Mr. Lee

[Liz Rosenthal]

(04-18-2014 09:58 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Mr. Lincoln's stance on slavery is confusing.

Early on in his political career, he is not bothered by it, but later, seemingly to advance himself politically, he seems not to care for it.

His statements regarding blacks and his plans to solve the "Negro Question," as it was called, included such brilliant ideas as the re-colonization of Africa. That worked out pretty well, with scores dying on the journey there and then more being slaughtered by indigenous Africans.

Oh, yes, let's not forget the Emancipation Proclamation, designed to set all slaves free? Wrong. Designed to keep Great Britain from entering the War on the side of the Confederacy.

Another of his ideas was to give the vote to blacks; fine, no problem in that; but only to those who fought for the Union cause and the very intelligent. Who decides who the very intelligent are? Shouldn't all free people have the vote? Enfranchise some, keep others disenfranchised. Sounds like more big government control in action.

The best illustration as to how Mr. Lincoln felt about African Americans are the negro jokes he delighted in telling his pals.

Sounds like typical politics to me.

It's not true that Lincoln had no interest in the slavery question - or that he didn't have negative views on slavery - early in his political career. As early as 1837, he went on the record with one Illinois legislative colleague of his to declare slavery "founded on injustice as well as bad policy" in response to a resolution voted on by the Legislature roundly denouncing abolitionists.

As a Congressman in the late 1840s, he looked into introducing legislation that would have abolished slavery in Washington DC, so long as the voters of the nation's capital approved. Apparently, he didn't introduce it when it looked like it would go nowhere.

And when Lincoln made opposition to the extension of slavery his cause celebre beginning in 1854, after Senator Stephen Douglas's legislation repealing the Missouri Compromise had been enacted, he wasn't in the least bit mealy-mouthed about his views on slavery. He didn't just "kinda" dislike it. He said he "hated" it. Multiple times. Publicly and vociferously. And he explained why. It was pretty simply, really. A human being who engages in labor should be paid for his labor. It was wrong that someone could earn his bread "by the sweat of other men's faces."

The reasons for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation are manifold. While foreign policy was a consideration, it was certainly not the only thing Lincoln was looking at when he decided to issue the Proclamation. There was this little thing called "military necessity," the Constitutional buttress Lincoln needed to make the Proclamation valid. He needed to deprive the South of its labor, which was fueling their war effort, and put the freed slaves to work - with pay - on behalf of the Union, including serving in Union forces.

But the Proclamation wasn't limited to just able-bodied men. It freed *all* slaves in states and parts of states that were still in rebellion. The Proclamation also applied to women, the old and infirm, and children - i.e., without regard to whether they were physically capable of serving the Union cause. So the Proclamation wasn't only about "military necessity," either.

Moreover, from the beginning of the war till the very end, Lincoln was quietly working behind the scenes to get the border states to abolish slavery through the legislative process. And, as it turned out, by 1865, with Lincoln's consistent prodding, the border states had finally done it. (Lincoln didn't believe he had the Constitutional authority to simply decree it in the states not in rebellion.)

Also, let's not forget Lincoln's vigorous support of the 13th Amendment - which abolished slavery everywhere, for all time. In the wake of his issuance of the Proclamation, he was worried that, at any moment, a court might overturn it... especially at war's end, when "military necessity" could not be said to still exist. As Lincoln put it in January 1865, the 13th Amendment was the "king's cure" for slavery, and for the war itself.

With regard to use of the "n" word and telling racist jokes - sure, Lincoln was guilty of being like everybody else he knew in that regard. But actions speak louder than words, and what he did is much more important than the nouns he used or his brand of humor. Take a 20th century example as an illustration of my point. For most of her life, Eleanor Roosevelt was an anti-Semite, even during the early days of her husband's presidency; she would privately express disdain for FDR's Jewish friends and advisers. Somewhat paradoxically, as a young woman, she had spent a great deal of time working in a settlement house for immigrants in New York City, and, despite her personal prejudices, aided many Jewish immigrants. But whatever lingering prejudices she possessed totally disappeared with the Holocaust. She became a supporter of the founding of Israel, formed strong friendships with Jews, and was as wonderful an ex-First Lady as she had been a First Lady. The fact that she harbored a prejudice shared by most other Americans is overshadowed by her personal growth and the fact that, for her entire life, she dedicated her existence to being an advocate for the downtrodden, whether it was immigrants (including Jews), the poor, laborers, and the people who used to be known as "Negroes."

In conclusion, I'd say that focusing on Lincoln's use of the "n" word and his penchant for telling jokes that would now be considered racist is misguided in light of Lincoln's deeds.

But General Lee was the true Great Emancipator?