White without Apology

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 .

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. Executive Mansion,

We have this:

Washington, February 18. 1864.

Governor Andrew

Yours of the 12th was received yesterday. If I were to judge from the letter, without any external knowledge, I should suppose that all the colored people South of Washington were struggling to get to Massachusetts; that Massachusetts was anxious to receive and retain the whole of them as permament citizens; and that the United States Government here was interposing and preventing this. But I suppose these are neither really the facts, nor meant to be asserted as true by you. Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments. No more than this has been intended by me; nor, as I think, by the Secretary of War. There may have been some abuses of this, as a rule, which, if known, should be prevented in future.

If, however, it be really true that Massachusetts wishes to afford a permanent home within her borders, for all, or even a large number of colored persons who will come to her, I shall be only too glad to know it. It would give relief in a very difficult point; and I would not for a moment hinder from going, any person who is free by the terms of the proclamation or any of the acts of Congress.

A. Lincoln

President Lincoln dropped the idea of colonization. He "sloughed it off", as his private secretary wrote in 1864.

Lincoln appears to have made no comments on colonization at all in the last two years of his life.

Walt

There is very little reason to doubt Butler's account. There is every reason to believe that Lincoln consulted him on the matter of large scale transportation of slaves out of the US. Butler was offered the vice presidency. It is nearly unimagineable that Lincoln was not readily accessible to him. Butler was also handling some very important politlcal matters for Lincoln in the time period, meeting schedules aside.

Besides, Stanton and Stephens both extensively corroborate the notion that Lincoln only freed the 200,000 men who fought in the war, and only considered that as a temporary wartime exigency. Without this understanding, the actions of Thaddeus Stevens become nearly mystical in irrelevance.

The idea that Butler would cock up the story about transporting the soldiers to Panama to build a canal there is entirely appropriate given Butler's experience and accomplishments in that regard. Afterall, by that time Butler had already completed his first functional canal and was doubtless open to grander projects. Certainly he would have been most confident of being able to deal with yellow fever, though it is a mercy he didn't get the chance.

In addition, we know that Dan Sickles was sent to Columbia to negotiate a deal for land, and that fits nicely into Butler's story.

There is very little reason to doubt Butler's account.

There is no reason it can be accepted as historical data. It cannot be corroborated; it is a supposed conversation between two parties. The other party never spoke of it (and died 4 days later). It cannot possibly be given historical credence. You don't have to be a scholar to say that. Common sense will tell you.

There is no proof that Butler and Lincoln even met on the day in question.

Walt

BUtler was second in command of the armies in the field in the East, and the man to whom Lincoln first offered the vice-presidency. They were in frequent contact over a number of issues, and the topic was certainly not considered one that either would have made public in that era.

With all due respece, your reply is clearly insufficient in the matter as Butler is very clear that the conversations took place over a number of days, and some with others present. Lincoln was in the habit of walking over to the war department on a daily basis, and Butler was there during the period. In addition, the last meeting on the matter, which was between Butler and Stanton, was a dinner engagement, so such things were quite possible with Lincoln. You can't possibly prove that Lincoln's calender would reflect every highly sensitive and casual meeting with the man who was then playing some of the most critical roles in the progress of the war. Butler could have called unscheduled at any time in the day without appointment, and Lincoln would have talked to him immedialely.

The fact that Lincoln never wrote his memoirs is a truly silly argument, you must do better than that.

Besides, in the face of it all are two far more important issues that your stance defies. One is that the overall response in the country to the abolition of Americans of African heritage was a hundred years of segregation. While there were admirable ahd historic exceptions to this contemptable behaviour, they were few and far between.

Secondly, Lincoln was very much correct in his expectations that widespread manumission would result in race horrors on an unprecedented scale, particularly in the south where for years racial atrocities, as well as atrocities committed against white republicans were indeed commonplace. The fact that Butler played such a critical and crucial role then and in our age as a result of his KKK legislation in terms of finally ending such barbarisms and injustices speaks most highly of not only his great integrity, but of his critical contributions to the eventual development of civilization in the south.

There is no reason it can be accepted as historical data. It cannot be corroborated; it is a supposed conversation between two parties.

There is no reason to discount Butler on the matter on then the dregs of historical racial paranoia. The man had an exemplary career and achieved some of the most remarkable results of any general in the entire war. The real source of his character assassination, which you continue to promulgate, was his use of Americans of African heritage, and his opposition to the KKK. Nothing more.

As for corroboration, I call you attention again to the accounts of Lincoln's conversations at Hampton Roads with both Stanton and Stephens present, and their separate but parallel accounts of Lincolns intent with the Proclamation.

I would call your attention again to Stevens, who actually wrote and steered the real legislation that freed Americans of African heritage, though, just as Lincoln intended, it was ultimately SCOTUS who reversed this legislation. Of his views and the debates over this legislation there is abundant documentation, and when you deny Butler, you essentially deny the whole pattern of the history of those years. Surely, you need to rethink your views on the era.

However, the achiements of Butler, Sumner and Stevens had their irrefutable impact, and laid down the direction towards the real future of the nation.

You can't possibly prove that.

Show it to me. Or do you believe that they did, and 'neo-confederate' revolutionaries have somehow erased it from the historical record? There is not a single record of someone back then disputing Butler. Not a letter, not a statement, not an article, nor even a comment in a book, that disputes Bulter's record of their conversation. Not to my knowledge anyway. If you know of one, show it to me.

There is no proof that Butler even met with President Lincoln on the day in question.

According to the 'Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln', Ol' Abe directed Butler to meet with him about that time, but you know that.

President Lincoln dropped the idea of colonization. He "sloughed it off", as his private secretary wrote in 1864.

Another of your completely twisted falsehoods. As you darn well know, the radicals repealed the funding for his beloved colonization program, so he couldn't do any more colonization projects. THAT is the reason his secretary made the comment he did. THERE WAS NO MORE MONEY for Abe to spend on the idea at that time.

Lincoln appears to have made no comments on colonization at all in the last two years of his life.

lol, He was experimenting with a project in Haiti throughout most of 1863, and when it ran into problems, he ordered the people returned that wished to do so in early 1864. Most notable is that he made no comments about giving up on the idea at that time, especially since the radicals were using that colony's failure to shut down his colonization efforts. His failure to do so only points to his still believing in the idea, but being unable to act on it any further due to his money being taken away. They took his colonization money away, and even made him account for every penny that had been spent, demanding reports from him and his Secretary of the Interior. BTW, have you ever read the first line of the proposal for that particular colonization project? It goes like this:

"I beg leave, Mr. President, to present my congratulations to Your Excellency for the promulgation of your late Emancipation Proclamation, and to offer my assistance in carrying out your philanthropic ideas of Colonization as connected therewith."

There is no proof that Butler even met with President Lincoln on the day in question.

According to the 'Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln', Ol' Abe directed Butler to meet with him about that time, but you know that.

The quote often provided by the neo-rebs to support this contention directed Butler to meet with a congressional committee, not the president. There is no proof they ever met in this time frame.

Walt

That quote does not repudiate colonization. Try again.

President Lincoln dropped the idea of colonization. He "sloughed it off", as his private secretary wrote in 1864.

Hay made that characterization in the summer, IIRC, yet Lincoln was still fighting for Mitchell's job as his colonization commissioner in November of that same year. Mitchell also wrote of Lincoln's colonization beliefs later in life and gave no indication that he ever changed them.

Lincoln appears to have made no comments on colonization at all in the last two years of his life.

False. We know for certain that he asked Bates about it in November 1864 because Bates' letter directly references that. We also have reasonably strong evidence that he was still talking about it when he met with Butler around April 11th of the next year.

There are no statements from him on colonization yay or nay at all after 1/1/63.

Actions speak louder than words. Throughout most of 1863 and early 1864 he had a test colony going in Haiti. Lincoln did cancel the first contract with Benard Kock, something revisionists love to point out, but they always fail to mention that it was immediately replaced by another contract with 2 of his partners, Forbes and Tuckerman. A few lines were added to the second contract to ensure the colony's performance prior to the Government having to pay $ 50.00 per head to the promoters and then it was executed, in April of 1863. The ship with the first group of black colonists left Fortress Monroe, New York onboard the ship 'Ocean Ranger' on April 13, 1863. Disease and poor management caused the colony to fail, and in February 1864, following an investigation into the colony's conditions by the Secretary of the Interior, Lincoln ordered a US Navy ship to go there and bring back any that wanted to return. By then the radicals were already well into the process of shutting down his colonization programs. Lincoln didn't give up on the idea, he was stopped cold in his tracks by the radicals. His colonization efforts were ongoing up until the very moment the radicals pulled the plug on him.

I would have asked them if they would mind my asking them over to my house for dinner some night.

I would tell them that I had listened to their comments and was interested in the background and the dinner would be a good way to instigate a friendly and non-confrontational discussion. (No one can get heated after my wife's spaghetti).

I would ask them to bring their families also as these get-to-gethers should be a learning experience for everyone.

If they refused, I would say how sorry I was that we could have such disparate views about proven factual instances.

Truth through friendship, every time.

There is no proof that Butler and Lincoln even met on the day in question.

Once again Walt that is a falsehood and you are a liar. The meeting between Butler and Lincoln was scheduled in writing by Lincoln's secretary John Hay.

From the index of Routine Correspondences for 1865 in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Volume 8, edited by Roy Basler, page 588:

"Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''"

Butler's meeting is corroborated in the scheduling by Lincoln's own secretary. Live with it.

The quote often provided by the neo-rebs to support this contention directed Butler to meet with a congressional committee, not the president.

False. It is a memo from John Hay, Lincoln's personal secretary, scheduling an appointment between Lincoln and Butler.

"Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''" - Routine Correspondences for 1865, listed on p. 588 of the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 8, ed. Roy Basler

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.