Excerpted from:
Lincoln and Johnson
Their Plan of Reconstruction and the Resumption of National Authority
First Paper
by Gideon Welles
Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, pp. 525-527
When I went to the Cabinet meeting on Friday, the 14th of April, General Grant, who had just arrived from Appomattox, was with the President, and one or two members were already there. Congratulations were interchanged, and earnest inquiry was made whether any information had been received from General Sherman. The Secretary of War came late to the meeting, and the telegraph office from which we obtained earliest news was in the War Department. General Grant, who was invited to remain, said he was expecting hourly to hear from Sherman, and had a good deal of anxiety on the subject.
The President remarked that the news would come soon and come favorably, he had no doubt, for he had last night his usual dream which had preceeded nearly every important event of the war. I inquired the particulars of this remarkable dream. He said it was in my department -- it related to the water; that he seemed to be in a singular and indescribable vessel, but always the same, and that he was moving with great rapidity toward a dark and indefinite shore; that he had had this singular dream preceding the firing on Sumter, the battles of Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg, Stone river, Vicksburg, Wilmington, etc. General Grant remarked with some emphasis and asperity that Stone River was no victory -- that a few such victories would have ruined the country, and he knew of no important results from it. The President said that perhaps he should not altogether agree with him but whatever might be the facts, his singular dream preceded that fight. Victory did not always follow his dream, but the event and results were important. He had no doubt that a battle had taken place or was about being fought, "and Johnston will be beaten, for I had this strange dream again last night. It must relate to Sherman; my thoughts are in that direction, and I know of no other very important event which is likely just now to occur."
Great events did indeed follow. Within a few hours the good and gentle as well as truly great man who narrated his dream was assassinated, and the murder which closed forever his earthly career affected for years, and perhaps forever, the welfare of his country.
The session of the Cabinet on that eventful day, the last of President Lincoln's life, was chiefly occupied on the subject of our relations with the rebels -- the communications, the trade, etc. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. McCulloch, who had but recently entered upon his duties, was embarrassed in regard to captured cotton, permits, and traffic. It was generally agreed that commercial intercourse with the rebel States should be speedily established. Mr. Stanton proposed that communication should be reopened by his issuing a military order, authorizing and limiting traffic; that the Secretary of the Treasury would give permits to all who wished to trade, and he (Stanton) would order the vessels to be received into any port.
I suggested that instead of a military order from the Secretary of War, the President should issue an Executive order or proclamation for opening the ports to trade, and prescribe therein the duties of the several Departments. Mr. McCulloch expressed his willingness to be relieved from Treasury agents, and General Grant declared himself unequivocally opposed to them and the whole Treasury system of trading within the rebel lines as demoralizing.
In regard to opening the ports to trade, Mr. Stanton thought it should be attended with restrictions, and that traffic should not extend beyond the military lines. I proposed opening the whole coast to every one who wished to trade, was entitled to coast license, and should obtain a regular clearance. I wished the reestablishment of unrestricted commercial and social intercourse with the southern people with as little delay as possible, from a conviction that it would conduce to a more speedy establishment of friendly relations. General Grant concurred with me, and recommended that there should be no restrictions east of the Mississippi. The President referred the whole subject to the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and Navy, and said he should be satisfied with any conclusions to which they might arrive, or on which they could agree.
At the close of the session Mr. Stanton made some remarks on the general condition of affairs and the new phase and duties upon which we were about to enter.
He alluded to the great solicitude which the President felt on this subject, his frequent recurrence to the necessity of establishing civil governments and preserving order in the rebel States. Like the rest of the Cabinet, doubtless, he had given this subject much consideration, and with a view of having something practical on which to base action, he had drawn up a rough plan or ordinance which he had handed to the President.
The President said he proposed to bring forward that subject, althought he had not had time as yet to give much attention to the details of the paper which the Secretary of War had given him only the day before; but that it was substantially, in its general scope, the plan which we had sometimes talked over in Cabinet meetings. We should probably make some modifications, prescribe further details; there were some suggestions which he should wish to make, and he desired all to bring their minds to the question, for no greater or more important one could come before us, or any future Cabinet. He thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned, and there were none of the disturbing elements of that body to hinder and embarrass us. If we were wise and discreet, we should reanimate the States and get their governments in successful operation, with order prevailing the the Union reestablished, before Congress came together in December. This he thought important. We could do better; accomplish more without than with them. There were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate. He hoped there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over. None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off, said he, throwing up his hands as if scaring sheep. Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union. There was too much of a desire on the part of some of our very good friends to be masters, to interfere with and dictate to those States, to treat the people not as fellow citizens; there was too little respect for their rights. He did not sympathize in these feelings. Louisiana, he said, had framed and presented one of the best constitutions that had ever been formed. He wished they had permitted negroes who had property, or could read, to vote; but this was a question which they must decide for themselves. Yet some, a very few of our friends, were not willing to let the people of the States determine these questions, but, in violation of first and fundamental principles, would exercise arbitrary power over them. These humanitarians break down all State rights and constitutional rights. Had the Louisianians inserted the negro in their Constitution, and had that instrument been in all other respects the same, Mr. Sumner, he said, would never have excepted to that Constitution. The delegation would have been admitted, and the State all right. Each House of Congress, he said, had the undoubted right to receive or reject members; the executive had no control over the matter. But Congress had nothing to do with the State governments, which the President could recognize, and under existing laws treat as other States, give them the same mail facilities, collect taxes, appoint judges, marshals, collectors, etc., subject, of course, to confirmation. There were men who objected to these views, but they were not here, and we must make haste to do our duty before they came here.
Mr. Stanton read his project for reorganizing, reestablishing, or reconstructing governments. It was a military or executive order, and by it the War Department was designated to reorganize those States whose individuality it assumed was sacrificed. Divested of its military features, it was in form and outline essentially the same as the plan ultimately adopted. This document proposed establishing a military department to be composed of virginia and North Carolina, with a military governor. After reading this paper, Mr. Stanton made some addtional remarks in furtherance of the views of the President and the importance of prompt measures.
A few moments elapsed, and no one else speaking, I expressed my concurrence in the necessity of immediate action, and my gratification that the Secretary of War had given the outlines of a plan embodying his views. I objected, however, to military supervision or control, and to the proposition of combining two States in
the plan of a temporary government. My idea, more perhaps than that of any other of the Cabinet, was for a careful observance, not only of the distinctive rights, but of the individuality of the States. Besides, Viginia occupied a different position from that of any other of those States. There had been throughout the war a skeleton organization in that commonwealth which we had recognized. We had said through the whole war that Virginia was a State in the Union -- that her relations with the Government were not suspended. We had acknowledged and claimed that Pierpont was the legitimate and rightful Governor, that the organization was lawful and right under him; that the division of the State, which required the assent of the legal State government, had been effected, and was claimed to be constitutional and correct. Were we now to ignore our own acts -- to say the Pierpont Government was a farce -- that the act creating the State of west Virginia was a nullity? My position on that quesiton was different from others, for though not unfriendly to the new State, I had opposed the division of the State when it took place. The proposition to reestablish a State government in Virginia where there was already a State government with which we were acting, with Pierpont as governor, or to put it under military control, appeared to me a grave error. The President said my exceptions, some of them at least, were well taken. Some of them had occurred to him. It was in that view he had been willing that General Weitzel should call the leading rebels together, because they were not the legal Legislature of Virginia, while the Pierpont Legislature was. Turning to Mr. Stanton, he asked what he would do with Pierpont and the Virginia Constitution? Stanton replied that he had no apprehension from Pierpont, but the paper which he had submitted was merely a rough sketch subject to any alteration.
Governor Dennison thought that Pierpont would be no serious obstacle in the way, were that the only difficulty; but there were other objections, and he thought separate propositions for the government of the two States advisable.
I suggested that the Federal Government could assist the loyal government of Virginia in asserting, extending, and maintaining its authority over the whole State, but that we could not supersede or annul it.
The President directed Mr. Stanton to take the documents and have separate plans presented for the two States. They required different treatment. "We must not," said he, "stultify ourselves as regards Virginia, but we must help her." North Carolina was in a different condition. He requested the Secretary of War to have copies of the two plans for the two States made and furnished each member of the Cabinet by the following Tuesday -- the next regular meeting. He impressed upon each and all the importance of deliberating upon and carefully considering the subject before us, remarking that this was the great question pending, and that we must now begin to act in the interest of peace. He again declared his thankfulness that Congress was not in session to embarrass us.
The President was assassinated that evening, and I am not aware that he exchanged a word with any one after the Cabinet meeting of that day on the subject of a resumption of the national authority in the States where it had been suspended, or of reestablishing the Union.
And so it came to pass that Brigade Commander Wlat invoked the mere mention of the name of Mark E. Neely, Jr. as authoritative.
Mark E. Neely, Jr., penned the 1992 Pulitizer Prize winning The Fate of Liberty, published in 1991.
At page 215 of this Pulitizer Prize winning effort, Dr. Neely quotes from noted and reputable historian George M. Frederickson.
Thus Lincoln gave "eloquent expression to the developing ideology of his profession," according to historian George M. Fredrickson, who sees "Lincoln's early speeches as an aspiring young lawyer and Whig politician" as part of a "'conservative' response to the unruly and aggressive democracy spawned by the age of Jackson." Indeed, Fredrickson finds this conservative law-and-order strain in Lincoln's political thought substantially unshaken until the Dred Scott decision of 1857 undermined "Lincoln's faith in the bench and bar as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional issues."
And, thus we see that Pulitizer Prize winning historian Mark E. Neely, Jr., treats noted historian George M. Frederickson as a serious and reputable historian.
[Wlat 368]
[GOPcap] For Wlat to claim that Butler wrote his book while seeking office or in preparation of gaining politically from it is just plain silly.What's silly is to think that this story has credence when there is no mention of it or reference to it between 1865 and 1892.
The story --cannot-- be given historical credibility -because- it cannot be confirmed.
It is really just that simple. All you can say when you present this story is that, "Butler said Lincoln said."
What Butler said has been corroborated and authenticated by multiple reputable historians.
Scores of historians have spent countless hours trying to discredit Butler and his story. But since it is impossible to prove a negative, and since, as other historians have pointed out, Butler's account is "full and circumstantial" and there was no reason for him to lie, these efforts have proved fruitless. More to the point, Lincoln said the same thing about colonization and his fear of Black violence to others (see page 615). Based on these and other factors, some scholars, Ludwell H. Johnson (68) and Herman Belz (282) among them, have concluded that there is no reason to doubt the Butler account. "If Butler's recollection is substantially correct, as it appears to be," George Frederickson said, "then one can only conclude that Lincoln continued to his dying day to deny the possibility of racial harmony and equality in the United States and persisted in regarding colonization as the only real alternative to perpetual race conflict" (57)Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 167
Citations:
Belz, Herman, Reconstructing the Union. Ithaca, 1969.
Frederickson, George M. "A Man but Not a Brother: Abraham Lincoln and Racial Equality," Journal of Southern History 41 (February 1975): 39-58.
Johnson, Ludwell. "Lincoln and Equal Rights: The Authenticity of the Wadsworth Letter," Journal of Southern History 32 (Sept. 1966): 83-7
Congressman Julian, who conferred with Lincoln often as a member of the powerful Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, used almost the same words, saying that when Lincoln "very reluctantly issued his preliminary proclamation ... he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy" (RR 61)Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 510
Citation:
Allen T. Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time. New York, 1888.
Looking back later, Rev. Mitchell said, according to an interview published in the St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, August 26, 1894, that he asked a Presbyterian pastor to recommend a local man who could help him organize Illinois for the American Colonization Society. The pastor recommended Lincoln, who didn't, Mitchell said, look like much but who had a firm grasp of the politics of colonization and what Mitchell had done in Indiana. Lincoln was thirty-four years old when he met Mitchell. What did he believe? He "earnestly believed in and advocated colonization as a means of solving 'the race problem,'" Mitchell said. The two men became friends or at least associates, and Lincoln later names Mitchell commissioner of [Black] emigration in the Lincoln administration.Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 226
This was not an ad hoc political tactic or a hastily devised response to the pressure of events -- this was, Lincoln's emigration aide Rev. James Mitchell told the St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat on August 16, 1894, the foundation of Lincoln's private and public policy. It was "his honest conviction that it was better for both races to separate. This was the central point of his policy, around which hung all his private views, and as far as others would let him, his public acts" [Italics added] Lincoln was "fully convinced" that "the republic was already dangerously encumbered with African blood that would not legally mix with American [sic] . . . . He regarded a mixed race as eminently anti-republican, because of the heterogeneous character it gives the population where it exists, and for similar reasons he did not favor the annexation of tropical lands encumbers with mixed races ...."Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 384
Lincoln's emigration aide, the Rev. James Mitchell, said the Proclamation "did not change Mr. Lincoln's policy of colonization, nor was it so intended." On August 18, 1863, seven months after the signing of the Proclamation and three months before the Gettysburg Address, Mitchell said he asked Lincoln if the "might say that colonization was still the policy of the Administration." Lincoln replied twice, he said, that "I have never thought so much on any subject and arrived at a conclusion so definite as I have in this case, and in after years found myself wrong." Lincoln added that "it would have been much better to separate the races than to have such scenes as those in New York [during the Draft Riots] the other day, where Negroes were hanged to lamp posts."Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 554
[nolu chan 247] Scores of historians have spent countless hours trying to discredit Butler and his story. But since it is impossible to prove a negative, and since, as other historians have pointed out, Butler's account is "full and circumstantial" and there was no reason for him to lie...[Wlat 253] This shows that Bennett is not a reputable historian, because Butler had -every- reason to lie. He was seeking office. The story made him look good; it made him look like an intimate of President Lincoln's which he certainly was not.
I am still waiting, Wlat. YOU assert that YOU show that Bennett is not a reputable historian by YOUR unsupported assertion that Butler was seeking office in 1892 and, therefore, had every reason to lie.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT BUTLER WAS SEEKING OFFICE IN 1892?
Your citing fiction as fact only proves that you are not to be taken seriously.
First off, you do not know that for a fact. The only readily KNOWN account of its contents is in Butler's autobiography (and what better place for him to put it exists?). Meanwhile there are several thousand documents of Butler's in the Library of Congress from the period in between, most of which have never been published. It is entirely possible that other accounts may exist there as well.
Second, what Butler says is corroborated on two counts. First, it is corroborated by the fact that they were indeed scheduled for a meeting at the time Butler claims. Second, it is corroborated by the fact that Lincoln was still showing support for colonization a mere 4 months earlier and at no point in between gave any indication of changing his views.
You are free to attack Butler, to question his credibility, and to claim that his statement was false to your heart's content. But if you intend to do so, Walt, you also have the burden of substantiating your charges. To date you have offered absolutely ZERO credible reasons as to why Butler's account was in error. Instead you only state the fact that YOU personally do not like what that account says about your false idol Lincoln and use that as grounds enough to attack and dismiss Butler.
Butler's Book, Benjamin F. Butler, 1892, p. 984
"Since that time [1884] I have taken no part in politics, save that in the campaign of 1888 I made a single speech in Boston in behalf of the tariff, and I repeated that speech at Detroit, at the request of President Harrison."
[nolu chan 734] Butler's Book, Benjamin F. Butler, 1892, p. 984
"Since that time [1884] I have taken no part in politics, save that in the campaign of 1888 I made a single speech in Boston in behalf of the tariff, and I repeated that speech at Detroit, at the request of President Harrison."
LOL, the truth is never his friend, is it? If Wlat deemed that Bennet is "not a reputable historian" based on that, then he must surely think that Henry Jaffa is a complete imbecile and ignorant beyond measure, and that "a new birth of freedom" is no more than mis-manufactured toilet paper. After all:
on pages 14 and 15 Jaffa claims that Shakespeare's King John is set in the 13th century, amidst the age "of papal supremacy within the Holy Roman Empire, of which Great Britain was a part". This was no doubt a great surprise to the rest of the historians. They seem to have forgotten all about Britain being in the Holy Roman Empire, lol.
and on page 19 he claims that Henry the VIII sought a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, when in fact he sought an annulment.
and yet also, on page 84 he claims that Napoleon was defeated by the Holy Alliance, which wasn't even formed until after his final ouster.
This certainly shows that Jaffa is NOT a reputable "historian", especially by wlat's high standards. I'm sure that he would agree, and admit he was WRONG about Bennett...
Blood on the Moon, Edward Steers, Jr., 2001, pp. 262-4
Stanton's order calling for an autopsy and identification of the body is contained in a letter that he and Navy Secretary Welles jointly sent to the commandant of the Navy Yard who had asked Stanton what should be done with the body:
You will permit surgeon General Barnes and his assistant, accompanied by Judge Advocate Genl Holt, Hon. John A. Bingham, Special Judge Advocate, Major [Thomas] Eckert, Wm. [Luther] Baker, Lieut. Col. Conger, Chas. Dawson, J. L. Smith, [Alexander] Gardiner [sic] (photographer) + assistant, to go on board the Montauk and see the body of John Wilkes Booth.Immediately after the Surgeon General has made his autopsy, you will have the body placed in a strong box, and deliver it to the charge of Col. Baker -- the box being carefully sealed.
* * *
Alexander Gardner, who had left Mathew Brady to become an independent photographer, was allowed to board the Montauk with an assistant, Timothy O'Sullivan, and photograph the body. Gardner returned to his studios accompanied by a military guard who had instruction to confiscate the photographic plate and subsequent print and bring them directly to Stanton. It is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove. Presumably Stanton wanted to personally see the corpse of Booth to satisfy himself that Booth had been killed, But photographing the body is one thing, taking a close-up photograph of the initials was another. It would be virtually impossible to photograph the initials so that they would be legible in a photograph and still see the rest of the body including the face. Rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses who described the intials on Booth's hand and those seen on the corpse.
Gee, guess what? The witnesses were selected by the War Department. They do not include family or friends of Booth, both readily available. Arrested accomplices were also aboard the ship. They were not invited to the identification party either. A photographer was invited and photographed the body. Stanton confiscated all photographic evidence. And for Steers, "it is not clear why the government should have allowed pictures to be taken or what the photographs would prove that eyewitness testimony would not prove." Indeed, "rather than rely on photographic evidence that is subject to alteration, there are several witnesses...." Eyewitnesses selected by Stanton, no less.
Forgive me, but I will take the pictures, thank you very much. Oh, wait a minute. What pictures? Have you seen any pictures of that body?
Bennett is not a reputable historian because he takes as a valid source a story that cannot possibly be confirmed. All a reputable historian would say on this is that "Butler said Lincoln said." As it is, reputable historians like Stephen Oates, James McPherson and David Donald do not report the story because it is not credible, is at odds with many other statements made by both men, and cannot be corroborated.
Walt
Lincoln and Butler were to meet, that is a documented fact. Butler wrote what was discussed in the meeting, just like many people wrote what they discussed in meetings with Lincoln. You yourself have quoted many of them, I'm sure. No one disputed what Butler wrote back then. Disputing the meeting is a recent invention of revisionists. There is no reason to doubt Butler, other than you just don't like what Lincoln said. Applying your "Butler standard" to the Lincoln legacy eliminates more than it preserves. Just think, you would erase more of Lincoln than Booth could ever have hoped to do.
That blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it? Of course, Butler isn't a valid source for what Butler said, right? </sarcasm>
Donald and Oates are generally reputable but not without error or bias. McPherson is no more reputable than Marx or any other left wing hack job pushing a jacobin agenda as "history."
do not report the story because it is not credible, is at odds with many other statements made by both men
Then cite one statement by Butler or Lincoln then that shows or attests to the president repudiating his colonization beliefs. You cannot do so because no such document exists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.