Posted on 12/27/2002 6:50:38 AM PST by yankeedame
It was not used in the 19th century because it was an accepted mode of thought. A mode of thought that even Lincoln had. I'm not condemning Lincoln for being like everyone else at the time, I'm just not buying into revisionist BS that attempts to turn the man into something that he wasn't.
President Lincoln's ideas on race were much advanced over other people of the day.
Oh garbage, he was a middle of the roader and anyone who objectively studies history knows it. Just because you read some book (Jaffa's I'd bet) that deifies the man doesn't make it true. Lincoln was a centrist as far as the blacks were concerned. His own words and policies prove it. I'm not saying he's a horrible person or anything, I'm only rejecting the ridiculous trend to deify the man and make him into something he wasn't. I guess the next round of revisionism will be to say that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't really own slaves, they were just operating a "rescue" operation and smuggling their black brethern to enlightened Canada or switzerland. I have enough sense to view people and events in their historical perspective. I can idolize Washington and Jefferson (with some limitations on certain political views of TJ) and not hate them as "racists" or any of the other words we might banter around today. Perspective is everything, and I wish the Lincoln cult would get some. Instead they continuously revise "what he really meant", and even redact many of his other statements. You know, the ones that don't "fit" the created image.
He was clearly preparing the way for black citizenship by urging the recruitment of black soldiers a year before the end of his life, and on 4/11/65, he publicly advocated they be given the vote.
Like the man said on 4/11/65: "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."
All he is doing in the quote you gave is excluding himself from those who wanted to give the elective franchise to ALL blacks, by clarifying the racist limitations that he would impose. Going down the middle of the road, so to speak. Read what he said. Once again, I'm not saying he was evil because of his commonly held race views. Historical Perspective is everything, and the revisionists should get some.
All blacks? Including women?
You're blithering.
Lincoln's ideas were much in advance of most people of the day.
He made a point, well......read it. Frederick Douglass was an escaped slave, in case you can't command the context:
"Recognizing me, even before I reached him, he exclaimed, so that all around could hear him, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Taking me by the hand, he said, "I am glad to see you. I saw you in the crowd to-day, listening to my inaugural address; how did you like it?" I said, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion, when there are thousands waiting to shake hands with you." "No, no," he said, "you must stop a little, Douglass; there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?" I replied, "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it!" he said; and I passed on, feeling that any man, however distinguished, might well regard himself honored by such expressions, from such a man."
-- "With Malaice Towards None" by Stephen Oates.
How many white people in America in 1865 would have said something to a black man -- in public -- at the inaugural ball?
See? Now you've learned something today. Be glad.
Walt
I did point out to you that the letters were marked as such, just as I pointed out there was no reason to suspect another source for the one quote you have diverted the topic to. That quote was unattributed as to source in your post #290, which is the source of all this. But I have pointed this out already.
You cannot debate me on issues, or even properly defend your own position, so you must resort to mis-representation and insults. Very well, nanner nanner boo boo to you too. There, I have engaged you on your own level in a manner that you no doubt can understand. Good day, sir.
Another pathetic and deliberate misrepresentation to divert attention away from the point at hand. The only thing blithering around here is you as you desperately attempt to regain your footing.
Lincoln's ideas were much in advance of most people of the day...How many white people in America in 1865 would have said something to a black man -- in public -- at the inaugural ball?
WOW, he spoke to a black, and even TOUCHED him! I must admit I was wrong, Lincoln wasn't a racist.../sarcasm.
See? Now you've learned something today. Be glad.
The only thing I have learned today is that you can't defend your own claims. Once again, I'm not saying Lincoln was evil because of his race views. They were commonly held at the time. I'm only objecting to the ridiculous trend among revisionists to deify the man and make him into something he wasn't.
Most insightful, thanks. I was already coming to the conclusion that his thinking was flawed, to say the least, but I had no idea it spread into so many areas. I particularly enjoyed his comment about "that pact with the devil we call our Constitution". Besides that, what sane man would claim the AJC is not an ultra-leftist newspaper? Thanks again for the tipoff.
Oh, so Lincoln was the rascal that secretly ordered the firing upon Fort Sumter. Didn't know that.
In a rebellion, warfare is prosecuted by the rebels. Clearly, our nation, the United States of America, with Lincoln its president, responded by defending the nation from this rebellion.
You know our nation, don't you? The United States?
As I've explained, all 625,000 were killed in succession, soon after the first shot upon that fort. If you're looking for a symbol to blame for all of that, look at those stars and bars, the Anti-American, enemy battle flag that some enjoy flying on State Houses. It deserves nothing but the fire.
Of course, that doesn't count those killed in their capture, enroute, and in slave ships, nor those lynched, etc. after the war. It's all a big shame. A very big shame that it came to all of that, due to cost saving measures in cotton and sugar production, etc.
I agree. This sounds reasonable to me.
2) Blacks would have probably been reduced as citizens to varying degrees and many may have emigrated to the North (if allowed in) but the end result would not have been much different than it played out anyhow. War, Reconstruction, Empty Freedom, Suppressed Freedom, Eventual Victim Status Freedom.....all segregated for the most part whether intentional or not. I see little difference in the reality and the hypothetical here except in the beginning....as in slavery ended earlier no doubt because of the WBTS.
This is a reasonable enough guess.
3)The USA would have been worse off arguably.. divided. I wish the war had not been fought. Hotheads prevailed on both sides...it was unecessary and cemented the centralized federal power .....forever.
I offered that scenario in another reply. I'm not sure that the US could be the power it now was without the stronger federal power. In my view, the real devil in the whole Federal power problem is FDR, who exorted the Supreme Court into accepting large increases in federal authority and power well beyond what was envisioned in the Constitution. In second place are some of the post Civil War amendments that changed the federal power structure away from states. Note that I'm not denying that Lincoln did some things that were very fishy with respect to the Constitution. I'm simply saying that I think that federal power didn't get really out of hand until FDR (Civil War itself aside, since I suspect you'd consider the whole event "out of hand").
I can't speak for all Southerners on this thread but mainly I resent two things:
And I'm glad you are making these comments. I think it helps if both sides really try to understand each other instead of straw men.
1) Yankees nearly always preaching to us from their flawed perch about how to regard our particular history.
What you need to remember is that when the Yankees think about race in the South, they see a history of blacks being mistreated through force (be it slavery or the law relegating them to the back of the bus) and violence (be it slave beatings or lynchings). That's what we get in the media, which leads to a general sense that Southerners are racist and want to keep blacks in an inferior position.
I would also point out here that most of the blacks I have talked to about race relations (and there have been many among my friends and co-workers) do also share the perception that race relations are worse in the South than in the North. Even those that have lived there, while they or thier parents were in the military or otherwise. Indeed, one co-worker told me of being asked by an officer to stop holding his white wife's hand in a shopping mall and that couldn't have been earlier than the 80s, given this person's age. That simply wouldn't happen in the North. In general, they report more specific harassment by the police than they'd get in the North once they travel south of Maryland. Anecdotal? Sure. But it doesn't help perceptions any.
Through that lens, any nostalgia for the Confederacy can look like nostalgia for slavery. What I'm suggesting here is that if you can explain to your critics that preservation would not have preserved slavery, that blacks would probably be about as well off had the Confederacy won or if the Civil War had never happened, and that you'd be just fine with that, it would make it hard to argue that you are being racist.
2) Yankees always preaching to us from their hypocritical perch about RACE when most Yankees hardly even know a black person much less have not lived their entire lives in social engineering experiements with very large ...even majority numbers of blacks in our communities.
I think you are falling for the same sort of characature of the North as you are accusing the North of having of the South. If you live in any of the more urban areas of the North (such as Central and Northern New Jersey, where I grew up), there are black people and black neighborhoods. Are there lily-white sections of the North? Sure. But there are also numerious urban and surrounding areas where blacks make up substantial part of the population. And, for the record, some of my literally best friends are black.
I have lived in the North. It is every bit as segregated as the South if not more so.
Segregated by where people live? Sure. And that's why the North was hardly spared the sort of social experimentation you are complaining about. And what you also need to consider is that urban blacks have often fared worse from federal entitlements and that blacks are largely urban in the North. There are cities where children born to married mothers are almost non-existant.
Why do Yankees think they have any answers?
I'm not sure that they do, and I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the Yankees are saturated in images of white hoods, burning crosses, lynchings, and slavery, all of which seem to be Southern problems. In other words, it looks like whites in the South go out of their way to torment and hurt blacks. There is certainly racism and segregation in the north, but it is achieved by avoidance and flight, not confrontation and violence. You are certainly free to argue that there isn't much difference, and maybe there isn't. But that's where the moral superiority comes from.
race relations in the South are good...not so good...and even downright ugly on occasion.
Which is how it is in the North, too.
However if you take the outside do gooder agitators out of the equation today, Southerners of all colors can solve their own damn regional problems by themselves...Thank You Very Much.
And this may be true. The key to getting the Yankees off your back is a matter of focus, which is my point here. Explain that you want the Yankees out of your business because they are making race relations worse, not because you want to have black people drinking from a different water fountain. There is an assumption (unfair as it may be) that Southern whites yearn for the plantation and lynchings. What I'm suggesting is that you figure out a way to make it clear that that isn't so. Complaining about the unfairness of Yankee bias isn't going to get them off your back. Explaining that you have no ill feelings towards blacks just might.
You guys may all go tend to your own problems of a social/cultural nature and keep on watching Cosby Show re-runs and believing that gives you a comprehensive view on "Race in America"...lol
Trust me. People in the North are no more free to talk about their racial problems than those in the South are. I'll quite happily agree with you that it would be nice if everyone could talk about race openly without worrying about offense.
If all that makes me a racist in your eyes then so be it.
I honestly don't know, from what you've written here, if you are or aren't. If you tell me that blacks should be equally treated and protected under the law and that neither black nor white is inherently morally superior to the other, then I'd tend to think you aren't racist. And I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
This forum has infinitely more whiny crybaby race slanderers than it will ever have serious white supremacist racists. Overt white racism is a near myth today.
Do bear in mind that this forum tends to kill overtly racists posts. There have been a few here. Indeed, I had one of the abortion-related exchanges I had with one woman pulled because she wandered into open hostility against non-whites when I pushed her to say what she really throught.
There are more overt black racists at your average Farakhan rally than all the overt white racists in the country combined in my view.
Oh, sure. There used to be a group with sound amplification on 7th Avenue in NYC that would spew all sorts of insults at white men and women. And blacks certainly are not helping themselves by attacking whites during riots in LA, Seattle, and Cincinatti. If blacks make themselves dangerious to whites, then they shouldn't be surprised if whites treat them as if they are dangerous.
As for passive racism as they now call folks who identify to some degree within their own race on occasion....I have found nowhere on this planet where that aspect of human nature is not to be found....period.
Sure. But in my experience, the identification is often as much a matter of culture as race. Read Keith Richberg's Out of America. I'm sure you will find it very fascinating. It discribes a black American in Africa feeling more at home with his white peers than with the black natives all around him. He even found himself sitting down with Ian Smith feeling sympathy for his attempts to preserve Rhodesia despite having protested against him in college. It is also an interesting book because he talks about some of the cultural divisions within black society that whites rarely get to see.
BTW...I have never said the South was right,but it's considerably more complex of an issue than slavery alone.
Sure it is. And my main point is that you need to make it clear that slavery and racism aren't a motive if you want to get beyond that into more complicated discussions of history and governmental power. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you understand how to get your message across to other Yankees without triggering the "racism" response.
Why I wonder are so many folks...even so called conservatives so damn preoccupied with all things "black"?
Why? From a pure Christian (or even just "decent human being") standpoint, it is a matter of concern for a group that seems unable to get out of being an underclass. From a conservative standpoint, I think that most conservatives, deep down inside, want to see people achieve their potential and rise as high as they can. This is why I think that measures that tear people down and rob them of their hard work bother conservatives so much. Again, blacks as a group seem to have trouble achieving what should be their potential. I think there is practical concern about how to help an underclass that is disproportionately involved in crime and consumes an disproportionate amount of goverment reasources. Finally, as Republicans, I think there is a concern that the 90%+ of black votes that go to Democrats is often the thing that puts them in office and that if blacks voted closer to 50/50 for Republicans, the Democrats would be a real minority party.
What you said yourself about the South is really true about much of the rest of the country. Blacks and whites live in close proximity to each other and interact with each other, whether we like it or not. Having one of those groups being a perpetual underclass that finds it difficult to manage itself, care for itself, and to get ahead in life is in no ones best interest. If blacks were able to fill technical jobs, for example, there would have been no need for the H1B visas that many people here don't like.
I think Southerners should spend some more time explaining this to Northerners (and blacks) -- why the way the Civil War was handled contributed to racism, despite the obvious benefit that freedom had for slaves. I think it also might help everyone understand why the whole "reparations" argument is bad news and will create many more racism problems than it will solve.
Fine....I'm not a big Lincoln hater or lover. I'm more interested in the WBTS militarily and heritage-wise and I appreciate the preservation of antebellum architecture from an asthetic perspective.
And I'm glad you are making these comments. I think it helps if both sides really try to understand each other instead of straw men.
I don't know a lot about straw men, I just speak honestly about my own observations and thoughts...and let the chips fall. I do not go out of my way on this forum to agitate friends.
What you need to remember is that when the Yankees think about race in the South, they see a history of blacks being mistreated through force (be it slavery or the law relegating them to the back of the bus) and violence (be it slave beatings or lynchings). That's what we get in the media, which leads to a general sense that Southerners are racist and want to keep blacks in an inferior position.
Yankees would do well to examine more closely their own white supremist actions. The Klan has always been quite active above the Mason Dixon line and Christian Identity stuff is almost exclusively a non-Southern issue. Yankees have been perhaps more subtle......and most importantly...given the rather small statewide proportions of blacks in Yankee states....it's simply not quite the same issue. Maine has less than 1% black. Mississippi is 40% black. Race consequences have much more gravity in the South period for that reason more than for any other.
I would also point out here that most of the blacks I have talked to about race relations (and there have been many among my friends and co-workers) do also share the perception that race relations are worse in the South than in the North. Even those that have lived there, while they or thier parents were in the military or otherwise. Indeed, one co-worker told me of being asked by an officer to stop holding his white wife's hand in a shopping mall and that couldn't have been earlier than the 80s, given this person's age. That simply wouldn't happen in the North. In general, they report more specific harassment by the police than they'd get in the North once they travel south of Maryland. Anecdotal? Sure. But it doesn't help perceptions any.
Have you socialized much with blacks from the old Cabrini Green area of South Chicago or those in the bad areas of DC or maybe Bed-Sty or the South Bronx or lower Morningside Park in NYC? Anectdotal is right with all due respect. My office is in a white trash part of Nashville which is 20% black in the city proper(low for the South). I would venture just from observing that at least 20% of the local overweight white trash girls have mixed babies...often with multiple black sires. I don't see much prejudice there. As for middle and upper middle class, it's less common but I've yet to see anyone intervening...lol. BTW, I don't consider any group or individual that wishes to procreate strictly within their own race to be racist. It's their business same as those who prefer otherwise.
Through that lens, any nostalgia for the Confederacy can look like nostalgia for slavery. What I'm suggesting here is that if you can explain to your critics that preservation would not have preserved slavery, that blacks would probably be about as well off had the Confederacy won or if the Civil War had never happened, and that you'd be just fine with that, it would make it hard to argue that you are being racist.
I've never known anyone anywhere that desired to bring back slavery....regardless of how they felt about any subject matter.
I think you are falling for the same sort of characature of the North as you are accusing the North of having of the South. If you live in any of the more urban areas of the North (such as Central and Northern New Jersey, where I grew up), there are black people and black neighborhoods. Are there lily-white sections of the North? Sure. But there are also numerious urban and surrounding areas where blacks make up substantial part of the population. And, for the record, some of my literally best friends are black.
Look I lived there and here...and Miami ...and a bunch of the third world. Folks are segregated by money....and that means most blacks are relegated to poorer less "diverse" areas....everywhere. The rise of the black middle class has changed that but it's still the norm both here and in the North. Sure, I live in a nice upper middle class area of Nashville where homes range from a few 100K to 5-10 million.....and we have black professionals amongst us. Eddie George lives in my neighborhood for example(famous local pro-footballer who opens his home on Halloween...a very gracious fellow). I don't think anyone tried to stop him....lol. Black friends?...why do you feel a need to validate your views with that pronouncement?...You sound like a social centrist to me. I hate to always feel compelled to offer that excuse but since I've lived in majority black or near majority black environs most of my life....well it goes without saying.....and they all know I'm a hard right non-pumpkin white boy.....fair but no guilt ridden wussy.
Segregated by where people live? Sure. And that's why the North was hardly spared the sort of social experimentation you are complaining about. And what you also need to consider is that urban blacks have often fared worse from federal entitlements and that blacks are largely urban in the North. There are cities where children born to married mothers are almost non-existant.
No....you have been spared all that because your statewide black populations are tiny percentage wise as opposed to Southern states. The blighted Northern black urban enclaves I mentioned above are proof enough that most blacks are indeed urban and segregated there. I would rather be a poor country black in Sugar Ditch Mississippi than freezing in some bombed out block in the South Bronx.....a poor choice in any event.
I'm not sure that they do, and I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the Yankees are saturated in images of white hoods, burning crosses, lynchings, and slavery, all of which seem to be Southern problems. In other words, it looks like whites in the South go out of their way to torment and hurt blacks. There is certainly racism and segregation in the north, but it is achieved by avoidance and flight, not confrontation and violence. You are certainly free to argue that there isn't much difference, and maybe there isn't. But that's where the moral superiority comes from.
Really......again you need to go study up on Klan history and the draft riots in NYC during the WBTS and a whole slew of other Yankee peculiarities regarding black/white relations. I will surmise that if there were proportionately as many blacks up North as down South that you folks would have acted no different if not worse. This is a key point I wish to make. Yes....in the beginning many white Southerners probably thought they were superior as human beings to blacks...as did many Yankees (again read-up....even Linclon himself uttered things that would have embarrassed George Wallace).......but by the mid 1900s it was no longer a battle of superiority ...it was a battle of political power, given black voting strength in the South. By the mid 60s, whites gave it up....as much because many felt it was the right thing to do (my dad and grandad) as being forced to. Since then the black block has become a major power in state government and THE POWER in Southern urban areas. You may come down here for yourself and see what you think about the results....it's mixed in my view. It is very unfortunate that black culture nosedived at the very time their political power came online bigtime. This has contributed to the near ruination of many Southern urban areas. Nashville is lucky and escaped this for obvious reasons. You may howl at me as a racist as long as you wish but this is simply the truth. You may just write it off as growing pains ala Zim or South Africa if you like but it's life down here. We are living it everyday. Jackson Mississippi and Memphis are veritable armed camps on a hellbound train.
And this may be true. The key to getting the Yankees off your back is a matter of focus, which is my point here. Explain that you want the Yankees out of your business because they are making race relations worse, not because you want to have black people drinking from a different water fountain. There is an assumption (unfair as it may be) that Southern whites yearn for the plantation and lynchings. What I'm suggesting is that you figure out a way to make it clear that that isn't so. Complaining about the unfairness of Yankee bias isn't going to get them off your back. Explaining that you have no ill feelings towards blacks just might.
No, they key to getting Yankees off our backs is for Yankees to look in the mirror and clean up their own backyards first. When you finish with Newark, call me. I don't personally feel compelled to explain to you simply because you are a Yankee and somehow worthy of me baring my soul about what I really think about blacks....lol.....why?....because you feel more virtuous and have "black friends"?......geez......OK, I'll bite.....I like some, have loved a few, disliked some and hated a few. I do not like one bit black urban culture or thuggery or their white imitators. I love the Delta blues and Morgan Freeman. I think (actually I know) there are more black racists than white and that it is to varying degrees a worldwide condition. I feel no compulsion to show them special deference and I find that patronizing and paternalistic. I despise black victimhood politics. I know from living in Africa (Sierra Leone) that bad as the slave trade was , it's been a blessing to the descendents. I miss the old days when I was a boy and almost all blacks were very kind and exhibited little sulleness or hostility even though they sure had reason to. The very first funeral I ever attended and cried at was of the old black man who taught me how to deer and squirrel hunt....ok that's enough...now I'm acting like you....I loathe falling into that kneejerk reaction to prove I'm not a real racist.....it's that very weakness that precludes any honest race discussions
I honestly don't know, from what you've written here, if you are or aren't. If you tell me that blacks should be equally treated and protected under the law and that neither black nor white is inherently morally superior to the other, then I'd tend to think you aren't racist. And I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
This is a major difference between you and I. I don't really care anymore. Do I think anyone is any better strictly because of their skin color? No....who really does.? Do I know from experience that I'm safer and more comfortable in some cultures than others? Hell yes...it's plainly obvious. Take a black woman and set her on the roadside in Belle Meade or Forest Hills where I live here in Nashville or say in Greenwich CT......what's the worst that'll happen?....somebody might think she's a maid waiting for a bus...lol....now do the same with some lily white deb in Newark or South Bronx.....you can't blame all that on poverty.....my great grandparents were dirtass poor and good Christians and didn't victimize strangers or anyone unless they had a very good reason. .
. Oh, sure. There used to be a group with sound amplification on 7th Avenue in NYC that would spew all sorts of insults at white men and women. And blacks certainly are not helping themselves by attacking whites during riots in LA, Seattle, and Cincinatti. If blacks make themselves dangerious to whites, then they shouldn't be surprised if whites treat them as if they are dangerous.
I view most young black urban males as a potential threat......and their whiteboy imitators likewise. I've learned those lessons the hard way around the world.
Sure. But in my experience, the identification is often as much a matter of culture as race. Read Keith Richberg's Out of America. I'm sure you will find it very fascinating. It discribes a black American in Africa feeling more at home with his white peers than with the black natives all around him. He even found himself sitting down with Ian Smith feeling sympathy for his attempts to preserve Rhodesia despite having protested against him in college. It is also an interesting book because he talks about some of the cultural divisions within black society that whites rarely get to see.
I have that book and have been to many of the same places as the author. Blacks in Africa don't give a shite about American blacks...what tribe you're from is the paramount issue there. I also have NOT OUT OF AFRICA.....another decent work but on a slightly different subject.
Sure it is. And my main point is that you need to make it clear that slavery and racism aren't a motive if you want to get beyond that into more complicated discussions of history and governmental power. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you understand how to get your message across to other Yankees without triggering the "racism" response.
I appreciate that and your incredibly in-depth response but I don't think it's possible to neuter the Yankee feeling of superiority on race. It feels good to many of them and costs nothing. All those good intentions had a price down here but up there.....what's the difference? A larger black middle class and more blacks living in the burbs?......same here.....only now we also have decaying urban areas just like you guys so we're even now...lol
Why? From a pure Christian (or even just "decent human being") standpoint, it is a matter of concern for a group that seems unable to get out of being an underclass. From a conservative standpoint, I think that most conservatives, deep down inside, want to see people achieve their potential and rise as high as they can. This is why I think that measures that tear people down and rob them of their hard work bother conservatives so much. Again, blacks as a group seem to have trouble achieving what should be their potential. I think there is practical concern about how to help an underclass that is disproportionately involved in crime and consumes an disproportionate amount of goverment reasources. Finally, as Republicans, I think there is a concern that the 90%+ of black votes that go to Democrats is often the thing that puts them in office and that if blacks voted closer to 50/50 for Republicans, the Democrats would be a real minority party.
I agree with the practical implications but I'm in an environment where most of my kinfolks are more concerned about not getting shot, carjacked or robbed or home invaded...so all those lofty Christian ideals about hoisting the poor black man up have to sort of take backseat to survival or maybe moving to Wyoming.....seriously...I have a cousin in Memphis who's doing just that and only because of the endemic black crime and the potential threat to his family......you are dreaming if you think blacks are going to vote 50% Pubbie without Pubbies offering the same booty as the Dems.....black middle class voting patterns are not much different from the poor blacks contrary to the conventional wisdom which I used to believe until I studied it further. It's the seriously religious blacks and a few of the entreprenuerial and young conservatives who make up that 5-10% who vote Pubbie.
What you said yourself about the South is really true about much of the rest of the country. Blacks and whites live in close proximity to each other and interact with each other, whether we like it or not. Having one of those groups being a perpetual underclass that finds it difficult to manage itself, care for itself, and to get ahead in life is in no ones best interest. If blacks were able to fill technical jobs, for example, there would have been no need for the H1B visas that many people here don't like.
It's worse than that. Nearly every immigrant group that comes here including other blacks from the West Indies or Nigeria etc quickly surpass our native blacks even without much assistance. The number one cause of the problems in the black community comes down to one very important thing......illegitimacy. When 80% of black kids have no real daddy.....especially the boys......it's the surest recipe for disaster I know of. Forget klukkers, transfer of wealth, all the other bogeymen ......this is the Big Lebowski....no doubt about it. How shall they fix that? I have no clue....even their so called leaders do it and it's a pattern of black procreation in any black country I've ever been in (scores). It's culture(not race) and it's only been made worse these past 50 years of freedom and incentive destroying (and guilt motivated and vote buying)payoffs ironically. I think black illegitimacy was only around 20% in the 50s......imagine that.
OK.......that's my observations and honest thoughts on all this obsession with race....I'm about tired of it all but I thought you deserved a full reply.
Thanks and have a good New Year!
LOL - You may consider Booth to be ultimate judge of Lincoln's statements made in letters that he never read...
It is apparent to me that you've never read a general biography of President Lincoln, or are at all generally familar with what he said or did, because if you had, or were, you'd know that Booth was present at President Lincoln's last public address, and that he vowed to kill him.
Had you kept your fingers in check even for a few minutes, you might have noticed the dates:
April 11, Lincoln publicly supports black suffrage, April 14, he is shot by Booth.
A moment's relection might have saved you making the very ignorant statement I bold at the top of this note.
You say, because you don't know much about these events, that Lincoln was a racist. You have no idea of the record, or a sense of the use of History. It's just an opinion that appeals to you -- it's something "everybody knows."
Lincoln was a 19th century person. This is the 21st century. For a 19th century person, Lincoln's ideas were -very- advanced.
Remember one of the meetings President Lincoln had with Frederick Douglass in 1862.
Douglass later recalled that Lincoln was the only white person he had ever met (including numerous abolionists--some of whom paid his salary) who treated him as an equal. Douglass said: "[He was] the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."
"With Malice Towards None" p. 357, Stephen Oates
I -think-, especially as you apparently have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the record, that someone who actually -knew- Lincoln gives us a better perspective on the man than you can provide.
Walt
I NEVER said that Booth wasn't present at ol' Abe's last public address or any other address. You can't refute what I pointed out in the quotes you posted, so you try to twist topics around in a bizarre and delusional attempt to misrepresent the original points. This way your fragile and fictional views of Lincoln can be preserved. Let's review again Lincoln's statement that day, which WAS one of the the real issues at hand:
"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." - All he is doing in the quote you gave is excluding himself from those who wanted to give the elective franchise to ALL blacks, by clarifying the racist limitations that he would prefer to impose. Going down the middle of the road, so to speak, as a true moderate. I NEVER questioned Booth's dislike of his wanting to give the vote to some blacks, I pointed out the falsehood of your statement that Lincoln was advocating giving it to ALL blacks.
Had you kept your fingers in check even for a few minutes, you might have noticed the dates: April 11, Lincoln publicly supports black suffrage, April 14, he is shot by Booth. A moment's relection might have saved you making the very ignorant statement I bold at the top of this note.
I NEVER contested anything you said about Abe getting shot or even who did it or why. I contested your false and broad statement that he endorsed full rights for ALL blacks. See the quote above and look at the limitations he endorsed. If you want to say that finally, at very end, he endorsed giving rights to SOME blacks based on his racist guidelines, then you would be telling the truth. As to my statement you had bolded, Here's my initial response after your first pathetic attempt to misrepresent and divert the real topic at hand:
from my post #319-[Ahem, HERE is what YOU posted: "You've seen these letters before..." . There was one brief quote given at the beginning of your post that had no source comment provided, but given your precise statement and the fact that all the other quotes were obviously taken directly from letters, there was no reason to suspect otherwise for that one short quote. This was in post # 290. You might want to familiarize yourself with your own statements before you spout off on things that only prove Lincoln's racism and your own ignorance.]-
A moments reflection might have saved you from repeating this ridiculous and fraudulent attempt at misrepresenting the true topic at hand.
You say, because you don't know much about these events, that Lincoln was a racist. You have no idea of the record, or a sense of the use of History. It's just an opinion that appeals to you -- it's something "everybody knows."
ROFLMAO!!!! Most people were racist back then and so was Lincoln, so what. The quotes YOU provided prove his racism. (that's what really burns you isn't it?) Once again, I'm not saying he was evil because of his race views. Most people were racist back then and he was definitely a moderate by the standards of the day. The record, and Lincoln, speak for themselves.
Lincoln was a 19th century person. This is the 21st century. For a 19th century person, Lincoln's ideas were -very- advanced.
He was LESS 'racist' than some, MORE 'racist' than others. The Lincoln cult has tried to re-write history to deify the man for some reason, but their lies are just lies. Lincoln's words speak for themselves. He was a centrist when it came to blacks by the standards of his day. Yes, his views would be completely 'racist' by today's standards, but for the time, he was a moderate in all regards of race. To many of his own party, he was considered far less than "very advanced" when it came to race. They considered him to be quite the opposite. Only a fool or someone with no understanding of history would call him "very advanced". You should read more than the one or two carefully selected books that seem to be your Lincoln 'bibles'.
Remember one of the meetings President Lincoln had with Frederick Douglass in 1862...I -think-, especially as you apparently have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the record, that someone who actually -knew- Lincoln gives us a better perspective on the man than you can provide.
ROFLMAO AGAIN!!! bwaaahaaaahaaaaaa! I'm sure that within the confines of your mind that represents some sort of great proof. WOW, the black guy said that Lincoln treated him nice. Golly gee whillickers, that just changes history, doesn't it? Perhaps you should read more than one or two agenda driven books and familiarize yourself with the record. Frederick Douglass was one of Lincoln's greatest critics on more than one occassion. The revisionists have a habit of 'forgetting' that. For example, in 1864, when Lincoln was running for re-election, Douglass refused at first to support him and said that he was a fraud and that his policies had been disastrous for black people. He was supporting the democrats until they chose McClellan and settled on a pro-South policy that would have ended the war. Then he supported Lincoln, but never took back his earlier comments. In 1876 Frederick Douglass summed up Lincoln pretty well in his speech at a monument dedication: "In his interests and associations, in his habits and thoughts and his prejudices, he was a white man, he was preeminently the white man's president." You really should learn more about history before making such a fool of yourself over it.
In the -same- speech, Douglass said:
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined."
I'd be glad to leave it there.
Walt
Of course not; you were ignorant of the fact. And yet the fact that Booth was at this last public address would be known to anyone even generally familiar with Lincoln's life. That set of people wouldn't include you.
Walt
That is a modern day judgment. It is silly to apply modern day standards to historical people.
It's hard to tell with Lincoln though. He also once went to a hospital full of wounded confederate soldiers and offered to shake hands with any that would shake his.
After the surrender at Appomattox he was shown a picture of General Lee. He said Lee had a good face.
You may not know that the evening before his final public address, a jubilant crowd gathered at the White House and requested a speech. He made a short speech; he also said "Dixie" was one of his favorite tunes, and had the band play it.
Walt
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.