Media

New Book Sheds Light on Lincoln’s Controversial Racial Views

McLEAN, Va. (AP/ The Blaze) – Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address has inspired Americans for generations, but consider his jarring remarks in 1862 to a White House audience of free blacks, urging them to leave the U.S. and settle in Central America.

“For the sake of your race, you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people,” Lincoln said, promoting his idea of colonization: resettling blacks in foreign countries on the belief that whites and blacks could not coexist in the same nation.

New Book Sheds Light on Lincolns Controversial Racial Views

"Colonization After Emancipation" (Image: Amazon)

Lincoln went on to say that free blacks who envisioned a permanent life in the United States were being “selfish” and he promoted Central America as an ideal location “especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land — thus being suited to your physical condition.”

As the nation celebrates the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s first inauguration Friday, a new book by a researcher at George Mason University makes the case that Lincoln was even more committed to colonizing blacks than previously known. The book, “Colonization After Emancipation,” is based in part on newly-uncovered documents that authors Philip Magness and Sebastian Page found at the British National Archives outside London and in the U.S. National Archives.

In an interview, Magness said he thinks the documents he uncovered reveal Lincoln’s complexity.

“It makes his life more interesting, his racial legacy more controversial,” said Magness, who is also an adjuct professor at American University.

Lincoln’s views about colonization are well known among historians, even if they don’t make it into most schoolbooks. Lincoln even referred to colonization in the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, his September 1862 warning to the South that he would free all slaves in Southern territory if the rebellion continued. Unlike some others, Lincoln always promoted a voluntary colonization, rather than forcing blacks to leave.

But historians differ on whether Lincoln moved away from colonization after he issued the official Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, or whether he continued to support it.

Magness and Page’s book offers evidence that Lincoln continued to support colonization, engaging in secret diplomacy with the British to establish a colony in British Honduras, now Belize.

Among the records found at the British archives is an 1863 order from Lincoln granting a British agent permission to recruit volunteers for a Belize colony.

“He didn’t let colonization die off. He became very active in promoting it in the private sphere, through diplomatic channels,” Magness said. He surmises that Lincoln grew weary of the controversy that surrounded colonization efforts, which had become enmeshed in scandal and were criticized by many abolitionists.

As late as 1864, Magness found a notation that Lincoln asked the attorney general whether he could continue to receive counsel from James Mitchell, his colonization commissioner, even after Congress had eliminated funding for Mitchell’s office.

Illinois’ state historian, Tom Schwartz, who is also a research director at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, Ill., said that while historians differ, there is ample evidence that Lincoln’s views evolved away from colonization in the final two years of the Civil War.

Lincoln gave several speeches referring to the rights blacks had earned as they enlisted in the Union Army, for instance. And presidential secretary John Hay wrote in July 1864 that Lincoln had “sloughed off” colonization.

“Most of the evidence points to the idea that Lincoln is looking at other ways” to resolve the transition from slavery besides colonization at the end of his presidency, Schwartz said.

Lincoln is the not the only president whose views on race relations and slavery were more complex and less idealistic than children’s storybook histories suggest. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both slaveholders despite misgivings. Washington freed his slaves when he died.

“Washington, because he wanted to keep the union, knew he had to ignore the slavery problem because it would have torn the country apart, said James Rees, director of Washington’s Mount Vernon estate.

“It’s tempting to wish he had tried. The nation had more chance of dealing with slavery with Washington than with anyone else,” Rees said, noting the esteem in which Washington was held in both the North and the South.

Magness said views on Lincoln can be strongly held and often divergent. He noted that people have sought to use Lincoln’s legacy to support all manner of political policy agendas since the day he was assassinated. And nobody can claim definitive knowledge of Lincoln’s own views, especially on a topic as complex as race relations.

“He never had a chance to complete his vision. Lincoln’s racial views were evolving at the time of his death,” Magness said.

Comments (292)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • kedward
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:53pm

    Lincoln and US Grant had many discussions concerning what to do with the emancipated: Emigration, education,or integration. Would it be kinder to encourage the former slaves to leave or to stay?

    Report Post »  
  • TunaBlue
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:51pm

    “Lincoln was an ardent supporter of resettling blacks in foreign countries on the belief that whites and blacks and those of other races could not coexist in the same nation.” ~ RESASINGER

    What I have studied about Lincoln doesn‘t indicate that he was an ardent supporter resettling Blacks because of concerns of coexistence as a ’nation.’ He believed that the South would never assimilate with Blacks. There were many positive examples that Blacks could coexist well in other environments. In as much as it will irk some who visit here, it has always been the South, the Democrats up to the 1960′s and a faction of the Republicans thereafter, who have exacerbated the issue, even today.

    I believe you miss the mark with your idea that we were or are only a melting pot of European whites, and that other cultures and races did not or do not assimilate. My adult children chose minority spouses, but that might be because my wife is a minority and my kids are color blind. You would be surprised to know that much of the youth of today don’t consider race as an obstacle.

    To your point on Muslim assimilation, this is a different nut to crack. Merkel, Sarkozy, and Cameron have all called Multiculteralism a failure. The failure is specifically directed to Islam, because it is not merely a religion, it is a worldview, replete with its own political, economic, and religious foundation. It is not compatible with any other religious, political, or economic system. Assimilation would be a violation of Islamic principles and would make the perpetrator an infidel.

    You make a common mistake in referencing Latinos/Hispanics as Mexicans. Your prejudice is showing. More indigenous Indians of Mexico and South America are coming to the US than ever before. Mexico is building its own southern border to stop Guatemalan’s and those further south from entering Mexico.

    Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on March 9, 2011 at 6:17pm

      I‘m afriad I can’t let your statement go without perhaps introducing you to the facts about Northern racial “Jim Crow” laws that predate anything existing in the south. Throughout the North, prior to, during, and after the war – the northern states did not allow black voting. Many northern states had constitutional amendments that either prohibited the residency of free blacks outright, or required enormous bonds be paid for residency. “Jim Crow” was the invention of the North and exported to the South after the war.

      It would take 3 full pages to list all the Jim Crow existing in the North prior to its appearance in the South. But, it has been whitewashed by history so the blame can be fully borne by the South. Whitewashed, but not gone – its there if you are brave enough to stand it.

      Here’s just a sample – its not pretty – but worth your further investigation.
      http://1898wilmington.com/OriginsofJimCrowLaws.shtml

      You should seriously take a look at the 14th amendment and do some study on what I’ve touched on. The 14th amendment to the US constitution was necessary to keep the northern states, who already had “Jim Crow” in effect, from declaring blacks to be non-citizens and run around their repective constitutions. Also in the 14th Amendment, you’ll notice a paragraph that says no person who aided and participated in the rebellion can hold any elected office at any level – unless a specific pardon from the Congress was given. So, one has to ask – “who passed all this Jim Crow legislation?” It had to be those who were pardoned by the US government. So, if any such instigator of racial bigotry entered office, it was with the sanction of the US Congress.

      Its a painful study, which I do not like to engage in – but necessary for the truth. Lincoln was aware of, and participated in, the racial bigotry of the ENTIRE nation. The northern laws did exactly what they were intended to do, keep the black population out of their territory – in case you haven’t studied any census data, for ANY ERA, its still that way. The result of reconstruction is an animosity between races that guarantees we will not see things the same way on anything whatsoever.

      Mission accomplished Radical Republicans of the 19th Century – they made sure the Progressive agenda carried on and went nationwide through both parties in the 20th century.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • TreeTrimmerJim
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:39pm

    When was it against United States law to traffic slaves from outside our nation? Why is the year 1808 included in the Constitution?

    I think the general trend has always been towards equality. Like entitlements today, their social momentum that needed to be overcome. An early step was the year 1808. Another was the compromise with 3/5th or no Constitution.

    Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • murphytavern
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 4:40am

      the original plan was to stop the slave trade by 1808 because the southerners said that they had enough slaves to carry on for about 60 yrs i believe that is what the agreement was

      Report Post »  
  • Moonbat
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:33pm

    @ Rwsasinger

    You’ve clearly put some thought into this, but it’s still an argument for segregation. And most people believe that segregation is morally wrong. Look at the American South, or South Africa. Segregation is always sold as a means to keep the peace, but it always produces injustice and violence.

    Report Post »  
  • roxee
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:30pm

    It is a sad world wide fact that countries world wide have had slavery. We need to move into another direction, not to forget history,just move forward.
    I have a feeling Mary Todd ,whom owned a small pearl handle 22 ,shot her husband Abe. Wilks Booth was her heroin provider,he jumped out of their balcony, when she shot him in Ford’s Theatre.

    Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:52pm

      I have a feeling it was Col mustard, in the library, with a candlestick

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • AR485
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:30pm

    Sounds like something Van Jones would say.

    Report Post »  
  • southernloyalty
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:29pm

    Even Lincoln knew that the idea of multiculturalism/diversity would be a failure before we embraced it as our national religion. It’s too bad he was killed, because I think he would have put a halt to the northern politicians who took advantage of the situation by using blacks simply for votes. Of course today this view goes against leftist political correctness, so it will be condemned. Personally I think it was a good idea, both whites and blacks could have avoided a lot of hardships in history and in the present had Lincolns’ ideas been put into action. Instead we willfully embrace creating our own little tower of babel.

    Report Post »  
    • TunaBlue
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:57pm

      “It’s too bad he was killed, because I think he would have put a halt to the northern politicians who took advantage of the situation by using blacks simply for votes.”

      Huh? How is it that the North took advantage of blacks as votes? I think I’m missing your meaning.

      Report Post »  
  • NHABE64
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:25pm

    One can not compare an 1862 mindset with 2011. Two different worlds, Abraham Lincoln was a visionarry. I mean white America has not had peace with black America to this day. I don’t pay it much mind, but ask yourself one question. What other country in the world has made more concessions and done more to make black people happy then the United States ? Hmmm..? can anyone name even one ? I didn’t think so. There is still slavery in this world now and always will be. Why is there nobody in those countries standing tall to complain ? How about the female slavery in the Middle East ? Abraham Lincoln wanted to the newly freed blacks to leave the country. Although I do not consider myself a racist in the true sense, I wish they had to. Just think of the billions of dollars of money spent on appeasement to be save. A pity…

    Report Post »  
    • Moonbat
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:00pm

      @ NHABE64

      You should probably start considering yourself a racist in the true sense.

      Report Post »  
  • dumbblond
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:25pm

    If you go to Wikipedia.org you’ll find that he was a “liberal christian”. You could also think you were reading about Obama. really weird.

    Report Post » dumbblond  
  • Marylou7
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:23pm

    Only one perfect man walked this earth and his name is Jesus. I’ve never heard anyone say that Lincoln was perfect, but he was a man that genuinely cared about this country and human kind.

    Report Post » Marylou7  
  • cece959
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:22pm

    You are right on all counts.

    Report Post »  
  • TMan2020
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:20pm

    This was attempted in a small way (Liberia) but because the settlement was not mandatory for all Africans its success was limited.

    This was not an attempt to cast out blacks as some might suggest, but rather a reasonable solution considered at the time. Check out the history of Liberia. It’s very interesting.

    I think Lincoln was correct, as history proves. All Africans could have been helped to re-settled in Africa (as some were).

    There was some awesome black leaders of the day (Fredrick Douglas and others) that could have been a great help to the people in establishing a new nation. The fruits of which could have been peace and trade between our two nations. I think the key would have been the complete support from the USA (financial and militarily) to help the Africans build a free nation.

    It is my thinking that the black community lost out on a great opportunity by not completely re-settling in Africa. The wonderful and rich African culture has only suffered under entitlements and unfulfilled expectations. Expectations that could have been easily fulfilled in a free nation with, good leadership and a black majority citizenry.

    Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 10:36am

      Colonization was a racist wish-dream from start to finish, indulged in by people who hoped not only to rid America of slavery, but to rid it of Negroes.

      African-Americans and their ancestors had been imported from all up and down the West African coast, from Senegal to Angola, often by way of the West Indies where they were “seasoned” for a time. Most of them had no ancestral conection at all with the country that became “Liberia,” and to this day antagonism persists between the colonists’ descendants and the “native” population.

      By Lincoln’s time if not before, America’s black population was culturally much more American than African. Even leaving aside the expense, it’s hard to see why Lincoln or anybody else ever thought colonization was a good idea.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • 1836Crockett
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 10:30pm

      Uh, sorry but read what Mr. Lincoln said about how blacks could never be equal to whites. When old Abe was campaigning for president he said he was FOR SLAVERY AND WOULD NEVER GO AGAINST A SLAVE OWNER. He and his aides tried to get land in central America (Panama, if I remember correctly) for the blacks to move to. It‘s been a while since I’ve read it, but I think the US actually bought land in Panama for the move.

      Report Post »  
  • cece959
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:17pm

    I know this is probably not a popular viewpoint but we have no one but ourselves to blame. If we hadn’t been so damned lazy and did our own work instead of buying slaves, the only Africans who would have been here would have been the ones who actually wanted to be here. Then we wouldn’t have to deal with the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and the rest of the race-baiters whose only job it is in this life is to keep racism alive.

    Report Post »  
  • TunaBlue
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:11pm

    It is a challenge, if not nearly impossible, to understand history without applying presentism: an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences in perspective of the time. The cadre of Marxist professors who use historical revisionist tactics to teach our kids, teach from a presentism approach, utilizing emotion to judge harshly instead of logic and perspective to judge fairly.

    Lincoln was lost too soon to know how his vision would have played out. Suffice it to say, it would not have been the actions played out by Andrew Johnson.

    Report Post »  
  • SND97
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:08pm

    Obama did take this advice from Lincoln, he migrated to Kenya and studied the Islamic Law which he now is trying to trick America into.

    Report Post »  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:03pm

    i dont see anything wrong with this at all. Slaves were brought here against their will, and Lincoln saw a way to right a wrong and offered, not force to relocate expatriated Africans to a climate and country in which they may be more comfortable. Now on the other hand if he had made this mandatory this would have not been a bright idea.

    not a big deal in my opinion.

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • Simonne
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:33pm

      In the long run, it‘s good that it didn’t work out but reading about slavery & the brutal way they were treated, how could it be worse? They were raped, their kids were taken away from them & the list goes on & in. What makes it worse is that most of these slave owners attended church but so vile when it came to treatment of their slaves. Can you imagine living like this for your whole life. Reagan & Lincoln are my favorite presidents.

      Report Post »  
    • tierrah
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 2:15am

      @Simmone: You paint with a wide brush but I understand why you generalize. Most of what folks know about slavery in the South has been learned from movies. Granted many slaves were treated inhumanely; however, there are many instances wherein they were treated as members of the family. George Washington owned slaves and treated them with much care, eventually freeing them. One of his servants fought by his side in the Revolutionary War. I sometimes wish folks would consider that very few Southern folk owned slaves at the time of the Civil War – only the elite. My own ancestor was a poor white sharecropper who didn’t know why he was fighting. He told his son he only knew he had to follow orders. Many of the Confederate soldiers had no idea what the war was about, only that they were Southerners and the South was at war. History sometimes is not so cut and dried as the writers try to make it.

      Report Post » tierrah  
  • JohnCoroy
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:01pm

    I am encouraged to see some of the other side of the real beliefs of Abraham Lincoln’s in his own words on slavery posted on The Blaze. Ever wonder why slavery was abolished all over the world without war and why we were “supposedly” were the one exception? May I recommend another well researched book on the subject: “The Real Lincoln, A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” By; Thomas DiLorenzo

    Report Post »  
    • TunaBlue
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:55pm

      Another book in the same vein is John Avery Emson’s “Lincoln Uber Alles. The author chronicles every supposed assault Lincoln perpetrated on the South, including, but not limited to, the unnecessary loss of 620,000 lives, massive devastation of personal property, and the “real” reason for the war: economics. The author tries to make the argument that the economic disparity between the North and South was the real cause of Lincoln’s insistence on war. When in fact, the South was imploding and its economy was dying. The book casts Lincoln as a tyrannical president bent on keeping the South in the Union, even though it had a Constitutional right to secede.

      I have read several of these books that try to recast the South as the victim to the North. None of them hold much credence. This book of DiLorenzo is what I like to call a psycho-biography. It is Academia’s dark and destructive position to take down the United States at any cost. Besides, why are these books only written by Southern Good ‘Ol Boys. Although, I would note that DeLorenzo is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He can’t be all bad. However, he still believes that the South should secede from the Union.

      Much of this thought comes from the myth of the lost cause.

      Report Post »  
    • wildbill_b
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 12:02am

      Tunablue,

      Can you please provide the “Constitutional” authority for cession? I think you are going to have a very hard time finding that one.

      I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of American, to the REPUBLIC (not democracy) for which it stands, one nation, INDIVISIBLE, with liberty and justice for all.

      Republic is the diametric opposite of “democracy”. We are NOT a democracy.
      Indivisible: not divisible; not separable into parts; incapable of being divided: one nation indivisible.
      Nation:the 50 united States of America.

      The 14 federal “STATES” are not part of the Constitutional Republic. They are part of the OTHER nation, being the one created by Article I sec 8 clause 17-18 and Article IV sec 3 clause 2, and is a legislative democracy (congress rules).

      Together they form the “Country” of America.

      Report Post »  
    • tierrah
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:52am

      @Wildbill_B:
      I have always been under the impression that the states had a right to secede from the union; but sorry I cannot tell you where I got my information. I did an internet search and found the following article interesting. Seems the right to secede has never been determined, just accepted as a non right.

      U.S. Constitution “The Right To Secede” March 4, 1789

      The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The “permanence” lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the “more perfect union” found in the Constitution.

      Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.” A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, “The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.”

      Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong.

      Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

      Report Post » tierrah  
    • TunaBlue
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 11:58am

      Wildbill,

      There is no Constitutional authority for states to secede. That is one of my points. Maybe I didn’t articulate that well. State rights do not necessarily include the right to secede.

      Report Post »  
    • JohnCoroy
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 7:26pm

      The Union was voluntary, not compulsory. Therefore succession was always a legal option. Try Texas’ constitution; Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that “All political power is inherent in the people … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.” The authority to govern in a manner consistent with the will of the governed rests in the people, not in the state.

      Report Post »  
    • JohnCoroy
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 7:46pm

      In a letter to James Madison in 1816 Jefferson reiterated his
      support of the right of secession by saying, “If any state in the
      Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance
      in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.”

      Report Post »  
  • dumbblond
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:01pm

    Go to wikipedia.org look up Abraham Lincoln religion . He could be Obama’s soul brother.

    Report Post » dumbblond  
    • Americanbeliever
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 10:38am

      Agreed. The constitution was an obstacle to him, so he ignored it and decided to trample on states and individual rights. The writers of popular history have rewritten him into the “hero” “sort of a god” president that schoolchildren read about.

      Report Post »  
  • Ronko
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:55pm

    I can’t really condemn Lincoln on this. I would need more info, I would also would need the full context of the book, what Lincoln was saying, and if there is an agenda with the author.

    Report Post »  
    • hopnmad
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 11:07pm

      I don‘t believe it for one second BUT if it proves to be true I’m sure Lincoln had blacks safety in mind.

      Report Post » hopnmad  
    • ginsberg
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:44pm

      Ronko, there is ample evidence that Lincoln was no saint when it came to racial matters. He famously said that he would be ok with slavery if it kept the union together, just for one example. This is not to say that he was not a great man, however he was far from a perfect man. also to think him being a republican has anything to do with politics today is absurd, the democratic and republican parties today are virtually identical as far as any meaningful policies go. Finally the argument that being a product of one’s time somehow excuses moral failings is ridiculous and demeaning to people like john brown, who fought and died for freedom while others were equivocating about economic issues.

      Report Post »  
  • LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:54pm

    Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t treat all men as Equal, and freed the slaves.
    The Civil war might have never happened,
    and we would have been 230 years with out Slavery instead of 140
    we might have never needed a Civil Rights Movement 45 years ago
    nor the problems of today.

    Report Post »  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Explain the purpose of the year 1808 being included in the Constitution?

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:04pm

      TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Explain the purpose of the year 1808 being included in the Constitution?
      ………………………………………………………………………………………………
      I don’t know, and i don’t claim to be an expert on the Constitution.
      did the purpose of the year 1808. help make American a better place ?
      if so why did we have the Civil War ?.. i don’t have an answer, just questions

      Report Post »  
    • RPGZero
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:30pm

      The purpose of 1808 was that the northerners pretty much gave the southerners 20 years after the ratification of the constitution to clean up their act and ween themselves off of slavery. Basically, the southern economy had become so independent on slavery that if they got rid of it right away, the entire southern economy would fall apart instantly, and would inevitably cause the northern economy to collapse as well. The Founders realized that 20 more years of African Americans in slavery was better than the entirety of America’s economy falling apart, Britain returning during the chaos, and making EVERYONE their slaves.

      The Souther, unfortunately, never lived up to their obligation and the North did not do enough to enforce the constitutional policy, ultimately leading up to the Civil War.

      The point, however, is that the Founders had every intention of abolishing slavery, but knew they unfortunately could not do this right away.

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 8:29pm

      @Looking both ways

      I have to agree with you, that if the founding fathers had declared all men and women to be of the same equality many problems may have been avoided; yet look at the one great fact of this nation in our great history…we have made mistakes, many profound ones, and have led to the correcting of them in these areas…

      1. Freedom for the slaves within the nation.
      2. Equality for women in the Womens Sufferage movement
      3. Equality for all people in the Civil Rights movement.
      4. Ending of child labor in factories.
      5. Ending of the business monopolies on industries

      There are countless other small and large areas to be found, and now we are doing the correction to the one biggest mistake in the last century of the unions existence; undoing the progressive causes, and becoming the Restorers of the Union.

      That is what history will show this generation to be, the Restorers of the Union Of the United States of America.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • SCHEXbp
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 2:33am

      Many viewpoints here are unfortunately affected by “presentism.” That’s applying the social & cultural judgments of today to the days of yore – often backtracking centuries. You cannot expect a man of the mid-19th century to have the same “sensibilities” as someone just entering the 21st century. It is best to evaluate their beliefs & decision against the action others ALSO ALIVE AT THAT TIME would have made instead. What may seem backward NOT may actually have been forward thinking then. Sometimes it is the reverse. My 85 yr. old Mother has said that if you told a woman at 1940 that they could get an abortion of their unborn child in any big city, they would have thought you & such institutions monsters. Sometimes I wonder if 50 years from now pets will have “rights” & their “owners” will be taken to court by activists for “abuse.” They will look back at 2010 & say were were horrible persons, possibly even for the concept of “owning” pets.
      As an exercise in reverse presentism, I wonder if we were to fight against enemy Muslims like it was the 11th century (the way many of them seem to fight, as in beheadings), if they would view what we think nowadays as savagery (e.g., we save out $1 million cruise missiles & let the B52s drop hot steel on them, carpet bombing large areas where the enemy hides out) as justifiable retaliation & BE SCARED to continue the fight against us because we counterpunch the way they would have.
      Finally I think killing Lincoln may have been about the worst thing the South, having already just about lost, could have done. I believe, judging from his speeches, that he would have offered charity, as least as magnanimously as Grant did on Lee’s surrender, when he let the Rebs keep their horses & rifles.
      It is probably a legal fiction that the state could NOT secede (based on the pre-Constituion precedent set forth in the Articles of Confederation’s dissolution (just as police power dwells with the state because it existed IN THE STATES BEFORE the Constitution existed), but force of arms put an end to the technicalities of that.
      It is also a travesty that the War could not somehow have been deferred for 10 years. I am convinced that the Industrial Revolution would have taken hold in the South (like Birmingham became Pittsburgh South around 1880, AFTER recovering from the War), as well as social (& religious) changes. Oh, to save 2/3 of a million of our fighting finest citizens. We would have become a world power (& what Generals we would have had) decades sooner.
      Lastly, The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution should have been the LEGAL reason to end segregation (& a lot earlier) rather than some super-twisted reading of The Commerce Clause.

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 10:14am

      Should the founders have freed the slaves with or without compensation for their masters?

      If with, where would they have gotten the funds, in a debt-ridden country with a currency so worthless that people were still using Spanish doubloons and Dutch guilders? If without, would the slaveholding states have stood for it, would the Constitution even have been ratified, or would the Union have simply been stillborn?

      However many of the founders may have agonized over the slavery question, the biggest actual emancipators during the Revolutionary era were the British, who freed thousands of slaves, many of whom fought for the British and were evacuated by them after US independence.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • 1TrueOne55
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:35pm

      It is amazing that this history is not taught in today’s American History Books. They make it seem like the founders were for slavery when they were divided on it as a group. The fact that they did not know of a way to reduce or remove it from the Agri-culture of the countries farmers.

      Some of the founders were against Slavery as it was handed down to the country from our British roots and wanted to include it in our founding documents. You can see it in the arguments about if slaves were allowed to be counted as citizens in the Federalist Papers. It was this back and forth that Democratic-Republican party labeled the opposition as Racists because they refused to free there workers and make them free. It is what lead up to the 3/5ths argument which is still miss interpreted by those who want to keep Blacks enslaved. If you read Fredrick Douglases account of his work on reading the Constitution he saw that what that part of the Constitution meant was that States would get the ability to count 3/5ths of the total Slave Population vs their Freed Black Population. It was never intended to say that Blacks were considered only as 3/5ths of a single person as those who continue to tell that falsehood today among the blacks today and sadly it is their own leaders that do that to them.

      Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
  • jman35
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:49pm

    It’s good to know that Lincoln was not super human. He was defiantly a great leader, however, he was still a man who made mistakes along the way.

    Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 9:47pm

      He was a monster made great by lying history writers.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 10:47pm

      How wrong was he?
      The incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents, for women 134 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 94 per 100,000, for black women 358 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 152 per 100,000.
      Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007),

      Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_prisoners_are_black#ixzz1FmtURDHu

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
  • pilgrim2497
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:48pm

    Americans in Lincoln’s day had not yet been afflicted with the insanity of political correctness.

    Report Post »  
  • Lloyd Drako
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:27pm

    Sad that Lincoln came late if ever to the realization that African-Americans by his time were already more American than African. His eventual abandonment of colonization seems to have reflected practicalities more than genuine acceptance of black people as legitimate fellow citizens.

    Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:59pm

      There is no proof that Lincoln ever abandoned his policy of relocating blacks back to Africa or Central America. He was killed almost immediately after the War was concluded and therefore didn’t have a chance to enact futher atrocities against the freed blacks who were starving to death in the South.

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 10:03am

      Even sadder–but how exactly was Lincoln “enacting” atrocities against the freedmen?

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • Mister_Bill
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:22pm

    Lincoln understoodthat even as a leader, not all will follow your lead. He was trying to find a solution that all could live with.

    Report Post » Mister_Bill  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:44pm

      MISTER BILL, I agree. I think he was actually trying to convince slaves to relocate to avoid further issues from the South!

      Report Post »  
    • Robert-CA
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:13pm

      is Eric Holder or the ACLU or Al Sharpton gonna prepare a lawsuit against Lincoln ?

      Report Post » Robert-CA  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:56pm

      No, Lincoln just simply forced a Northern Solution on the South after the South had peacefully seceeded from the Union. He is responcible for starting a war that devastated the South for a century, killed half a million Americans on both sides, and led to the vilification of the South that still continues today. In addition, his policies began the forced shift from a less centralized, less powerful Federal government to the out of control monster we “enjoy” today. In my book, Abraham Lincoln was the worst President in American history PERIOD!

       
    • AzDebi
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 8:26pm

      @Mister_Bill:
      “Lincoln understoodthat even as a leader, not all will follow your lead. He was trying to find a solution that all could live with.”
      ________________
      Hey Mister…great insight!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • mhills51
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 8:59pm

      I can’t stand the re-righting of history. The civil war was not set on slavery. In fact that didn’t come but a year or two down the road. It was based on the same thing that made us leave England. The northern states had all the votes because of the population and tried dictating to the lower states prices and supplies.

      Report Post »  
    • restorehope
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 10:46pm

      I agree, he was trying to appease both sides. We are looking back at what he said in this newly uncovered speech and judging it with hindsight. That is an easy trap to fall into. Lincoln did not have the luxury of knowing how the War Between the States would end. Besides, it was a totally different world back then. We cannot fully comprehend what it was like living in those days. Suggestions on colonization would be abhorrent to us today, but back then it may not have shocked anyone because that may have been “politically correct” for that era. Either way, I don’t think this new discovery on Lincoln detracts from that the fact he was, in the end, the Great Emancipator.

      Report Post »  
    • hopnmad
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 11:02pm

      @ Mister Bill

      I think Lincoln did understand that not everyone would follow him as a leader..knowing this Lincoln once said, “You can please some people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

      As for the writer of this book trying taint an awesome prez I say shame, shame, shame!!!

      Report Post » hopnmad  
    • hopnmad
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 11:16pm

      @ Mister Bill

      and even if this book is true, still a great prez – I do agree with you tho, Lincoln didn‘t know what white people’s reactions to blacks being integrated into their society would be…I’m sure he had their safety at heart.

      Report Post » hopnmad  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:19pm

    The history of the human race is filled with horrible injustices. Millions of Ukrainians were slaughtered by Stalin in his famous “Terror Famines.” Mao starved his own people and sent the food to the Soviet Union in exchange for nuclear weapons. FDR incarcerated Japanese, German and Italian-Americans without warrant.

    We must face the terrible mistakes of our past and learned from them.

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:55pm

      I’m sure in 1862, things were just as they are in 2011.
      But it does raise one question:
      If people find this country is so bad and Africa / South America is sooooooooo good,
      why do these people never move out of America ?

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • Whostolemypig
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:01pm

      Of course they don’t publish the names of all the early to mid 20th century democrats that were the biggest of all segregationist.

      Report Post »  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:08pm

      @Whostolemypig
      Yeah..you see only Republicans are racists
      and
      all racists are Republicans.
      Specially when Hussain is facing a tough 2012 and even African-Americans are having their doubts about his sanity .

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • NatalieF
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:18pm

      I like your style, Ironman. LOL

      Report Post » NatalieF  
    • DVT
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:21pm

      If lincoln is such a horrble racist…why is the obamessiah trying to emulate him?

      Report Post »  
    • beverlee
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:21pm

      I must disagree with you to a certain degree. While we should record and read our past, we can never know what those who lived during those days knew or feel as they felt. To presume these things is to our own peril. We must lead our lives to the best of our abilities, pre-judge none, help all, give wise counsel to those who seek it and forgive those who wish it. To judge others for the mistakes of their ancestors is an err in humanity. As we don’t judge the Egyptians for the abuse of the Jews by the Pharaohs, we should not judge the British for there empire or the Germans for the wrongs of Hitler.

      Report Post » beverlee  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:28pm

      Lincoln must be remembered as being fully human in addition to being the President of the US during the Civil War; his greatest of successes was the ability to look past his own limitations concerning his opinions on the race of others, and declare the freedom of all those who had been enslaved for the generations before.

      This is the greatest show of his humanity united with Godliness, it is the ability to know what needs to be done, what is right before the Lord, and then actually carry it out to the conclusion; in his case he laid the foundation in the freeing of the enslaved, and the abolishing of slavery for what would be the days of Civil Rights, and the Voting rights for all…regardless of race, gender, etc.

      The dream is still not complete today, nor is it likely to be complete, yet we still build upon those set of foundations laid down by our predicesors, and learn both from the failures and the successes they have achieved as we lay the foundation for the generations to follow.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:30pm

      To add to the previous post:

      We build the foundation of a new America, restored to the fullness of the Constitution and of the life and liberty encompassed within her and the Bill of Rights; the night we fight against, and this is the generation that will be known for times to come as the Restorationists…restoring her to where she is to be and into the light of ages to come.

      It will be known as the time the darkness sought to extinguish the light, and the greatness of those people of America stepped forward to combat the darkness and withstand the storm.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Showtime
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:33pm

      @Ironmaan
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 5:47pm

      I DID!!!

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • Cemoto78
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:34pm

      I didn’t see the part where entitlement programs and generations of welfare were mentioned.

      Report Post » Cemoto78  
    • cheezwhiz
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:36pm

      DVT
      If lincoln is such a horrble racist…why is the obamessiah trying to emulate him?
      —————
      But I thought he is Reagan now
      ;-)

      Report Post » cheezwhiz  
    • TunaBlue
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:11pm

      Ironman,

      Since you haven’t read the book, you don’t know that there motivation is to diminish Lincoln. There is much evidence that supports Lincoln’s dilemma over what to do with the blacks after the war. My study indicates that he would NOT have chosen to relocate them.

      During his faithful walk in Richmond on April 4, 1865, with his son Tad holding his hand, he was approached by a throng of newly emancipated slaves who fell to their knees in front of him. He was shocked at their actions and said to them, “Don’t kneel to me. You must kneel only to God, and thank him for your freedom. Liberty is your birthright. God gave it to you as he gave it to others, and it is a sin that you have been deprived of it for so many years.”

      Lincoln did not “start” the Republican Party.

      Report Post »  
    • Showtime
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:48pm

      @cheezwhiz
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 6:36pm
      DVT
      If lincoln is such a horrble racist…why is the obamessiah trying to emulate him?
      —————
      But I thought he is Reagan now
      ;-)
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That was last week. He hasn’t come back from vacation long enough to decide whose hat he will put on this week.

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • AzDebi
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 7:52pm

      I was taught in school about this…Lincoln was a very wise man from the standpoint that it still took 100 years for this Nation to confront the racism head on…I believe it would have been a horrible fate for Blacks had they taken his direction and recolonized…Can you imagine? This is the only nation on earth where they would ever have been able to overcome the blight of racism…I can just envision the slave trade reorganizing and pirating the ships taking the returning Blacks back into slavery somewhere else…Slavery is still practiced all over the world…it just isn’t talked about in the same way!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 8:59pm

      cheezwhiz & Showtime -

      If lincoln is such a horrble racist…why is the obamessiah trying to emulate him?
      —————
      But I thought he is Reagan now
      ;-)
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That was last week. He hasn’t come back from vacation long enough to decide whose hat he will put on this week.

      ________________________________________________

      It’s called multiple personality disorder and I am sure it is covered in the DSM IV (Diagnostic Standards Manual, Fourth Edition). At least Hillary was only channeling Eleanor Roosevelt and Nancy Reagan was reading horoscopes. Only 686 days left….and counting…..

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 9:12pm

      You want “controversial” racial views? How about Luis Farrakhan? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? and Jr.? Shelia Jackson Lee? “Rev” Wright? Think those are ‘extremist’? How about Eric Holder?

      Sorry, my idea of a racially “neutral” society isn’t one race on their knees for another or in “reparations” to another. either ALL races are equal or there is no such thing. Period. Get over and past historical prejudices or perpetuate them. There is no in between.

      Personally, I believe mankind hasn’t the heart for “brotherly love.” We don’t have the room in our souls for it. We are too selfish and too arrogant. Too self absorbed and too narcissistic. Too tribal and too easily lured to the dark side of our own minds.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • DisillusionedDaily
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 10:04pm

      It is no secret that Lincoln was a racist, but he hated the very idea of slavery and did not want it to expand to the new states that were coming into the Union. Some other avid racists included both Roosevelts, Wilson, John F. Kennedy and his brother Ted, the Rockefellers, Henry Ford and J. J. Astor. If you don’t think that racism is alive today, you have not checked the membership lists of the more exclusive eastern Yacht Clubs.

      Report Post » DisillusionedDaily  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 10:16pm

      @ Tunablue … He is a researcher for George Mason University .. You better believe he is all about diminishing Lincoln. These GREAT Historians of today are so smart with their 20/20 vision. Quite honestly, I am disgusted with 90% of them and their efforts to acts so wise as to undermine the greatest leaders of our nation. Yet, try to get a single piece of evidence about Kennedy’s misgivings and you have to have an order from the Supreme Court.
      The bias of these people never slants the other way. I am tired of reading nothing but the bad of America in college by these historians. I want to know, where is the GOOD stuff ?? Why aren‘t they researching story’s about the real hero’s then if every other person is painted as a criminal ??? We didn’t just AUTO-MAGICALLY evolve into the nation we are today.. SO where are the hero’s, the ones who moved this nation to the place it is today ??? I will tell you why they don’t, because nobody was innocent by today’s standards. It is impossible to understand a different time, different era, it is all subjective. As all life is.
      Do you think the same now as you did when you were a child ?? How about when you were a young adult ?? I guess for progressives and Lefty’s, these are dumb questions, it is obvious they never have grown up. I guess they think the rest of the world is like them. I remember my English teacher telling me in 9th grade that people NEVER change. I thought he was right for a long time and figured I was doomed in my alcoholism and addiction. He is wrong. People change all the time. That is what life is all about.

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on March 5, 2011 at 10:34pm

      “It makes his life more interesting, his racial legacy more controversial,”

      Gee, ya think?!

      This country has come a long way since Lincoln. Heck, this country has come a long way since the 50′s. I live in an area of the country that still remembers some of the cruel things people did to minorities. What’s good about this is… most of those that held those beliefs and may have acted on those beliefs have repented and asked for forgiveness. Less than 2 miles from my home, two elderly men live next door to each other and are the very best of friends, almost like brothers. Back in the late 50′s both tried to kill each other. Amazingly both lived through there ordeals. One of them is Black, the other White. The White man felt so bad about what he had done that he gave the Black man half of his land. The Black man politely turned it down. About 5 years later the property was bought by an attorney for his client, which turned out to be the Black man. Both men became the best of friends, and to this day they take turns sitting on each others porch telling tall-tales.

      Something that is unheard of in this area. They own grave plots next to each other and will have their wives moved next to them after the men pass on.

      I truly think we can see racism almost wiped out, but it won’t happen until the progressive/democrats stop using race as a wedge to get votes. Conservatives have put race behind us, it’s about time the left do the same!

      http://www.americasteapartynews.com

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 12:48am

      AzDebi, If you happen to read this, please email me at David@AmericasTeaPartyNews.com

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • lillianrose
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:01am

      @Red Meat- you are so confused. Try Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama.

      Report Post »  
    • Red Meat
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:26am

      @lillianrose
      There is no confusion. You may be right about Obama. We’ll see what he does over the next 12 months or so.

      Report Post » Red Meat  
    • tierrah
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:36am

      What if Lincoln were a deep thinker, which I believe he was? Maybe he suggested the move to HELP the freed slaves, anticipating their future struggles, rather than for reasons of bias … just sayin’

      tierrah  
    • thevamprn
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 1:46am

      Wilson also arrested German American as well as anyone who spoke against the administration.

      Report Post »  
    • MR_ANDERSON
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 5:22am

      Tell me about those “horrible injustices!”

      My brother killed my goldfish when he was 3.

      I learned and haven’t had a goldfish since.

      Report Post »  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 9:50am

      To make sense of Lincoln’s position, you have to get out of your 2011 comfort zone and put yourself in an 1850′s mindset…

      The future of the union was in doubt, and people were considering taking up arms against their neighbors over the principle of owning slaves. To call race relations ‘bad’ is to ignore the reality of how bad it was. Could you imagine freed slaves living next to their former owner, voting in elections and sitting in a jury when their former owner had a brush with the law? The idea of helping people that were brought here against their will go back to either where they came from or some place new (Belize?) and start fresh was a very reasonable proposition – no one says Lincoln ever advocated for forced removal of anyone.

      Look at what transpired in the 100 years before the Emancipation Proclimation, and you’ll realize the next 100 years after Emancipation was pretty predictable – helping newly-freed slave ‘opt-out’ of those hundred years (1864-1964) and get a fresh start elsewhere would have been a reasonable proposal.

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • docvet
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 2:40pm

      And the Native-Americans are slapping their foreheads saying, “I wish we would have thought of that”.

      Report Post »  
    • theVirginian
      Posted on March 6, 2011 at 4:51pm

      @ Ironmaan

      Lincoln did not free the slaves – Congress and the Constitution did.

      Report Post » theVirginian  
    • UPSETVET
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 7:30am

      REPLY TO NICKDERINGGER : FDR ‘s administration incarcerated JAPANESE -Americans but DID NOT incarcerate GERMAN or ITALIAN- Americans. FDR’s failure to do so was very controversial at the time because it was prejudicial to the JAPANESE-Americans and a denial of their basic civil rights guarnteed to all American citizens in the US Constitution .

      That UN-AMERICAN policy and action trampled on the US Constitution like no other act in it’s history, except maybe the relocation and incarceration of Native-American s on US government reservations,. That’s unfortunately an Un-Constitutional act that continues until today.

      “ COLONIZATION AFTER EMANCIPATION ”is an attack on the character and integrity of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. The “colonization” of freed slaves was a popular movement of the era even among Black-Americans. The African country of Liberia was founded for that same purpose.

      Report Post »  
    • zancudobob
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 7:30am

      While researching real estate claims and records in Panama City, we discovered, 7 years ago, the story of Lincoln sending his Sec. of State to Columbia to ask for permission to send blacks to land which is now Chiriqui Province, Panama. Mr. Lincoln advocated colonization for blacks FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, as he believed it would be better for the ***** to have His own country. He foresaw the pain and suffering in the future for the black man, as the white population in the South were on on board with the idea of freed slaves, and only thought of making their lives BETTER, not with “shipping them out” so the U.S.A could be whiter. In some corners of the south today, it sadly remains the same. Mr. Lincoln should be praised for his compassion. It got him shot, dead.

      Report Post » zancudobob  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:15am

      To be honest I’ve never been a fan of Lincoln. I’ve known about his racist views, which were numerous, for decades now, and his reputation as a petty micromanaging tyrant is pretty well know in historical circles as well. I mean, hell, the man not only appointed the war monster William T. Sherman, he continually supported Sherman’s “starve and bomb women and children” acts throughout the war. If that doesn’t say something about him, I do not know what does.

      Slavery was coming to a head because of the hard work of countless brave and moral men and women who fought for decades to make the case against slavery; Lincoln simply was in the right place at the right time. Any other man elected to that office during the same time period would have faced the same Civil War and eventual emancipation, and gotten credit for it. Given my druthers I would have liked to have seen a more Constitutionally inclined man in that office than Lincoln, but you can’t change history.

      Probably not a popular opinion to have, since we’ve more or less made a deity of the man in our history books, but it is an opinion I took a long time coming to after years of studying him and his actions and is not ill conceived or off the cuff by any stretch.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • TREAD@yourownRISK
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 9:34am

      I agree with the sentiment IRONMAN, but Lincoln did not in fact create the Republican Party, he was the first Republican elected to the office of President but not the first to run nor the founder of the party.

      Report Post » TREAD@yourownRISK  
    • Randm30
      Posted on March 7, 2011 at 10:00am

      Nick,
      Can you explain what Russian atrocities, and mans evil deeds have to do with whether or not A. Lincoln supported voluntary black colonization after the Civil War?

      Report Post » Randm30  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love