"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated..." Abraham Lincoln

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Comments

Truth2010 3 years 51 weeks ago
#1

"But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. " Abraham Lincoln addressing a black audience

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#2

You're a racist, Truthless. I dared.

Truth2010 3 years 51 weeks ago
#3

We all have ancestors and we all have a right to be proud of them white or black. The large majority of the south have the birthright to be proud from where they have descended. As do blacks from Africa. If Thom wants white people to get over thier whiteness then be fair tell blacks to get over thier blackness. It ain't going to happen. Your ancestors are part of who you are.

When I was in the service with all races if a black soldier called me "cracka" cracker or "white bread" then I would call him "rye bread" or pumpernickel. We'd laugh and move on. We were different and we recognized our differences and our similarities and it was no big deal.

But to say in the army that only white people should get over thier whiteness is simply without the frame of reference of logical reality. That's not how people deal with differences successfully and it's not how people relate and work together . Both need to deal with the problems not just one side.

I'm white. I'm proud of it. I'm not kkk I'm not skin head. I think MLK is one of the smartest and courageous I've ever known. And black people have a right to be proud of being black and thier ancestry.

No race has a right to be insane and murder each other on the basis of race.

So don't your dare call me a racist. I'm a white man who believes the killer of the South Carolina 9 should first be made a slave to the black surviving family myers under the punishment Clause of the 13th Amendment. Then I believe he should be put to death.

Truth2010 3 years 51 weeks ago
#4

Well then Alice if you believe I am a racist which I'm not but Abraham Lincoln was. Pumpernickel

What if I was? How could you convince me to come over and see you your point of view? By calling me a racist? Lol what a joke. I don't think calling a racist a racist has ever convinced 1 real racist to stop being racist. Lol. Would you like to try a different approach?

Duuuh

rs allen 3 years 51 weeks ago
#5

Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#6

I’d just like to clarify that my #2 post was in response to what is now T’s #3 where he says “Don’t you dare call me a racist”. I dared. So sue me.

Black pride makes sense to me. White pride makes no sense at all. We have not had a myriad of artificial handicaps and obstacles to overcome just because we’re white. I think of my whiteness as something to be neither ashamed of nor proud of. And not being a member of the KKK does not exonerate you, by the way. There are degrees of racism, some more extreme than others. White defensiveness comes across to me as condoning a status quo we should all find repugnant. We've nothing worth defending in this context.

What is so damn hard about acknowledging the TRUTH, Mr. "Truth"? For we who happen to have inherited the skin color of the oppressors, simply acknowledging the reality of race-based privilege and race-based terrorism in America would do wonders for our rapport with our black brothers and sisters, as well as helping to reverse a corrosive social trend that needs to end.

Here's hoping we all do better...

rs allen 3 years 51 weeks ago
#7

Don't expect any amens from truthless Alice. He's unapologetic and proud of his racism.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#8

Hey rs, just an "amen" from you is good enough for me!

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 51 weeks ago
#9

Anyone who thinks of Lincoln as the "great emancipator" needs a refund for his "education". Robert E. Lee freed more slaves than Lincoln who was not at all committed to emancipation, just to Preserving the Union.

Roland

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 51 weeks ago
#10

Alice, have you so deified Lincoln that facts are now heresy to you?

Roland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#11

No Roland, I haven't. I was already aware that Lincoln's #1 priority was saving the Union. I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that the Union was a bigger priority to him than ending slavery. However I am willing to cut the man some slack, because like everyone who has ever walked the earth, he was a product of the times in which he lived. We all are. My guess is that Lincoln didn't have enough direct contact with black folks to know any better. I don't deify the man, nor do I begrudge him the high esteem he's been held up to as one of our greatest presidents. When he was assassinated, lots of grief-stricken ex-slaves showed up at his funeral; that had to have been for a good solid reason.

Facts are not heresy to me, Roland. They just are what they are.

rs allen 3 years 51 weeks ago
#12

Yeah, someone needs to go back to school. It's well known and written in his own words long before he became president what he thought of the instituation of slavery. He didn't like it. What is much less known is how Lincoln felt personally about the black man as a whole, but acedotal accounts suggest he was willing to meet each as equals. The only reason he was willing to allow any slavery at all during his tenure was that by the time he became president it was so codified in law he couldn't have made it disappear wheather he wanted it or not.

Don't be stupid of course Lee freed more blacks than Lincoln ever did...........Lincoln never owned any slaves. But of then again, if it hadn't been for Lincoln Lee would STILL own slaves.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir 3 years 51 weeks ago
#13
Quote rs allen:....What is much less known is how Lincoln felt personally about the black man as a whole, but acedotal accounts suggest he was willing to meet each as equals. ...
That's, ofcourse, nonsense. Lincoln was every bit the segregationist that, say, George Wallace was:

Timely Abraham Lincoln quote: Who defines Liberty?
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Post #11
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...
Jan. 1, 2014 6:06 am

Quote mjolnir:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

"Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.

Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

Fourth joint debate September 18, 1858. Lincoln, as reported in the Press & Tribune. Douglas, as reported in the Chicago Times. [2]

[2] Lincoln's prefatory note in the debates scrapbook."

"...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, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ..."

Post #16
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote mjolnir:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

Lincoln: October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not."

It's evident that given enough time and money Lincoln thought, as did some of the Founders before him, that freed slaves should be returned to Africa.

Just for the record, certainly not a view I espouse.

Post #21

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote mjolnir:

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Lincoln:"Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:"

"... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. ..."

Lincoln believed that slavery was immoral but he never thought of blacks as "equal" to whites. As abhorrent as that view may seem to us today it was a widely supported stance in both the North and among the approximate 4,000,000 (2/3) of Southerners who never owned slaves.

Post #29
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote nimblecivet:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

October 13, 1858: Sixth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Quincy, Illinois

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas maintained that the Founding Fathers established this nation half-slave and half-free in the belief that it would always be so. Lincoln argued that the Founding Fathers considered slavery wrong, and firmly expected it to die a natural death.

I wish to return Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you "why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that as a matter of choice the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that; when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

I think what has been proven here is that the South tried to destroy America which is why libertarians are against the Civil War because they hate America. Moreover, americans can take each others' money from them and spend it on whatever they want, because freedom. It is proven totally and there is not way to debate or argue it at all, period.

Post #37 (Reply to #29)

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote mjolnir:

The only thing "proven" here is that the old rubrick that "to the victor belong the spoils" is never more evident than in the victor's (North) transcription of history as concerns the Civil War. The littany taught to our kids today that 700,000 people died in battles over the ending of the abhorent practice of slavery is, at best, incomplete. It was a battle of Nationalism v. Statism, Labor v. Capital, and N. money versus S. money. As much as it makes us feel good to say that good defeated evil thereby ending slavery, that worthy cause was secondary or perhaps even tertiary to the root causes of the conflict.

Lincoln's own words, as I've laid them out in posts above, demonstrate that could he have preserved (his version) of the Union without ending slavery he would have done so. Recent evidence suggests that as late as the week of his assassination Lincoln was still trying to nenew efforts to facilate re-location of freed Blacks to Panama, Liberia and, in negotiations with the British government, to overseas Colonial era African territories.

Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih199642.htm

Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, Excerpts on Slavery 1821

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."

Post #38 (Reply to #37)

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

Post #39 (Reply to #38)

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/timely-abraham-lincoln-quote-w...

Quote mjolnir:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

Nothing I've said indicates that I think the South is to be absolved of blame. I do think however that if one is going to postulate on morality you need to include all the facts. Your haste to make accusations is exactly the type of "mote in your own eye" smuggness that I'm talking about.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 51 weeks ago
#14

I am not willing to cut the scoundrel any slack, Alice. The first time the South seceded, John Calhoun convinced Congress to rescind the crippling tariffs and the secession lasted only a week and there was no war. When those same tariffs were reenacted, Lincoln was determined to serve his bankster masters and stick to his guns. What ensued was the bloodiest war up to that time. Before that war free blacks and free whites were neighbors in the South and engaged in commerce with each other. This was not the case in the North.

Roland

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 51 weeks ago
#15

Lincoln was not called two-faced for nothing RS; he was on both sides of the emancipation/abolition issue. But it is clear that he wanted to ship all free blacks back to Africa. In the North only Whites could vote, while in the South all free men could vote. Slavery was more ubiquitous in the North than in the South and slave auctions continued in Baltimore, Nantucket and NYC after the war. Believing that Lincoln ended slavery (btw: it is still not ended, just restricted.) is the same as believing that Ray-gun ended the Cold War.

Roland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#16

I'll confess, Roland, I did not come to this thread to get into detailed arguments about Lincoln's policies and shortcomings. I'm more interested in discussing race relations in the here & now; specifically, attitudes and assumptions held by white folks that I believe to be counter-productive. I am not a historian or an expert on the Civil War, nor do I feel like digging up my encyclopedia and history books right now or doing an extensive google search. While Lincoln is mentioned in the title of this thread, it is really just a rhetorical question posed by another defensive white guy who refuses to get real about race-based privilege and race-based terrorism in America. That's what I wanted to discuss, not stuff that happened a hundred and sixty years ago. Sorry.

rs allen 3 years 51 weeks ago
#17

I too am not here to debate and debating again the white washing of what life was like south of the Mason Dixon line or the civil war Alice. Only in a very narrow bias reading of Lincolns' words can one divine some sort of animosity towards the black race and when read in the broader sense it reads as a person addressing the realities facing a freed black man in Amerika and not his personal feelings. That he thought it best for the Union as well as the Black race to have the black repatriated elsewhere has borne itself out over the last century and a half because as we see even today the black man faced much the very same prejudices and obstacles then that STILL continue to divide this country to this day, those words can hardly be construed to mean he thought the black inferior. It is already well known Lincoln was more concerned about the Union than anything else.....it was after all his job as POTUS, but what I we DO know is his actual thoughts about the institution of slavery even before he became president.

So now we're all back to tariffs being the cause of the civil war because as we all now know the black really were just happily slaving away in dim ole cotton fields back home. Thanks for setting me straight roland. That dar white wash sho is purdy.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 51 weeks ago
#18

A virtual fulltime job, rs, isn't it? Cuttin' through the bull....

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 51 weeks ago
#19

Sorry, RS, the institution of slavery was safe in the US until well into the war. The universal applicability of the Fugitive Slave Act had just been upheld by the Supreme Court. To deny that the war was about tariffs is to deny any real knowledge of the Civil War. I do not think anyone is suggesting that many slaves were happy with their lot, nor that the institution was not an abomination. But it was more ubiquitous in parts of the North than the South. You should read some of the philosophers of "political economy" arguing that wage slavery was more cost effective than chattel slavery for industry.

Facts are not an enemy; understanding their complexity helps one understand the complexity of our current situation. But cherishing false myths never comes to any good.

A lot of the current issues have become known merely because cell phone cameras are commonplace. These same things, and worse, have been going on regularly for the past fifty years. (Longer, I know, but this spell is about fifty years old.) And while blacks are more likely to be victims, they are hardly alone.

It is more helpful to note that the zero-sum game of our ailing economy and Nixon's Culture War are major causes of our current disharmony.

Roland

rs allen 3 years 50 weeks ago
#20

First of all roland, I said earlier slavery was firmly codified in Amerikan law at the time. Secondly; the tariff side issue is complete bullshit and is an attempt at whitewashing. The division was about slavery plain and simple beginning to end.

And lastly; to tell me to read up on political economic theorists of the period so to compare how SLAVERY equates with the northern working class of yesteryear or of the working class of today insults mine and everyone elses intelligence.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 50 weeks ago
#21

Since slavery was accepted as law everywhere, RS, how could it have been the cause of the war? And since the South had already seceded once before because of tariffs, how can you deny that reinstating exactly those same tariffs would not have the same result? Those tariffs included a 100% export duty on cotton. These tariffs were necessary to protect northern bankers who had invested too heavily in unprofitable industrial mills. Then one might note that at the end of the war the US began its effort to conquer the world. It was not until the 1930s that the war became the War to Free the Slaves, about the same time the rich capitalists began hiding themselves away. Not because of taxes, as their apologists say, but because they were terrified of an American Bolshevik revolution and did not want to be conspicuous. But excessive consumption never went away: Larry Ellison recently bought the island Lanai.

Roland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 50 weeks ago
#22

Nobody wants to talk about our current race problems. Nobody. Not even after a white terrorist massacres nine people and seven black churches are torched. If I wanted to brush up on my history, I'd find me the right books to read or take a class or two at the local college.

Oh well....

'Bye.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 50 weeks ago
#23

Please do not go, Alice. A major component is our pecking order outlook. A lot of Americans feel it is alright to kick those lower in their pecking order. And a lot of Americans feel that blacks are necessarily at the bottom of their pecking order. This is particularly true of white trash. Add in our admiration of violence and the ease of obtaining firearms, and this sort of thing becomes almost inevitable.

Another factor is our defunct economy that causes many to feel they cannot improve their own situation, only push others down. A little general prosperity would go a long way to improving this, but those who have the power to change things just do not care.

Also note, this is not just a Southern thing; these incidents occur everywhere in the US.

Roland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 50 weeks ago
#24

BINGO, Roland!

Not bad for a white guy (assuming you are). One of the best, most honest comments on race I've seen posted by a white guy.

Our only real source of power, as "ordinary" people, is in our numbers. And in this particular context, I don't mean white people; I mean everyone outside the millionaire/billionaire lucky sperm club. At least the bottom 95%.

I believe the biggest issue that divides us is not race or gender; it's class. The elites, with their toxic media conglomerate and puppet politicians, are exploiting racism and other divisive issues to keep us all distracted from the real enemy: corporate fascism. Plutocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, crony capitalism.... it's an enemy of many names.

But we still need to talk about race, because it's during times like this -- the hard times when more people are hurting -- that scapegoating becomes rampant, and hate groups of various stripes flourish and grow. We need to work towards transcending what divides us so that we can take our country back... from the oligarchs, or whatever name you prefer.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 50 weeks ago
#25

Thank you, Alice. Of course, this is a huge and complex issue. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance. We do need to transcend our divisions. Our rulers understand better than we that the people, united, can never be defeated. That is why they have doubled down on Divide and Conquer.

In 1867 Das Kapital was published and frightened the oligarchs soonafter. From 1870 to 1930 the terms Communist and Trade-unionist were interchangeable and the oligarchs used US, state and private armies to keep their workers in line, with limited and declining success. In 1917 their fear turned to terror with the Bolshevik revolution. When the US invasion of the USSR turned into a debacle and Pershing was happy to escape with his life, leaving his brigade to bleach their bone near Archangel, that terror nearly turned to panic. A new plan called for using a proxy, so the Third Reich was established to destroy the Soviet Union. At the same time, to forestall a Bolshevik style revolution here, they allowed the New Deal. J.P. Morgan said he would rather have half a great fortune than all of nothing. But this was not enough when the Red Army crushed the most formidable Wehrmacht the world had ever seen and smashed the thousand year regime. This brings us to the Red Scare of the forties and fifties.

As a little boy I remember having to hide under tables and in basements to be safe from the Russian bombers that were way out of range. I remember the Civil Defense encouraging everyone to build fall-out shelters in their basements and backyards. The signs for public shelters are still visible in many places. While these exercises were totally impractical against any real threat, they did serve to convince the public that the Soviet Union was a real and dangerous threat. They also proceeded to target intellectuals and anyone not going along with the program as "red" or "pink". (As a curiosity, one of the biggest, flamingest queens of all time, Mary Hoover, the devil in a blue dress, started the pogrom against homoerotics.) Movies also depicted the dangers of enemy invasion, though the early ones were even worse than Red Dawn. Soon though, they tended to concentrate on space aliens. In any case, these aliens had to invade us because their intrinsic evil made them need to destroy us because we were so good. And as time went on, the violence became easier and much more graphic. But the basic theme was that we must treat "the other" with extreme violence without waiting for provocation.

As Joshua Logan told us in 1949 "you must be very carefully taught to hate and fear" other people. Our government is expert at spreading hate and fear, and it honed the techniques it uses to destabilize other nations right here at home; they should be called the Iago Corps.

Then, in the late sixties Nixon started the Culture Wars to deflect opposition and a lot of things got pretty unsavory.

Roland

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 50 weeks ago
#26

Roland, how well I remember. I recall, around ages six or seven, having to go through these air raid drills at school, with us all told to get down on the floor and crouch under our little desks. And it creeped me out. I'll carry that memory to my grave.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 3 years 50 weeks ago
#27

At the same time we were being terrorized by phantom bombers, the US was conducting mock air raids over the USSR. When one bomber got shot down the Eisenhower administration released the story that the plane had been lost on a weather mission in the South Pacific. The USSR had offered to release the crew for an apology that never came. So over the next fifty years those men spent the rest of their lives as POWs. Something to think about the next time you see one of those POW/MIA flags waving here in the land of the slaves and home of the cowards.

Roland

rs allen 3 years 50 weeks ago
#28

While we're all doing that roland you should go back to reading up on what the civil war was about.

rs allen 3 years 50 weeks ago
#29

Alice,

Just like I mentioned in another thread about sexism and patriarchical rule some time ago; that converstion needs to made among the doers and sexists....men, I believe the racism issue really needs to take place between the doers.....the white race.

So I'm outta here. later guys

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 50 weeks ago
#30

Point well taken, rs. See ya around... but thanks anyway for your input.

Chuckles's picture
Chuckles 3 years 50 weeks ago
#31

As long as you don't understand that the concept of race has no biological significance, your thinking on this matter will be wrong and irrelevant. Lincoln lived during a time when the fallacy of "Social Darwinism" held sway and before modern genetics (and common sense) proved race an invalid idea.

karlmarx1947's picture
karlmarx1947 3 years 50 weeks ago
#32

We are trying to hold Lincoln to standards and views that have become politically correct today. Lincoln in fact emancipated the slaves, fought a successful war to preserve the Union. No political leader is a Saint and Nobody holds entirely the correct view. Slavery as an informal method of imprisioning blacks and having them do forced labor only ended with WWII, long after Lincoln was alive. None of the the writers here accomplished anything like Lincoln did under equally trying circumstances. Jefferson who wrote the declaration of Independence was a slaveholder, and had a child with a black slave, this does not mean all he wrote was meaningless and invalid.

Politicians are to be judged by what they accomplished not what they say which is as often as not half lies anyway. If you want perfection out a human being don't look for it in a politician. Its every persons job to take the wheat with the chafe. If Lincoln sounded like a politically correct member of the current elite with all the correct atitudes on gay marriange, LBGT, race, right to abortion and everything else and accomplishned nothing then he would have been a miserable politician. We should be thankful for what Lincoln did in his relatively short life. Unilke Washington, or Jeffersion, he was assasinated for his accomplishments. To my cynical viewpoint this is a very good sign he was doing something right.

rs allen 3 years 50 weeks ago
#33

No one is trying to put a halo on Lincoln or endow him with sainthood. He had his failing as well as any other, but the idea that the war was fought because of tariffs is the same kind of pernicious lie as the war was about states rights. Both are true up to a point but become lies by omission because in each case the fundamental underlaying issue was the protection for the slavers.

The tariff back and forth argument in Washington was hardly new by the 1860's, in fact by then it was decades old. What was new though was the growing abolitionist sendiment in congress. The slavers were already up in arms about Washington putting a halt to any expansion of slavery. But as those states that already kept slaves were solidly codified in law one of the few ways the anti-slavery members of congress could attack it was through tariffs and even then if those states hadn't seceded it's likely they could have defeated those odious taxes with their votes.

Make no mistake, no matter what each man thought he was going to battle for, it was an economic war yes. But the economics rested on and was about slavery.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 3 years 50 weeks ago
#34

I believe the underlying issue behind the Civil War was slavery.

And Chuck, I have no problem with the idea that "race" has no biological basis and is a social construct ONLY. That's why I've pointed out, from time to time, that there is but one race, the human race. Unfortunately that does not make problems like racism and xenophobia go poof, much as I would like it to.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 3 years 50 weeks ago
#35
Quote KarlMarx1947: Jefferson who wrote the declaration of Independence was a slaveholder, and had a child with a black slave,...

That DNA could have come from any of the other 15 Jeffersons and there is no proof that Jefferson fathered or even had sex with Sally Hemings. The DNA tests only proved that some male Jefferson got her pregnant.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 3 years 50 weeks ago
#36

I agree that there is a lot of scapegoating...mostly, now, from some blacks who are claiming that their current problems are all due to what happened to some other blacks in the slave days and that bad old white racist policemen are treating them badly... nevermind the fact that the policemen are doing their jobs in arresting criminals... and shooting them if those criminals present themselves as a threat to the policeman's life. Yes, you can find some exceptions and some real racist policemen who are no better than the criminals they are supposed to be apprehending but the vast majority of police activity is not about mistreating blacks, per se. Most law-abiding people, no matter what color they are, don't have to fear the police. If they act civil instead of arguing and trying to attack the policeman, they usually need not worry about being treated violently. Get violent with a policeman and you get even more violence back. That's a fact. Live with it... or not!

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Come Cruise with Thom Hartmann in July 2020

Join me for an exciting Bermuda getaway aboard Oceania Cruises, the world’s leading culinary and destination-focused cruise line. Set sail on the reimagined Insignia for 7 nights beginning July 25th 2020. Take advantage of Oceania Cruises’ OLife Choice promotion, where you can choose shore excursions, a beverage package, or onboard credit – Oceania Cruises also includes Wifi! You'll also receive complimentary gratuities, a $50 onboard credit and two exclusive cocktail parties. Did I mention we are planning special onboard events with yours truly? Prices start at $1199.

Reserve your stateroom today by contacting Keene Luxury Travel, and mention the Thom Hartmann Group 800.856.1155

Who Will Stop World War III?

Thom plus logo Back in 2001, after 9/11, Congress gave the president the authority to basically wage war anywhere in the world where there were governments affiliated with Al Qaeda, the radical Sunni Muslim group that came out of the Saudi Wahhabist movement. Iran is Shia Muslim, essentially the sworn enemies of the Sunnis.