Posted on 02/09/2007 7:22:48 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
Honest Abe to go on trial - for racism
Daily Sun reports
Thursday, February 08, 2007
AURORA | The Community College of Aurora's professors will stage a mock trail that puts Abraham Lincoln on trial for racism at 2 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 10, at the college's Fine Arts building at 16000 E. CentreTech Parkway.
The trial is free and open to the public. Based on his speeches and written documents, teams for the prosecution and the defense assembled from the Community College of Aurora's criminal justice program and will try Lincoln to determine whether he was a racist and how his beliefs and attitudes influenced the course of the Civil War, Reconstruction and post-war society.
Call 303-739-6600 or visit www.auroralibrary.org.
Just because you free a thing. Does not mean you think it your equal. They are two different things.
You say he freed the blacks. That in no way proves he thought them his equal or that he wasn't a racist. Also just because you give people a limited freedom(it was limited) does not mean that you give up your position of superiority over them.
W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and Julius Lester, (Black intellectuals) call the proclamation, "essentially worthless". Lerone Bennett called Abe a "white supremacist" who was just trying to cut off real reform that the true abolitionists were pushing for.
All of you that have been running down the South for years on FR and siding with the people that want to trample Southern Heritage, ban the flag. Well, this is your payback.
It is funny to hear how loud you all squeal when it's your Ox being gored when you were all to quick to gore ours.
Abe will be found a Racist, just like all of the good folks in the South have been labeled for years. So just deal with it.
And damned proud of it too, I'll bet.
No right thinking person would be proud to be a racist.
No right thinking person would be proud to be a racist.
It's not a game at all. It is about the meaning of that word and the context of that time. If you care to forsake all historical context and damn Lincoln as a racist for expressing the popular social prejudices of the day, then you must also condemn with equal or in most cases even greater zeal, 99% of our leaders from the very beginning of the nation until very recent times when expressing those prejudices was no longer "popular".
If you also choose to ignore basic political history and damn Lincoln for wanting to win election by not alienating a majority of voters in both his state and in much of the country by walking a narrow line on race and slavery issues, be my guest. The fact is that in that era, no one who's racial views would pass muster today could have possibly won any office in Illinois and probably not in any other state.
But if you want to take that stance, then be honest and equally damn others from George Washington on for the same sin.
Now back to Lincoln, and the quote in #169 that you gave as "evidence" of his racism.
"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. . . . I agree with Judge Douglas he [the Negro] is not my equal in many respects."
And your comment on that was ...
Claiming that ones own race is superior and that the Negro race is not equal is racist by most definitions.
It's interesting that you give a snip of a quote out of context and as others have pointed out, very conveniently omit the next sentence which is the object of those words.
By way of context, the quote is from the first of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. Because of the then new Republican party's general opposition to slavery and more specifically the expansion of slavery to the territories, Democrats coined the term "Black Republicans" which was short hand for advocating full legal, racial and social equality including inter-racial marriage. There actually were a very small handful of such people in the country then, but none of them could ever win election in Illinois or any other state.
But you could win election then by arguing that slavery was just wrong, and was an affront to our basic principles expressed in The Declaration that all men were created equal. Beyond that philosophical argument, there were even larger segments of the population in Illinois and other states who were opposed to any further expansion of slavery beyond it's present limits. As a "Free Soiler", those were the people Lincoln was appealing to. But Lincoln was also very careful with words. Douglass and his supporters had accused Lincoln of being a radical abolitionist which fit their characterization of the 'Black Republicans' and Lincoln replied.
Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
Let's parse the first paragraph. Lincoln does not say what he thinks of "equality" but he denies every publicly advocating it. And then he switches to the larger issue of abolition. He states plainly that he does not intend to interfere with slavery where it then existed. In 1858, abolition by Federal decree was an impossibility. All acknowledged that it would require a Constitutional amendment that had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. With 15 slave states opposed, it could never be ratified so it was foolish for any serious politician to even suggest it. Lincoln's formula was to isolate slavery and allow it the "wither on the vine."
And in the second paragraph, he again states that he has "no purpose" to introduce 'perfect equality,' and says why.
There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.
It's a pretty obvious physical difference which still plays out --- skin color. Other 'oppressed minorities' through our history could eventually blend in because their skin color is the same as the majority -- white.
While forever is a long time, 150 years after Lincoln spoke those words, we are still dealing with that "skin issue" and I think that while we have reached a technical legal equality between races, few would argue that we have reached "perfect" social equality, and I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Lincoln well understood the incredible difficulty of changing hearts, minds and basic human instinct. No politician is capable of that accomplishment.
Lincoln then goes on to say... inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
Well duh! He doesn't want to be oppressed and he wants to assure the voters (whites) that he is not looking to force a change in their social status.
Now on to the parts you were reluctant to quote.
... notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
Does a racist in any age argue that the object of his racism should have the same fundamental legal entitlements as he? Sheets Byrd sure didn't in the 1960s. Woodrow Wilson didn't in the 1910s. And Stephen Douglas surely didn't in the 1850s.
Douglas and many main-stream Democrats in fact argued that the Founders did not intend to include blacks when writing the Declaration. He was wrong. The Southern fire-eaters such as Calhoon were more honest about it. They acknowledged that Jefferson and the rest did indeed mean to include blacks, but they said that Jefferson and the rest were misguided and the Declaration was a wrong-headed document which should be ignored.
Lincoln and the 'Black Republicans' correctly argued that the Founders did indeed mean 'all men' and that the Declaration remained the moral and philosophical guiding light of the Republic.
And now, the last paragraph.
"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
So, Lincoln agrees with Douglas --- but on what? Equal in color? That is obvious, but meaningless. How about in "moral and intellectual endowment"? Douglas says they are not equal and Lincoln says "perhaps" they are not. He does not necessarily agree or disagree with Douglas on that point, but he says that is meaningless as well because the negro has the God given right, as expressed in the Declaration, to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, [and] he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
In 1858, that was a very bold statement for anyone to make and in the Deep South, such a statement would likely gotten him shot on the spot. For anyone to consider the man who had the courage to say that a racist, displays either a sad lack of historical education or a shameful willingness to distort history to fit a contemporary political agenda. Sadly, I see a lot of the latter recently from the hard core Libertarian segment.
Back to the word game. A racist is someone who in both word and deed intends to oppress another because of skin color. Lincoln, in both word and deed, sought to lift oppression from the black race.
To: bluecollarman ... and has the right to rule others.
So Abe was advocating ruling another race? Hmmm, NOT. He was advocating FREEING THEM. Try again.
To: Pikachu_Dad "So Abe was advocating ruling another race? Hmmm, NOT. He was advocating FREEING THEM. Try again."
Listen very carefully.... Freedom has nothing to do with racism.
Then why did you include the lack of freedom in your definition of a racist?
You stated that YOUR definition of a racist is a person who believes that he has the right to rule others. Lincoln clearly had no interest in ruling over the other race - he chose to free them.
I set animals free all of the time.
Oh my, you really do like to step in it. You worded your statement to imply that members of this race are not humans.
That is very clumsy of you
This is just a simple trial. What is the problem? Why are you so worried about it?
I am offended by the very thought of such a trial. The very premise is absurd.
Countdown for 'The South Will Rise Again' types hijacking this thread.
Nevermind. Already done. I didn't scroll down far enough.
I will stick with my definition since it corresponds with the definition in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. You have proved Lincoln to be a racist through your own selection of quotes. Attempting to redefine the word is hardly a legitimate way to prove your assertion. As for the rest of you accusations try to actually read what I wrote in 16, the comment that you originally challenged.
I implied no such thing, just that the act of freeing someone or something from captivity does not mean you are not a racist.
"So Abe was advocating ruling another race? Hmmm, NOT. He was advocating FREEING THEM. Try again."
Once again, freedom does not equate with equality. They were freed from slavery. They were not afforded with equal rights until the 20th century. Lincoln and the rest of America retained their position of superiority.
Actually, you did by saying 'I set animals free all the time'.
As to your second point, you defined a racist as somebody who believes the should rule over other people - i.e. enslave them. Lincoln clearly believed that they should be free and not in bondage. Go through his trial record and yhou will see that he supported their freedom time and time again. They were not afforded with equal rights until the 20th century. Lincoln and the rest of America retained their position of superiority.
Once freed, they had the same rights as everyone else. It was not necessary for Lincoln to do more.
It only became necessary to do more when Democratic legislatures in the South started enacting 'Jim Crow' laws to restrict their new freedoms.
Lincoln unfortunately did not have the opportunity to address those issues because he had been assasinated.
Keep the KKK eagerings to yourself or Lincolns encroachment on southern rights would look like nothing compared to what the yankee mind will do to a cowardly racist. That is the result of Lincoln. People can no longer ride on their race fortune. Now people my be run by a Negro or a Jew or whatever.
I just squash southern ignorance and pride where ever I see it. Death to the racist confederate fools. The wages of sin is total annilalation and the humiliation of reconstruction. Only fools question Lincolns greatness! Dangerous fools indeed.
Signed : President of the Lincoln Cult
Amen, brother. 12 years of public school here. I think the kids who get the most out of public schools are the ones ho have what I'll call (because I don't know an official term) "supplemental homeschooling."
My parents monitored my homework, but that was just the beginning -- there were always books around for more reading on the topics that interested me, and before, during and after dinner we'd discuss what I was currently studying. No quick "so what did you learn today," but a conversation to draw out that I really understood the lesson and could -- and this is a key that so many students don't get in school -- connect it to what I'd learned last week, last month, last year. Some nights it was practically a colloquium.
My mom was back in college, and my dad is a prison counselor, so those talks often wandered off into prison policy, psychology, or anthropology (Mom's major) plus the usual current events and politics, which then linked back to what I'd learned in history or social studies, or even English. School wasn't just something I did for a few hours a day -- it was woven into my life. And it was a good preparation for college, where I would learn a lot in study groups and wide-ranging all-night dorm room conversations.
To make a long story short (too late), parental involvement makes all the difference. One of the advantages (though certainly not the only one) of private schools is that they have a self-selected population of students whose parents place a high value on learning. That involvement isn't a binary all-or-nothing deal; it isn't a choice between homeschooling and handing over a kid's education to the teachers altogether.
No they did not.
Actually, you did by saying 'I set animals free all the time'.
Any right thinking person would realize that animals are lower than humans. If you can give freedom to an animal without considering it your equal, you can do the same to a human. Racism does not have anything to do with enslavement or freedom.
Last time I checked, racism wasn't a crime. Did I oversleep or something?
And, BTW, by today's standards, Lincoln would be a racist. By the standards of the time, however....
Veering off a little, but does anyone notice that the same crowd that is always foaming at the mouth to discredit so many significant leaders in our history never has had a problem with Josef Stalin (or any of his ilk)? I can't remember any icons of the left ever being genuinely critical of the murders and murderer of millions of people. Even CNN admits that forced "collectivization alone killed as many as 14.5 million people".
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/stalin/
But their intentions were good...
Yup. Doens't matter - Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Chaka-Zulu, Lenin, Stalin, Mohammed they're all fine. But Washington, Lincoln and co. are always evil.
Go Figger.
Who cares what Lincoln did wrong in the eyes of the South. Rightousness covereth a multitude of sins. To parapharse the bible. The point is that to say he broke the law in todays standard is obviously errelavent because at his time that was not to objectionalble to have him impeached or something. Just like you say he was racist, which no one should doubt, but he overcame his environmentally conditioned racism to help the Negro race as he would have put it.
I don't hate southern people, actually I relate to them more then some Northern liberal but just the embracing confedarate heritage I don't like. Their's no reason to depicite the South as some kind of victim of Lincoln. The South asked for what they got (attacking Fort Sumter). So in summary I think this college is stupid for even putting Lincoln on trial for anything, especially racism. That's like say in 2057 we put a random American on trail for driving SUV's that caused global warming. It a stupid trial that's all.
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.