Posted on 01/11/2010 11:16:24 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Two years before Lincoln became our 16th President he debated Stephen Douglas in pursuit of the Illinois U. S. Senate seat. Lincoln lost. He was too progressive on the issue of slavery for a state that made it a crime to bring into its boundaries “a person having in him one-fourth Negro blood, whether free or slave.”
But the debates did bring out the virtually universal racism of 19th century America including Abraham Lincoln's. For all his greatness—and it is extraordinary—Lincoln was a child of his time on matters of race (as we all are). He became the Republican candidate because his two main rivals (Seward and Chase) were more progressive than he was.
In the 1858 Senate debates Douglas baited Lincoln with the assertion that
the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fiji Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men…. I hold that this government was established...for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others.
In response, Lincoln said he had “no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.” He was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry.” He said there is a “physical difference between the two” that would “probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.”
Nevertheless Lincoln argued,
[T]here is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence… I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral and intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
Emancipation would come and Lincoln would be celebrated as a hero in that cause. But like every hero, his feet are clay. That is what human greatness is—deeply flawed.
There is one hero, and only one, who will not let you down—Jesus Christ. All other heroes fail us, and the reason they do is to point us to Christ. There is no one more admirable, and more worthy of our praise, than Christ. At the very moment when he looked least praiseworthy, he was achieving the highest triumph of love—his death.
I thank God for Abraham Lincoln today. And among other great reasons one of them is: admiring and disillusioned I turn to Jesus.
* * *
Quotes in this post are from Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, pages 204-205.
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who depends on flesh for his strength
and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
~ Jeremiah 17:5
I'll remember that statement.
Very good!
Good article to read while pondering turning our country around. While it is good to look to good men to lead, they will always fail in some way and disappoint at times. True revival of American values will come when we return to the Truth, turning back to the Savior who blessed America with a special responsibility in our world to be a “city on a hill”. We have all failed to keep it there. I hope that enough Americans wake up to what we’ve lost and what we’ve become (espousing every kind of sin known under the sun as a ‘right’). What a blessing to our posterity if we would return to our ‘roots’.
This speech is just a bit of disingenuous rhetoric. Lincoln said the black man has these rights "in his native clime". In other words, in order to enjoy "inalienable" rights he has to be deported back to Africa. And as for this business about having the right to "eat the bread... which his own hand earns", well that's a bit thin given that Lincoln was against allowing Negros access to the courts or allowing them to serve on juries. Property rights don't means anything if you cannot defend them in court.
Doris K Goodwin sits at roundtable lefty discussion that will have her on Sunday morning.
DKGoodwin has been kissing lefty arse waaaay long
When did he ever say that?
When did Lincoln say that?
And as for this business about having the right to "eat the bread... which his own hand earns", well that's a bit thin given that Lincoln was against allowing Negros access to the courts or allowing them to serve on juries. Property rights don't means anything if you cannot defend them in court.
Again, source for that please?
In defense of Lincoln, his point was a valid one, at the time.
From the beginnings of the United States, there was no doubt that a black person could be of high intelligence and education, for example Frederick Douglass. But the vast majority were of normal intelligence and uneducated.
‘He was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry.” He said there is a “physical difference between the two” that would “probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.” ‘
Later, during Reconstruction, many uneducated and uncultured black men were put into positions of authority, even holding office, at the point of Union Army bayonets. They proved to be nothing more than puppets. If told how to vote, they would vote that way. If put on a jury and told to convict, they would vote to convict.
Until they had at least some education, and some independence of thought, they could not be full citizens, nor could anyone.
*However*, that being said, again as far as the vast majority were concerned, Lincoln said that blacks *could* and did work for their own benefit, and thus should be allowed to. This is a freedom and liberty of citizens.
This leaves just Lincoln’s assertion that there were physical differences between whites and blacks that would prevent perfect equality. It should be noted that, at the time, this was believed to be *scientifically* the case.
All of this, however, is unfair to either Douglass or Lincoln. Remember that these two traveled extensively together, as debating opponents, and the extraordinary record of the Lincoln-Douglass debates is to this day regarded as some of the most brilliant commentary about the founding, organization, and direction of the United States ever put to paper.
Lincoln's words:
"Negroes have natural rights, however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here . . . no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind"
"Native clime" was the term he used in his response to Dred Scott. It obviously also means Africa.
As are the Lincoln loathers.
"Negroes have natural rights, however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here . . . no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind"
And once challenged, the story of the Lincoln Loather changes. From 'clime' to 'soil', quite a difference, wouldn't you say? The quote in full is, "Negroes have natural rights however, as other men have, although they cannot enjoy them here, and even Taney once said that ``the Declaration of Independence was broad enough for all men.'' But though it does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position, yet no sane man will attempt to deny that the African upon his own soil has all the natural rights that instrument vouchsafes to all mankind. It has proved a stumbling block to tyrants, and ever will, unless brought into contempt by its pretended friends." And thus we see that instead of being a slam at Negro rights, as you would have us believe, it's a condemnation of those who would agree with Taney that the free Black man in the United States - his own country, his own soil - has no rights that a white man is bound to respect. That instead, Lincoln belives, he is due all the same natural rights accorded any man, and all the rights identified by the Declaration of Independence.
No doubt, since term was used in support of voluntary colonization for free Blacks, a program Lincoln supported all his adult life. No doubt you're prepared to condemn him for that, too.
No. It meant exactly the same thing. In both cases he meant Africa.
And thus we see that instead of being a slam at Negro rights, as you would have us believe, it's a condemnation of those who would agree with Taney that the free Black man in the United States - his own country, his own soil - has no rights that a white man is bound to respect. That instead, Lincoln belives, he is due all the same natural rights accorded any man, and all the rights identified by the Declaration of Independence.
You are just reading your own prejudices into the text. How do you know what Lincoln was supposedly really thinking when he said this? We only know what he actually said, and he said very clearly that blacks have natural rights in Africa, but not here.
Was he wrong about that?
Not when taken in context, no.
You are just reading your own prejudices into the text.
And you are not?
How do you know what Lincoln was supposedly really thinking when he said this?
And yet you do?
We only know what he actually said, and he said very clearly that blacks have natural rights in Africa, but not here.
That is not clear at all given the statements in context.
He doesn’t say that it’s just some unenlightened others who don’t respect their rights. I hear him making the case he agrees with.
In both cases the reference is to Africa. In context. Yes.
What are you trying to argue here? "Clime" and "soil" both clearly mean Africa.
And you are not?
And yet you do?
That is not clear at all given the statements in context.
I'm just pointing out what he said. It is you who are trying to explain it away with claims that he must have meant something more benign than his actual words.
I guess I'm not blessed with your vivid imagination, or your bias towards Lincoln. In one case he's talking about rights and in the other case he's discussing colonization.
I'm just pointing out what he said. It is you who are trying to explain it away with claims that he must have meant something more benign than his actual words.
You're trying to twist his words into something more sinister than they actually were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.