NYTimes Charles Blow Opinion

[Rob Wick]

Mike,

It should come as little surprise to you that I'm afraid I have to disagree with much of what you write. These are just a few examples.

Quote:We should be able to balance our own consideration of morals with the morals of those in earlier times. People that have lived in much harder times and suffered much worse hardships than we could ever imagine. Coupled with that we need to put ourselves in their place and imagine how we would deal with the horrible dilemmas they faced.

Again, this is what Schlesinger is saying. It is perfectly acceptable to judge our past leaders when their words and actions do not jibe with our founding documents announcing our experiment, but intellectually we must realize that our times are different than theirs. That fact is insufficient justification for saying, "Oh well, there was nothing he could do because everyone at that time felt that way." My point was that not everyone felt that way, especially not blacks.

Quote:Rob, we're talking here about a President. He's got a Civil War going on with many thousands of lives being lost. No end in sight. Possibly a loss by the North. Blacks suffering enormously. Not just from loss of freedom, but also the potential for being separated forever from the ones that they love. Mate, to talk of a "forward-looking plan" and working "on changing the viewpoint of society" is easy for us now.
But for Lincoln that wasn't an option.

But I would argue that it could have been an option for Lincoln if only he had made it one. The difficulties of the Civil War didn't stop Lincoln from exerting energy toward the colonization plan to the point of appointing an agent and making and authorizing plans to follow it through. To quote another president, the presidency is a wondrous bully pulpit, and what the president decides to focus on CAN become a major societal focus, but only if he allows it to be.

Quote:You clearly regard as this offensive. It is. If you read it unthinkingly. But it is (IMO) the brutal truth. Lincoln though is not blaming the colored race. He's simply stating the facts.

This, I'm afraid, is just plain incorrect. If Lincoln didn't intend to blame blacks for the war, for someone who is very careful in what he says, he didn't exhibit the care in his word usage with this point. Excepting that possibility, the only way I can interpret this point is that if the black man weren't in the country, the war would never have come. Therefore it is akin to the husband telling the wife after a severe beating, "see what you made me do!"

In my opinion, the only way Lincoln gets a pass on any of this is if one accepts that the question of slavery is purely a political issue and not a moral one. Suppose one doesn't accept that slavery is a moral issue. In that case, it is far easier to accept that blacks are not citizens and, therefore, not entitled to the same rights and privileges (and given the same amount of responsibilities) that any white citizen is endowed with.

Of course, my view of Lincoln's motivation is my opinion. But it is an opinion based on years of research and study, which, of course, doesn't mean it is absolutely correct. But I would argue that the alternative to that opinion is this. If Lincoln could not recognize all that I pointed out and still wanted to enact his colonization plan, the argument that he was indeed a white supremacist is pretty much proven.

Best
Rob