"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor of qualifying them to hold office" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor to intermarry with white people;" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
As I have noted before, Walt does not support himself by the record. He argues WITH the record.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor of qualifying them to hold office" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858. Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor to intermarry with white people;" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
As I have noted before, Walt does not support himself by the record. He argues WITH the record.
Well, it's plain you are interested in disinformation. I caught you in some hyperbole and some errors of fact, and N-S also turned up some things that were clearly flat wrng.
And you've made a clear error of fact in this note and quite a wllful one, too.
I -never- denied that Lincoln said any of these things.
What I said plainly--that it was not well documented in the record to say-- was that it was not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance as a war measure. This weird perversion of yours won't get you much support, except among your small coterie of neo-confederate crazies.
You also said that I made some errors of fact. I challenged you to document one, and you come back with this lame stuff.
There is no doubt that Lincoln's attitudes about blacks changed over time. You choose quotes from 1858 because Lincoln's later statements don't suit you. This is willful disinformation on your part. I know you've seen the many quotes of Lincoln's that show how he grew over time. Too bad the USSR is defunct, TASS would have loved you.
Here are some Lincoln quotes, not for your benefit, but for the lurkers:
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existance we contend."
7/4/61
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
-Lincoln's Men, p. 164 by William C. Davis
"But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."
August 23, 1863
"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."
April 11, 1865
And I think this is a very telling passage.
"Lincoln had Douglass shown in at once. "Here is my friend Douglass," the President announced when Douglass entered the room. "I am glad to see you," Lincoln told him. "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address." He added, "there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." Douglass said he was impressed: he thought it "a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it." Lincoln said, and he watched as Douglass passed down the [receiving] line.
--"With Malice Toward None, p. 412 by Stephen Oates.
And here's another:
"After the interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely," Douglass said later, "who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."
ibid, p. 357
Abraham Lincoln was a great and good man. He deserves every iota of the acolades and remembrances that have been showered over him through the years.
"Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he [Henry Grady]lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardentnature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults ofboth were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Now, your last message, purported to show my statements, as anyone can see, if taken out of context
I can only assume you did it with a bitter heart. I sincerely hope that you'll be able to take a more reasoned and fair view of these events and I wish you a happy holiday season, and BEAT MIGHIGAN!!!
FIGHT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!
FOR THE ORANGE AND WHITE!
Walt
Also, bear in mind that you don't mix up the questions of slavery and racial inequality. Or indeed the question of the evil of slavery with the question of immediate abolition. Lincoln never favored slavery. He never felt that it was a good. Lincoln felt that the institution should be restricted to where it existed and hoped that eventually it would die out there. This hope was also that of many or most of the founders -- or at least, they did restrict slavery from the Northwest Territories, and they did hope that it would die out. On this it was the fire-eaters who betrayed the hopes of the "Old Republic."
Whether slavery was right or wrong was a subject of intense debate. Citing Lincoln quotes without citing Douglas, or Breckenridge, Davis, or Toombs or Stephens or any other political figures of the times, gives one a radically wrong impression of where he stood in the political and moral spectrum of the day.
Given that slavery was wrong, as Lincoln believed, what should the proper relationship between Whites and Blacks be? This was a separate question at the time, and it was to remain unresolved -- or answered in what we would regard as the wrong way -- for a century after Lincoln's death. It was also a question that Lincoln would be asked much more than his opponents, since they accepted or embraced the expansion of slavery, often considering it a moral good, and basing their views on an unquestioned belief in human inequality. Lincoln could not hide from such questions behind "property rights" or "states rights."
Utopian 21th century minds looking back on the past anachronistically might demand that one love and cherish everyone regardless of race or because of it. That was not an option in 19th century America. Indeed, it's hardly realistic today. There's something perverse about those who claim to stand on law and responsibility against sentimentality and emotionalism, that they condemn Lincoln precisely for not conforming to what our own 21st century sentimentality commands. They celebrate those whose hard-headedness led them to embrace and fight for slavery, and attack those who opposed it in a similarly hard-headed and pragmatic fashion.
I suppose the reason is that they suspect some kind of crown of moral virtue is at stake. Moral innocence is different from historical questions of causation and responsibility. But if you want to argue that Lincoln was not morally pure -- and who is? -- don't go on to pretend that Confederate leaders were. They embraced the belief in the inequality of the races with a passion, something that Lincoln with his faltering admissions can't quite be accused of doing and played all the politician's tricks that Lincoln is accused of playing. If a hard-headed, practical, un-Utopian approach on behalf of a good cause is condemned, are we then to embrace only evil causes? Deny this notional crown of virtue to Lincoln, if you like, but don't distort the circumstances of the times and the attitudes and actions of the other characters.
The argument is made that if you leave slavery out of the account the Confederates had the better case. Whether or not we can and should leave slavery out of the account, the secessionists certainly could not, and their passion or interest led them to take some very questionable steps. Lincoln is blamed because his side won. Had it not, we would be talking about the usurpations, unconstitutionality and tyranny of the other side. We would see it much more clearly and understand that it was not Lincoln who destroyed the "Old Republic." He would have overlooked the existence of slavery in the South to preserve the Union and the Old Republic. They destroyed that Union and Republic because they demanded the expansion of slavery.
Ending the expansion of slavery was a step in ending slavery. Abolishing slavery was a step on the road to abolishing legal distinctions based on race. Lincoln, for whatever faults he may have had, stood on that path. Others did not.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating question relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation, of the lads of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our never Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the antislavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but their premises being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in polities, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle -- a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was a impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
-- Alexander Stephens
Why, then, shall we talk about natural rights? Who is to define them? Where is the judge that is to sit over the courts to try natural rights? What is the era at which you will determine the breadth, the length, and the depth of those called the rights of nature? Shall it be after the fall' when woman had been made subject, when the earth was covered with thorns, and man had to earn his bread in the sweat of his brow? Or shall it be when there was equality between the sexes, when he lived in the garden, when all his wants were supplied, and when thorns and thistles were unknown on the face of the earth? Shall it be after the flood, when, for the first sin committed after the waters had retired from the face of the earth, the doom of slavery was fixed upon the mongrel descendants of Ham? If it be after the flood, after those decrees, how idle is this prating about natural rights as though still containing all that had been forfeited, as being, in the present condition of man, above the obligations of the civil government?
-- Jefferson Davis
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strong for the former. The blacks are immeasureably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy … While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it all the aid of our prayers & all justified means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the results in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but a day."
-- Robert E. Lee
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the pominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is throughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which consittuties by far the largest and most important portions of of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
-- "An Address: Setting Forth the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of Mississippi From the Federal Union and the Ordinance of Secession," Mississippi Secession Convention, 1861