History HubΒ permalink
Abraham Lincoln
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2011
Looks like there's an interesting programme on Abraham Lincoln scheduled for next week Wednesday on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ4....
Is he really the friend of the slaves as he was made out to be? Or did he abolish slavery because he felt he had to? And was he secretly planning to deport freed blacks from the US afterwards? -
Message 2
Posted by dmatt47 (U13073434) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2011
It is interesting and has been on before.
-
Message 3
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2011
Looks like there's an interesting programme on Abraham Lincoln scheduled for next week Wednesday on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ4....
Is he really the friend of the slaves as he was made out to be? Or did he abolish slavery because he felt he had to? And was he secretly planning to deport freed blacks from the US afterwards?Β There was nothing secret about it,.
Lincoln believed (rightly) that freed blacks would have a hard time in a still highly racist US, esp in a South which would still be ruled by its white population, and so urged Black leaders to consider emigration. There is no evidence that he ever called for anyone to be forcibly deported.
Those Black spokesman who responded at all said essentially "Thanks but no thanks". Whatever problems they migt have in America, they preferred it to the alternatives. Looking at how Liberia etc have turned out, they were probably right. -
Message 4
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2011
If you are going to say Lincoln though this or that about slavery or African-Americans then you have to add that was how he felt at such-and-such a time. Lincoln's views on those things evolved over time.
-
Message 5
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
If you missed it, here it is....
It was a good watch. -
Message 6
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
This was a very interesting programme....
Before anyone gets defensive, let me point out that Cass and I have had similar discussions about Wilberforce.
Wilberforce has wrongly been given the credit for abolishing slavery in British colonies, when that was not quite true. Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade, but was not convinced that the actual abolition of slavery itself was a good thing, probably because all those black savages would slaughter all those civilised white folk.
This is where Wilberforce differed from Granville Sharp, who, in contrast, denounced slavery completely, and called for its abolition. Eventually, events moved on and dragged Wilberforce along with it. There is a strong argument for comparing Lincoln with Wilberforce here....
It seems that Lincoln was more concerned about how poor white working class folk were going to make a living when so much work was being done for free by black slaves. After all, he came from poor white roots too....
So, he and his newly-created Republican party argued that while slavery was okay in the South, any newly-civilised western states should not have slavery. Eventually, Lincoln's views evolved to saying that slavery should be abolished, but that slaves should be deported. It seems that every speech he made at the time about emancipation also mentioned deportation. He would've like to see freed slaves moved to places like Liberia, Haiti, etc, anywhere except the United States. His views could well have been more as a result of his perceptions of black people as a race, rather than any paternal feelings towards the slaves. After all, he did argue the case for segregation, the separation of races, the denial of citizenship and the right to vote to freed slaves, etc.
Of course, these views were not much different from how most white people felt about black people at the time. So, his views have to be seen in that context. However, at the same time, it is important to truthfully discuss Lincoln's views at the time, and not dress him up to be some kind of demi-god, which seems a very American thing to do....
Eventually, it seems that Lincoln was convinced that black people could be American citizens by other factors. Abolitionists in the North, and in his own Republican party, were pressuring him to abolish slavery. It seems that even Congress and Northern States were being more radical than Lincoln with regards to slavery. Also, slaves fled the South and enrolled as soldiers in the Union army, and acquitted themselves so well that Lincoln accepted that they deserved to be a part of the future United States.
Let's not also forget that Lincoln was president when the Americans suppressed a Sioux revolt in 1862, and executed about 39 of their leaders. So, Red Indians didn't exactly fall within the same gamut of groups to be protected....
Does this make Lincoln a bad person? I don't think so....Rather, I think it makes him a product of his times, much like Wilberforce, and like Wilberforce he set in motion forces that eventually led to something good happening, even if it did happen in a way they didn't quite expect it to.... -
Message 7
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Friday, 2nd December 2011
I saw this thread and watched it on iplayer immediately.
Even though I definitely get a bit of a conspiratorial vibe from the documentary, I found some interesting points there which I had not really considered:
1, The idea that whites in the North wanted to halt slavery in the new states to protect poorer white labourers from slave labour they couldnt compete with (rather than any higher moral reasons).
2, Lincoln wasnt the saint he is portrayed as, but was human, a product of the times he lived in, but was capable of changing his outlook on these matters.
Pretty obvious stuff really.
So I enjoyed it...... thank you for bringing it up. -
Message 8
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Friday, 2nd December 2011
The documentary didn't really explain why the Southern States were so firm on the issue of slavery in the new states? Why did they care about what happened in those states?
Was it just a matter of not wanting to be outnumbered in the senate and congress etc by non-slavers?
Also why didn't poor white people in the South oppose slavery for the same reasons Lincoln did? -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 3rd December 2011
Yes, you're right. The slave-holding states had always thought of themselves of being in a corner and marginalised, not only politically, but also economically and socially by the more aggressive, entrepreneurial New England states, many of whom had outlawed slavery at an early stage, and who competed for alliances with the free holding Western states.
This was epitomised by the 1824 Presidential election in which Henry Clay, representing the Western states (between the Appalachians and the Mississippi), reneged on his promise to support Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and instead threw his weight behind the New England candidate, John Quincy Adams, when the election was thrown into the House of Representatives no candidate had won a majority in the Electoral College.
The conflict was over the right of secession rather than slavery as such, although without slavery there would have been no secession. It was apparent at the outset that slavery was incompatible with a free republic but, since Georgia and the Carolinas refused to sign the Declaration of Independence if slavery were discussed it was left as a matter for each state to decide individually.
The Compromises of 1820 and 1850 were designed to contain the spread of slavery to the new states and territories, whilst still allowing it based on local option. Lincoln's election in 1860 put both these agreements at risk, particularly after the position he had taken in the Lincoln-Douglas debates 2 years earlier, which appeared to rule out any extension of slavery to the new territories (and also because of the presence of a strong abolitionist wing in the newly-formed Republican Party, although Lincoln did not belong to it at this stage).
Whilst it is true that the overwhelming majority of whites, including those who served in the Confederate forces, did not own slaves and were often share-croppers, barely wealthier than the slaves themselves nevertheless they did not want to exchange their almost feudal form of existence for what they regarded as the 'crony capitalism' and 'wage-slavery' of the North.
They thought that if the plantations were broken up the land would not go to poor white indigent farmers but to absentee Northern financiers. This view tended to be borne out by the experience of Reconstruction.
It was often said that Southerners treated black people humanely on an individual level but inhumanely collectively whereas in the North it was the other way round. -
Message 10
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Saturday, 3rd December 2011
Interesting - Thank you.
-
Message 11
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
i might be related to his wife who had a 6 confederate brothers who didnt like him
he wasnt anti slavery and said he didnt have any power to stop slavery at first
both sides abolished the slave trade but the jurys always let the slave importers off - the south claimed they would finally enforce the law
what did lincoln say he would do to stop the slave trade? i dont know if he said anything
he hung 40 Lakota indians and his general chivington slaughtered Cheyenne at sands creek
i could go on and on i guess he shot 140 deserters -he locked up editors of papers for speaking against his "holy war"........................................................................................................etc
he looks like hes on cocaine or heroin that was legal at the time and he has been rumored to use -
Message 12
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
The documentary didn't really explain why the Southern States were so firm on the issue of slavery in the new states? Why did they care about what happened in those states?
Was it just a matter of not wanting to be outnumbered in the senate and congress etc by non-slavers?
Also why didn't poor white people in the South oppose slavery for the same reasons Lincoln did?Β people have their culture - blacks whites natives etc
the jurys wouldnt convict the slave importers
the slave were flooded in more and more people-illegal aliens -it was illegal to import slaves
where are all these people supposed to go?
they were being overrun
if a bunch of illegals were brought into Nigeria from another land or culture or illegals brought to any nation do you think that country would put up with it and just assimilate all those people into thier nation with no questions asked like al the hippies at woodstock? hell no they wouldnt
maybe we in usa or air head swedes would i suppose
the republican party was formed i think because they didnt want slaves /blacks in the territories like Arizona texas ,Kansas etc
they were all passing the buck maybe and sweeping the dirt under the rug
Jefferson Davis was part native and treated the native Americans pretty good
now put on a show about his and Judah p Benjamin -
Message 13
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
"It was often said that Southerners treated black people humanely on an individual level but inhumanely collectively whereas in the North it was the other way round. " quote above
thats would be crazy if true but i always thought northern people are big phonies -
Message 14
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
the Confederate congress wanted to annihilate all the "hostile Apache " males in Arizona but Jefferson Davis vetoed that
the southerns seemed to be the people who kicked most the natives off thier land moreso ? it seems that way yet the Cherokees in north Carolina and Catawbas etc were Confederate
in a way the north were hostile to their allies because i think the Cherokees who were yankees were treated bad after the war but havent verified that much yet
the Lumbees werealso were yankees in the south
the Cherokees in Oklahoma were split both ways
there's a book "between two fires" -
Message 15
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
but it was the days when duels were legal so maybe it was all just a massive crazy duel and people only lived to be around 50 anyway
and people suck now-Americans in USA now democrats and republicans hate each other and Muslims in the two sects fight endlessly
people suck -
Message 16
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Monday, 5th December 2011
abe Lincoln almost decided to be in a duel himself
-
Message 17
Posted by RusEvo (U2126548) on Tuesday, 6th December 2011
i might be related to his wife who had a 6 confederate brothers who didnt like him
he wasnt anti slavery and said he didnt have any power to stop slavery at first
both sides abolished the slave trade but the jurys always let the slave importers off - the south claimed they would finally enforce the law
what did lincoln say he would do to stop the slave trade? i dont know if he said anything
he hung 40 Lakota indians and his general chivington slaughtered Cheyenne at sands creek
i could go on and on i guess he shot 140 deserters -he locked up editors of papers for speaking against his "holy war"........................................................................................................etc
he looks like hes on cocaine or heroin that was legal at the time and he has been rumored to useΒ Hello NormanRHood.
I think those actions by Lincoln don't demonstrate drug use as much as the political and social necessity of the time.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.