The Complicated Lincoln and Our "Post-Racial Society"
Published February 12, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is telling me on the teevee, among other things, that Abraham Lincoln was a product of his time, which means that he said things like this:
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.
This doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't opposed to slavery. He famously said: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." But he wasn't an abolitionist; he would have preferred to let slavery exist where it long had, but felt his hand forced by the course of events. And his ideal solution to race problems in the U.S. was "colonization":
Even as he was writing the Emancipation Proclamation during the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States. So taken was he with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would "appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States."
Starting in 1822, ex-slaves colonized/migrated to/were exiled to Liberia in an attempt to resolve racial tension in the U.S. (I can imagine Trent Lott thinking ... if only the Liberian experiment had been more successful, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years.)
The plan didn't have the intended effect in the U.S. and it didn't work out too well for Liberia, either. Ethnic tensions resulting from the colonization helped destabilize Liberian society, leading to a military coup in 1980 and a U.S.-supported dictatorship that fell in 1989. A horrific civil war followed, with an estimated 200,000 killed and peace only coming to the exhausted country a few years ago.
Given the intertwined history of the U.S. and Liberia, some refugees from the conflict made their way here, many of them settling in the Philadelphia area where I work. The U.S. government established a form of temporary respite which has been pared back and is now set to expire completely at the end of March. DHS now routinely argues in asylum proceedings that Liberians who experienced horrors during the war can return safely and should be deported.
Flaws in the U.S. asylum system have led to denial of valid asylum claims of many people in desperate situations from places like Haiti, Liberia, the Congo, and Zimbabwe. There is now a modern version of the Underground Railroad to try to save these people's lives, though I won't get into the details here.
The rosy view of Lincoln as savior of the race goes hand in hand with the view of many Americans today that we live in a post-racial society. The reality in each case is more complicated.
Even so, of course, Lincoln's efforts ended the institution of slavery in a much more racist society than today's. From one of the 14,000 biographies on Lincoln comes a quote from an address by Fredrick Douglass on Lincoln in 1876:
Viewed from genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
On my more optimistic days, I hope that Barack Obama, perhaps finding himself in similar circumstances, could take similar steps for immigration policy or even foreign relations more broadly. But we can't pin our hopes on historical happenstance and individual leaders--the solutions lie in organizing, informing, empowering, litigating, persuading, and voting.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Roberto Lovato on 287(g) and Racial Profiling
-
Obama Extends Temporary Status for Liberians
-
Liberian President Weighs in on Lincoln's Legacy
Comments (23)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
I love this post Dave. It's inspired my own piece about Lincoln for the Social Entrepreneurship blog. Keep up the great work. Cheers
Posted by Nathaniel Whittemore on 02/12/2009 @ 08:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think we need to learn these details in elementary school, because the way they teach us American history is so biased. In school, they portray most American figures as heroes for changing history as in the case of Lincoln, but the truth is revealed that he didn't really think of African-Americans as equals. Just because he signed the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't mean that he was truly doing it for equality. He never even joined any anti-slavery organizations.
But still, I do give him credit for signing it and freeing the slaves, though he wasn't really doing it for truly humanitarian reasons. We have to remember he was living in the racist 19th century, and I give him props for thinking ahead of his time. How he was able to sign this without committing political suicide is amazing.
Posted by Y B on 02/12/2009 @ 01:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, even if I can't admire him for what he truly believed, he is still the agent behind the Emancipation Proclamation. So, whatever his reasons, it did happen, and I'm glad it did. We're all human, and all subject to being wrong, and I don't think Lincoln would deny that, and I also think he would not have been against what the future brought, had he realized it was a real possibility.
Posted by Carolita johnson on 02/13/2009 @ 02:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In Alabama History they don't teach about the "Free State of Winston" that was formed when Alabama broke away from the Union. The story is in the book "Tories of the Hills". They tried to stay neutral, but that was impossible. I had two Gr Gr Grandfathers at the meeting at Looney's Tavern and on the March on Jasper. They fought and died with the US 1st Cav. ALA, Troup L. They were run out of the Hills when the Feds pulled the troops in the 1870's.
Posted by David Harbin on 02/13/2009 @ 07:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Think about it...if Lincoln had been an abolitionist, he would never have been elected President. I don't know this for a fact, but it could also be that he favored colonization because he knew how zenophobic and racist white Americans, both North and South, could be. His job was to save the Union, and he well might have viewed colonization as the best solution for preserving the Union. As Henry Gates said, Lincoln was a product of his time. His genius was that he grew as a person, and was big enough to abandon positions he had outgrown, or set aside his own personal beliefs if necessary for what he perceived to be the good of his country. I also don't think one can blame the civil wars of Liberia on Lincoln's policies. Yes, there were ethnic conflicts, just as there continue to be ethnic (tribal) conflicts throughout Africa today, just as there are ethnic and religious conflicts throughout the world (Bosnia/Serbia, Greece/Cyprus/Turkey, Tamil/Singapore, Tibet/China) and on and on. It's, horribly and unfortunately, human nature to want to live among people with similar habits and beliefs, and to fear the strange and unknown. Only education will change one of the worst traits of humankind: zenophobia.
Posted by Soretta Rodack on 02/14/2009 @ 12:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The points made by Soretta Rodack and by Ellen Murphy, below, remind us of the need to consider people and issues in depth, in their complexity, both when using the hindsight of history and when determining our position and actions on both a personal and national level in the present. One of my biggest concerns about our nation's intellectual health is the diminishing ability to comprehend complexity and to even have significant impatience with any but the most simple concepts, explanations, arguments.
Posted by Shaaron McCabe on 02/14/2009 @ 06:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree we should be taught from very early on that all politicians are frauds - it would help cease the manic expectations we expect from these losers. Our new President was at least confusingly honest about his civil rights discrepancies yet we chose not to listen to that. Our country, our fault.
Posted by david jensen on 02/13/2009 @ 10:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I was educated in the mid-west and to my surprise, Blacks were basically written out of history. Many of our most re-veered political figures were slave owners, racists and a myriad of other things..I was disappointed in Abe Lincoln too. He was championed with freeing slaves, civil rights, and equality for all, he too, was a lot of smoke and mirrors, just like the rest of the politicians. Frederick Douglas (born 2-14-1818)was my grandfather's first cousin and back in the day, he was more focused than we are today.
Posted by leatrice brantley on 02/13/2009 @ 11:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lets not forget the suspension of habeas curpus, he imprisoned thousands of people for merely speaking out against the war, speaking out! They didnt do anything illegal, they didnt aid the south, just opposed war... Yet he is a civil rights messiah.
Posted by Michael Vinson on 02/13/2009 @ 01:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for that enlightining commontary. I have often thought that 600,000 lives were lost in preserving an empire. If the proclamation or the amendment were enacted before the war, it might have been a noble cause.
Although as a number many individual slaves were far better off after the war, I suspect that within 10 years after the war, the former slaves were, as a whole, no better off than before.
Mike Curtis
Posted by Mike Curtis on 02/13/2009 @ 05:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a history major and life-long learner, I suggest it might be time for us to continue learning the truth rather than creating pseudo-truth from a few of Lincoln's statements pulled out of context. If you study all of Lincoln's writings or speeches (or do it the easier way and read "Team of Rivals,") you might find that Lincoln was much more complicated than this suggests. He was elected to Congress on a Whig, anti-slavery platform and maintained this stance through all the years prior to 1860, as the states argued over how slavery should be handled. However, he was a pragmatist and a realist and saw the preservation of the union as "topping" the slavery issue. Was he perfect? Absolutely not! Was he what the US needed in 1860? Absolutely! The alternative (Stephen Douglas or John Bell) would most likely have done things very differently and history would have been changed.
Posted by Ellen Murphy on 02/14/2009 @ 04:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Interesting observations.
I wrote about "the Party of Lincoln" myth on my blog, "Mugsy's Rap Sheet", last September:
www.mugsysrapsheet.com/2008/09/08/time-to-put-this-party-of-lincoln-nonsense-to-bed/
Most people falsely believe the Emancipation Proclamation to be a blanket abolition of slavery, which it wasn't. It was FILLED with exceptions and done more as a "military strategy" than done out of and sense of moral rightness.
Posted by Mugsy's Rap Sheet on 02/14/2009 @ 06:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, Dave. I think it is very important for folks to have a better understanding of what was required of Mr. Lincoln to achieve both emancipation and the maintaining of the Union. From my informal study of Lincoln I am confident that the facts taken as a whole fully support Frederick Douglass' assessment that "measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
Far from being a fraud. Mr. Lincoln exemplified both the life-threatening arduousness and also the inspiring possibility of leadership in democracy. I roundly validate the respondents who believe we should teach the reality of our history in depth, especially concerning Abraham Lincoln. Our failure to communicate the complexity, hard choices and ambiguities of politics and leadership sets up many of our citizens to hold an immature, superficial idealism which is an insult to the courage and hard-earned intelligence Mr. Lincoln required to effect his political successes. This fosters a cynicism and animosity that further complicates our civic debate and makes it easier to denigrate a leader such as President Obama regardless of his honesty and commitment to our founding ideals.
Posted by Barry Bussewitz on 02/14/2009 @ 09:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for a realistic summary of Lincoln's contributions to American history. I often wonder which histories of Lincoln are being consulted by Obama when he constantly cites Lincoln as significant role model for his political philosophy. Lincoln was a great president, but he definitely was not very progressive with his racial views and his goals for the slave population.
Posted by Clarence Warren on 02/14/2009 @ 10:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Only the slaves in the rebellious states were freed, and those in Union states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were not. It was a purely military strategy.
Imagine if the Confederacy has the good sense to offer freedom to slaves as a reward for military service, the South would have won the war, and their independence.
Posted by Wire Paladin on 02/15/2009 @ 09:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes I agree. From what I can remember about these issues was that Lincoln had to take a stand once slavery seemed to be extending to terriotories heretofore prohibited to it. At least this way his Republican party, who fully endorsed the safe-guards which the Constitution bestowed upon slavery in the South - could take action without the threat of repudiating the constitution or the sanctuary which slavery enjoyed in the South. It was only a matter of time before an anti-slavery government would gain power in Washington - and undo the largest and oldest political party in the country which was dominated by Southerners. Morally at least, Lincoln was unstoppable.
Posted by Fergus Waterson on 02/15/2009 @ 11:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You also have to consider however that women couldn't vote at that time either, making some of this more understandable. I have to wonder though about a democracy that doesn't allow a free chocie of succession. I also have to wonder about putting trust in war and forcing things down people's throat.
There are still plenty of racial problems still existing relating to jobs, ghettoes, prison populations, false enprisonment. The scars of war are also there unhealed by time. War is not a good way to accomplish social change or social justice.
Posted by Charles Gillard on 02/16/2009 @ 12:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And you have to remember the dude was a closet case. That's always a sign of trustworthiness and bravery.
Posted by david jensen on 02/16/2009 @ 01:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is an interesting point, David. My study of the evidence (Goodwin, Team of Rivals; Ashbrook, On Point, 4/25/2008; others) in the context of a time when male friendship was more commonly expressed with affectionate behaviors in public and in writing does not support a conclusion that Abraham Lincoln was a "closet case." In fact his affections were not in the closet at all, but openly expressed both in public and in writing. He demonstrated the courage of his convictions both personally and politically.
Posted by Barry Bussewitz on 02/16/2009 @ 01:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hey Barry - the passive/aggressive thing doesn't work so good on blogs. I didn't remark that Lincoln wasn't a good man - good men are allowed to be hollow.
Posted by david jensen on 02/16/2009 @ 01:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment, David. I thought you were being sarcastic.
Posted by Barry Bussewitz on 02/16/2009 @ 02:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
no - just realistic. The beginning of civil rights for just a few has always bothered me. Just a personal problem I have. Not partial to hero worship here.
Posted by david jensen on 02/16/2009 @ 02:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Whatever Lincoln's weaknesses, etc ... I just hope that Brother BHO has as much common sense, integrity and pragmatism as Lincoln did and is not so marginalized by the corporate "deciders" behind the "throne" that his hands are tied.
Is Lincoln rolling in his grave right now???
Posted by Ani L. Schwartz on 02/16/2009 @ 10:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.