Talk:Abraham Lincoln on slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've seen this here & in the Lincoln article

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:29, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Lincoln's speech on 8/17/58 says this, distinguishing political rights (i.e. things like voting and serving on juries) from natural rights.

"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 - 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 forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

I added this quote into the article itself, so that should resolve any problemsRangerdude 07:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lincoln's Inconsistencies

The simple statement that Lincoln's views on slavery and race are inconsistent is a matter of fact, not a POV. A POV is something that gets disagreed about and is normally an opinion of some sort. With Lincoln though it is widely acknowledged that he took the different views discussed in this article on slavery. It is also widely admitted that he was NOT a complete abolitionist and often did things that were contrary to abolition (like preventing his generals from freeing slaves early in the war). Acknowledging those facts to be true and then using weasil words to get around stating the obvious consequence of them - Lincoln's inconsistency - makes for a weak article whose body (which contains extensive evidence of Lincoln's inconsistencies) is itself inconsistent with its header (which dances around the issue via weasil words). If it looks and quacks like a duck call it a duck.Rangerdude 18:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Inconsistent perhaps to hobgoblins. Facts are statements "almost universally" agreed upon. Many people do NOT think it was inconsistent to oppose slavery yet say the constitution prohibits its non-voluntary abolition by the federal gov't - To attribute inconsistency in the same sentence as that is presented is clearly POV

Name-calling is a POV, Jim. Inconsistency, or the lack of consistency, is defined as the absence of uniformity and congruence between successive events. When applied to a person's beliefs it means simply that he changed his position (or flip flopped) on the issue he is said to be inconsistent on. Lincoln very clearly changed his mind on slavery, going from a willingness to tolerate it where it existed and only oppose it in the territories to becoming an outright supporter of emancipation. Thus he was NOT a consistent advocate of abolition in his lifetime, making him inconsistent.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are disputes over the consistency of the following views he held at one time or another.

  • He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
  • He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
  • He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
  • The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
  • He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves and that they had an inalienable right to liberty — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are fairly easily shown to be not inconsistent at all. --JimWae 18:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

That list is very incomplete. It is inescapable though that Lincoln moved from opposing slavery only in the territories to favoring its outright abolition. Thus his position in 1861 is not in congruence with his position in 1865, and that is the very definition of inconsistency.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It is less POV to say there is a debate about how consistent his views are than to say that he WAS inconsistent - especially when that claim is made in a sentence that also introduces something that clearly is NOT inconsistent.

If his views can be shown to be consistent, they are not inconsistent. To insist on your wording is to insist on presenting an agenda as fact. --JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC).


Then the question is to WHAT DEGREE was he inconsistent, not whether he was inconsistent at all. By indicating that there is disagreement over the extent of his inconsistency you necessarily admit that there was SOME inconsistency in what he did and said (and that much is obvious considering that he changed positions on slavery from opposing it in the territories to full abolition). Furthermore, that *some* of his views can be shown consistent does NOT prove that all of them are consistent. It only takes one example of him changing positions (and indisputably he that did on abolition - a very major issue) to show inconsistency. Whether or not he was inconsistent beyond that is debatable, but that is all a question of degree. Rangerdude 19:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, people's opinions do change over time. In fact they are always changing. This harping on about inconsistancy seems a bit silly when, because most it is taking place over years, 'development' is probably a better way to describe it. Additionally, the man WAS a politician, and a fairly canny one at that, something which would certainly color how he pitched things to the public and detractors, which would also explain changes in public statements over time (i.e. adjusting to the public mood). Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the claim by RangerDude that there is no "POV" expressed in what he wants the article to say, I actually see two different POVs about Lincoln and slavery:
  1. That Lincoln was not opposed, or only mildly opposed to slavery
  2. That Lincoln was opposed, or mostly opposed to slavery - but recognized the limits of his power to abolish it
I don't think that Wikipedia should endorse either #1 (which is what RD seems to be saying) or #2 (which happens to be what I personally believe). Rather, the article should (A) report every relevant statement by Lincoln about whether slavery is good or bad, and (B) report the interpretations and viewpoints of historians and scholars about the controversy over how much and/or when Lincoln ever opposed or favored slavery. --Uncle Ed 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonization

Jim - You are making edits to the colonization section that are your own personal speculation and some that are simply not true at all. This suggests to me that either you are advancing a viewpoint, or you are unfamiliar with the historical material about this subject and thus should not be editing it until you familiarize yourself to a more thorough degree. Let's consider your edits:

1. "After the setbacks in Panama and Haiti, there were no active plans for colonization for over a year."

This is simply not true. The Panama and Haiti plans fell through in 1862 and 1863, but the Colonization Office under Mitchell remained open and active throughout the next year. Mitchell issued a colonization report to Lincoln dated June 1864, and this was in response to a resolution by the Senate in March 1864 seeking to formulate colonization policy.

2. "Lincoln was in the process of renewing plans for colonization on a smaller scale during his second term."

This is pure speculation on your part. We do not know whether Lincoln's second term colonization plan would've been on a "smaller scale" than the first or the exact details of how they were going to do it. Butler says that Lincoln planned to enlist every ship in the navy for the transport, which I don't think is small scale by any measure.

3. " - either forgotten about or ruled out as unworkable."

Again this is blind speculation on your part. Butler was forming the plan when Lincoln died. Lincoln also had an agent down in Colombia at the time of his death to make negotiations there. But when the assassination happened everything stopped. Butler ceased pursuing the plan and the diplomat was recalled to Washington. The plan simply was abandoned. No evidence exists though that it was deemed "unworkable."

Rangerdude 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • the "forgotten about" is speculation that has been there for months. Colonization was abandoned not because it was forgotten, but because it was unpopular & unworkable.
No Jim. It was abandoned because the most powerful and prominent advocate of it - Lincoln - died. Different presidents have different agendas, but Johnson never said "Lincoln's colonization plan can't be done so we're dropping it." It simply wasn't a priority anymore.
  • read the link in article for evidence of abandonment by Lincoln
That article doesn't offer much of any evidence of abandoning anything - only a vague diary entry with no context or specifics. The records of Congress, however, are very clear that in March 1864 the Senate inquired about colonization and in June 1864 Mitchell gave Lincoln a report on it.
  • sending some troops to Panama is smaller scale than sending 4 million out of the country

--JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Butler indicates that the troops - which numbered in the hundreds of thousands - were to be sent first. He hints that their families would've followed, but since the policy was never developed due to Lincoln's death, we'll never know the exact extent. Also, sending several hundred thousand troops to Panama is also a LARGER scale than the Haiti colony, which was to have only 5,000 at first with only 450 in the first group of settlers.Rangerdude 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Douglass

I am curious as to why there's no mention of his meetings with Fredrick Douglass, as reported by Fredrick Douglass in his memoirs. There are definitely sections of that which shed some light on (or at least add to) the issue. Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

Right now there is no source for the statement in the article that Lincoln's intention before the war was to make slavery exctinct.--JimWae 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lincoln came to national prominence as an enemy of the Slave Power, vowing to stop its expansion and put it on a course to extinction. The challenge of course, was how to do it"

The 2nd sentence is too much like editorial comment. --JimWae 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

good point--I fixed it. Rjensen 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln was known for his moderate views on slavery - where is the source that he "came to national prominence ... by vowing to... put it on a course to extinction"? --JimWae 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln wanted to end slavery (1858: "A house divided can not stand!") see Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2004). He was moderate in that he wanted to end it gradually. Rjensen 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does he "vow ... to put it on a course of extinction"? That speech is, iirc, short on a plan of action --JimWae 04:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He vowed to stop its expansion. As Gienapp (2002) noted re Peoria speech: "Restricting slavery would lead to its eventual demise as the Fathers intended, Lincoln insisted." (p 52). "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free,” Lincoln in 1858 proclaimed. “I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.” [Gienapp 60] Rjensen 06:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] surprising?

The opening sentence of this article seems odd. What exactly is supposed to be surprising about Lincoln's position? I'm not sure what a good opening sentence would be, though. --Allen 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on abolition

I don't think Wikipedia should take a stand on whether Lincoln was:

  1. pro-slavery
  2. sometimes for it, and sometimes agin' it
  3. anti-slavery

There is a dispute among historians and some other scholars about what Lincoln's "real position" on slavery was. Some say it evolved; others that it changed. Let's not take sides in this dispute.

But let's also not leave out his many antislavery and pro-abolition remarks. Give the reader every relevant quote (and action) of Lincoln, and let the reader decide for himself.

For example:

  • "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

More examples are easy to find. --Uncle Ed 20:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abolition and compromise

My personal view is that Lincoln hated slavery a lot but loved the Union even more. He used the following metaphor:

By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.

He seems to liken the Union to "a life" and Abolition to "a limb". Faced with any choice of one or the other Lincoln insisted on the former, i.e. "life" or the Union. Thus he seems to have ranked the two great issues of his time in order as follows:

  1. Preserve the Union
  2. Abolish slavery

Like a drowning man, who would also like to save wallet of gold coins: but faced with a choice of saving his life or trying (but taking a terrible risk of failing) to save both; abandons the heavy gold coins to swim to safety.

This is only my personal view, so I hesitate to add it to the article. Wikipedia is no place for original research or analysis. But what have historians or others written about this? --Uncle Ed 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people think he was an abolitionist, because he did in fact end up abolishing slavery. He was anti-slavery his entire career, but he did not advocate making slavery completely illegal everywhere in the US until much later on. His vision was to stop the expansion of slavery, which he (& others) figured would result eventually in its abolition. He did not think that it could be ended by federal laws outlawing slavery (believing the Constituion protected slavery - and even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment making the protection more explicit). He had to be relying on other methods (voluntary changes by states because of economic results & ethical arguments) to bring slavery to a complete end. --JimWae 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lincoln's first inaguaration

Look here mac, yes Lincoln did counter the remarks from the Lincoln Douglas in his first inauguration speech. You need to read the speech closely

Because you say so? The First Inaugural had an entirely different purpose than anything Lincoln discussed in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The reference in the L-D quote is to social and political equality of free blacks in Illinois as a counter to charges by Douglas. The First Inaugural refers specifically to slavery in the South and his position that he cannot legally end it. Comparing the two in the context you have chosen and saying one statement somehow "counters" the other makes no logical sense. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln and most Republicans believed that if slavery could not expand it would eventually die. They pledged to stop its expansion. Very similar to containment policy re Soviet Union in Cold War. Rjensen 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very familiar with the issue you raised. I am not sure what, if anything, it has to do with my criticism of the addition made by this particular editor. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the following that you added after my last comment:
Lincoln did however counter these remarks in his First Inaguration Address, when he claimed, regarding the statements, that "I had recanted them." Lincoln also stated that the statements he made in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates were "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
You have claimed that Lincoln said “I had recanted them”. In fact this sentence never occurs, although Lincoln uses the phrase “had never recanted them” in the third paragraph that you referred to. A little further he also says referring to the same set of statements “I now reiterate these sentiments.” Furthermore Lincoln does not say that the section you quoted was in fact from the Lincoln-Douglas debates – if you have a source that says this was Lincoln’s intention, then you need to produce it. In fact, as Lincoln specifically says, the phrase comes from the Republican platform. As I said earlier, the section from the Lincoln-Douglas debate that you have attached your comparison to is unrelated to the issue of the legality of slavery where it already exists. Furthermore, you have added your comments inappropriately to an indented block quote. I suggest if you really want to include something about the First Inaugural in the article that you start a separate paragraph in a different section of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in White House under Lincoln?

This is unsourced & dubious. "Slavery in the White House" mentions Washington to Taylor - there is no source for more than that. Such slaves were owned by the president. Lincoln did not own slaves - --JimWae 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleanor Alexander, Georgia Institute of Technology, "Slaves in the White House." This topic for a monograph examines the lives, culture, and experiences of slaves who lived and worked in the Executive Mansion, from George Washington to Zachary Taylor. Scholarly attention to the topic has been scant. Alexander takes on the challenge of documenting the lives of enslaved domestic staff removed from plantation culture to the urban environment of the nation's capital. In addition, she will examine the reaction from domestic and international figures to the use of slaves in the President's House, a weighty republican symbol

[edit] Lincoln on slavery in the White House

Per "Always There: The African-American Presence in American Quilts", by Cuesta Benberry it states "When Sojourner Truth met with Lincoln, Mr. Lincoln was not himself with this colored woman, he had no funny story for her, he called her aunty, as he would his washer woman, and when she complimented him as the first Anti-slavery President, he said, 'I am not an Abolitionist; I wouldn't free the slaves if I could save the union in any other way. I am obliged to do it.'" Maryland was also neutral and had slaves within the state. Maryland was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation but abolished slavery during the Civil War. Sites to verify statements are http://www.historyofquilts.com/keckly.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/border-states-civil-war. Per the web site http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/unhonestabe.htm it states "Lincoln abolished slavery, however, his proclamation only applied to a small section of the South which was declared in rebellion against the United States and under the control of the Confederate Army. Slavery remained legal in every other State that previously allowed it. Slaves continued to work at the White House and the white Indentured Servant business flourished. Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." Based on this information I believe that slaves did indeed reside in the White House when Lincoln was President. Chris-Tennessee

Wake up Chris. You echo your source and claim "Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended." A little bit of actual research would tell you that Lincoln lacked the opportunity to do that -- surely you've heard of John Wilkes Booth? Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what those "Slave Trading Businesses of the North active after the Civil War ended" were? Tom (North Shoreman) 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave (Hardcover) - by Jennifer Fleischner
  • Some sources you cite look to be hate-Lincoln sites --JimWae 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Leftist POV and REAL Intent of Emanc. Pro.

Modern Americans are taught by their fanatical, ethnomasochist leftist overlords downright lies. Lincoln spoke the following words in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 22, 1862 on the REAL meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation:

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal...We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." (Lincoln, Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 371-5).

Your cite is bogus -- no such quote occurs on the volume and page you list. Removing your tag from the article since you have failed to provide any rational reason why the article is not written from a NPOV. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the cite is bogus is itself bogus. Only modern left-wing deniers of historical reality would contest the obvious. The above statement by Lincoln, the supposed champion of racial equality, is entirely consistent with the worldview he held his whole life, evidenced by the following:

"Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?" (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln Assoc., Springfield, Ill., Roy P. Basler, editor; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953; September 1859, Vol. III, p. 399).

Lincoln also wrote: "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together...Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization...The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way.'"

In 1858: "I am not, nor ever have been in favor or bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor 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 ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Ill.)

America's founding fathers were in complete agreement with Lincoln here. The words of another alleged champion of racial equality, Thomas Jefferson, have been criminally distorted; it is sanctimoniously chiseled into the granite of the Jefferson Memorial in DC that Jefferson believed that "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free"; but the words, as they been spuriously taught to Americans, constitute a serious deception and lie. The critical second part of his point was cleverly left unchiseled: "nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ...filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

It's time for a reality check.

Moderns must learn to separate their mawkish emotivity from reality, please. The reality I am simply trying to point out has been long-recognized by honest researchers. See, for example, Thomas DiLorenzo's exposition on Lincoln's true worldview:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/rsg-dilorenzo.html

It is time for Nietzschian idol-smashing, folks.

^^^^ I have volume 2 of that series at my disposal, and I found another quote opposing marriage between whites and blacks. It seems Lincoln's quotes are scattered with these sentiments, be they actually felt, or, if we give him the benefit of the doubt--so that he could garner support during the prejudiced times he was living in. Since the main AL article may soon be archived, I'll post this here for reference.

(Bauster 498) "I protest, now and forever, against that counter-feit logic which presumes that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife [Laughter and cheers.] My understanding is that I need not have her for either, but as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone and do one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women, and in God's name let them so be married. The Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of the races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together in the Territories they won't mix there. [Immense applause.] A voice--"Three cheers for Lincoln."

(The volume I drew this from is a collection of letters and speeches by Abraham Lincoln. Great though he may have been for emancipating the slaves, he had a skewed view on "mixed"-marriage.)

Bauster, Roy P. . The Collected works of Abraham Lincoln II . 2nd. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasspam (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butler's claims on 1865 discussion with Lincoln on colonization

I eliminated this paragraph based on Michael Vorenberg's statement in "After Amancipation: Abraham Lincoln's Black Dream", a chapter in "Lincoln Revisited" edited by John Y. Simon, Harold Holzer, and Dawn Vogel. Vorenberg writes on page 217, "The last documented time that we hear Lincoln talking of colonization is to General Benjamin Butler in the spring of 1865. As most historians know, Professor Mark E. Neely showed that Butler's account of this meeting was a fabrication, thus getting Lincoln off the hook."

The Butler reference should not be replaced unless someone comes up with a reliable secondary source vouching for the accuracy of Butler's claims. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got the current Winter 2008 issue of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. There's an article in there that adresses Butler. It shows Neely was in error. -BeastButler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Taney on slavery

Those who accuse Lincoln of inconsistancy on slavery while he was President need to be reminded of the historical fact that Roger Taney (who gave us the Dred Scott Decision) was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court well into Lincoln's term as President. Lincoln knew full well that should he seek any alteration in slavery in the Union a lawsuit would immediately be filed with the Taney court and the results would be far worse for slaves than the law prior to such a suit. In fact when Roger Taney died he had prepared a memorandum with his decision should such a suit be filed. Lincoln's wise restraint prevented that memorandum from ever becoming law.

Anyone who doubts the consistancy of Lincoln's opinion should bear in mind that one of the last things he wrote was the 13th Amendment to the Constitition, the document that did in fact outlaw slavery. 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)John Rydberg