And you're saying over and over again is that people in 1860 didn't care about slavery or the slaves.
Fine, if you or I had been white Americans in 1860 we most likely wouldn't have cared much about the slaves. You certainly wouldn't.
But they you act as though Lincoln were somehow uniquely racist in his day and contemplating deporting freed slaves against their will.
Looking at the historical Lincoln, and comparing him to most people of the day -- including the hypothetical nineteenth century you and I -- the conclusion one draws would have to be that he was less prejudiced and less stuck in his ways than most of his contemporaries -- including the hypothetical you and I.
The man who went to great lengths in his 1858 campaign not to give any support to the idea of racial equality was receiving Frederick Douglass and black delegations in the White House and giving them a respectful hearing -- something unheard of in mid-19th century America, and something you or certainly wouldn't have done if you'd been alive back then.
So why not simply admit that and give the man his due?
Nowadays I find it nearly impossible to be too cynical because often times you will find the blackest hearts in the nicest seeming people. Look at the Clintons for example.
If you really thought the Clintons were "nice" that's another problem you have.
Politicians are role-players. What they say is part of the role that their playing and designed to get them elected.
But that doesn't mean that they are completely materialistic and self-interested and without beliefs. Sometimes it's those very beliefs that make them dangerous.
Lincoln’s evolution as a politician and a man is one of the more amazing things about him. I was listening to an interview recently with an author who wrote a book on McClelland. He said that one of the things that likely led to the animosity between the two was that they were both Whigs in the 1840s and probably shared the same political views as young men. However, McClelland moved towards the Democrats while Lincoln obviously became a Republican.
The author argued that McClelland always carried those cautious, middle of the road Whig beliefs. Lincoln, on the other hand, kept a cautious approach but that approach served far more radical political ends. The gist - and I’ve seen this elsewhere - is that Lincoln realized exactly what the Civil War was going to be far earlier than nearly anyone else in the country. Meanwhile, McClelland seemed to always believe that he could quell the rebellion without a total bloodletting and somehow return politics to the status quo.
Essentially, McClelland wanted to take a cautious approach to return to the 1850s, while Lincoln knew that that the slavery question was going to be resolved once and for all in some manner.
I don't know if that's true or not. I suppose it would depend upon where I was raised, even so, i've always been an old softie, especially when it comes to making other people work instead of doing my own work. I can't stand doing that now.
But they you act as though Lincoln were somehow uniquely racist in his day and contemplating deporting freed slaves against their will.
If he would act completely against the will of White Southerners, I don't see why he would concern himself greatly with the will of Black Southerners. I have little doubt that he contemplated deporting them against their will, but being the political animal that he was, he probably modified his intentions to fit the then current politics of the time.
Looking at the historical Lincoln, and comparing him to most people of the day -- including the hypothetical nineteenth century you and I -- the conclusion one draws would have to be that he was less prejudiced and less stuck in his ways than most of his contemporaries -- including the hypothetical you and I.
That's probably a fair assessment. Yes, he was very Liberal for his time period.
So why not simply admit that and give the man his due?
I admit he was more enlightened than most of his time period, but are we now parsing degrees of racist? A certain amount gets a pass, but beyond some ill defined threshold that would consist of too much?
They were all racist back in those days. The Northern People were as much if not more racist than were the Southern People, and it is a false claim that the bloodshed was motivated by a concern for black people.
If you really thought the Clintons were "nice" that's another problem you have.
I thought they were greasy scum just a few months after he started running for office, but the same parts of the nation that voted for Lincoln thought Bill Clinton was just a "nice" wonderful man.
But that doesn't mean that they are completely materialistic and self-interested and without beliefs.
And sometimes they are. Clinton had no core beliefs. He would change his position and his supporters would just applaud. A lot of Republican politicians seem to have no core beliefs.
Sometimes it's those very beliefs that make them dangerous.
Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter. Yes, very.