NYTimes Charles Blow Opinion

[AussieMick]

Hi, Rob.
I write in defence of Lincoln.

I've been reading with much interest the posts here. I resisted the temptation to comment mainly because of the thought its very much a USA issue. But of course its also a Lincoln issue. And as he (IMO) now belongs to the world and human history I offer the following...

Rob, you write strongly and articulately. There's no doubt that you care very much of course for the subject of slavery, racial discrimination, and for Lincoln.

I’ll select parts of your post (although I know this can be unfair when its ‘out of context’).

You write :
Of course, many people, mainly conservatives, talk about how it's wrong to judge someone in the 19th century based on 21st-century morality. To a point, that is right. When I wrote a paper on James G. Randall's "Blundering Generation" thesis, I came across a comment from the late Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., about that very subject. I wrote, "Schlesinger argued that the revisionists—that all historians for that matter—were obliged to pronounce moral judgments on actions that ran counter to the democratic ideals that America’s founding documents pronounced, although he warned that that obligation was no license for forgetting that individuals were prisoners of their own times and societal pressures. In Schlesinger’s view, the error of the revisionists was to bend over so far backward to avoid easy and smug moral judgments on historical actors that they renounced any need to consider moral issues in history at all."

Basically, I disagree with you. We are all capable ‘of chewing gum whilst walking’ (walking? Or was it “farting” that LBJ said, much more eloquently?).

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.
(BTW, I’m not sure that you are fair in your interpretation of Schlesinger’s view about renouncing need to consider moral issues, but that’s another discussion and I am really not sure. You could be correct.)

You also write :
that difference came mainly from whites like Lincoln, who failed to see that a more forward-looking plan would be to work on changing the viewpoint of society, even if that meant doing so one person at a time. By this introduction, Lincoln all but admits failure in his moral vision of what should happen to African Americans.

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.
He said “even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race “. As it turned out of course he was 100% correct (IMO). The blacks continued to suffer after the Civil War. True, they were ‘free’. I don’t need to spell out how it was in the South … the ‘viewpoint of society’ did not change for 100 years (some would argue it still has a way to go … in the USA and also elsewhere).

You quote Lincoln : “"See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence."

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.

You write in your last para about Lincoln’s motivations and beliefs. Your opinions of what they were, are of course simply that. Opinions. I disagree (but cannot prove) when you say he did not ‘realize and accept that all blacks wanted was to be treated exactly the same as white men’.
I disagree when you say he thought blacks could not, or did not, … figure out what was best for them in their situation.

In summary, I put myself in Lincoln’s position (!) hopefully without bending over backwards.
If I could stop the Civil War and remove slavery in the US and stop racial hatred. And also enable black people to live lives where they reach their full potential (and stop family members being separated … surely a terrifying thought, thanks Ms Stowe)… if I could do that by offering help for them to move to a new land of opportunities … yes, compulsory for those still enslaved … I suggest many blacks (who would later suffer and even been lynched in post-war South) would have said Thanks … yes, I’ll take that. I suggest many slaves would have thought “The US? What has it done for me and my family? I was born here but I owe it nothing.”
(Just imagine, if Australia or NZ could have been persuaded to accept them. But, yes, they would have faced hostility and discrimination. Even there, Blacks were not seen as equal to Whites.)

Best,
Michael