Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Don't know how many may watch it but, it sparked my interest and may clarify some of the questions I put, probably, not too clearly.
Mitch
Mitch
Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mitch
- Start date
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,439
I just finished watching the program and I think it's well worth watching and nothing said in the program changed my mind. As Professor Mumford said, more or less, he was not perfect, he had his foibles and prejudices but in the end he did the right thing.
A few observations: I found Professors Blight, Foner, Mumford and the one from Professor balanced in their approach but did not so find with the English professor nor Bennett.
Bennett said a few things: he was a racsist, that he stood on the sidelines when the abolitionists were pushing for abolition and he wanted to deport Black Americans. Yes, his views about Blacks would be offensive today but were pretty typical for that time. No, he was not an abolitionists but abolition was not a majority position. Had Lincoln espoused abolitionism, he never would have been elected to anything. You have to remember that Springfield, Illinois, where he came of and lived his adult life, was in the southern part of the state and southern views were very prevalent there, unlike the more liberal northern part of the state. He was in favor of colonization but not forced colonization. Bennett cites his December 1862 address to Congress but a reading of that address (which by the way, as was the fashion in those days was read aloud by a clerk) does not support the proposition that his recommendation was anything but voluntary.
The one thing that I did find exaggerated was the view as Lincoln the executioner. During the Civil War, whenever a soldier was to be executed for this or that infraction, he reviewed the sentences and in many, many cases reversed the order. As far as our policy towards Native Americans, that's pretty shameful but that applies to many an administration starting with Andrew Jackson, probably up through the present time.
Foner notes that he had a capacity for growth. He did, as Frederick Douglass became a friend. If you want to see the man he became, please read the Second Inaugural Address, an amazing speech, so full of idea, but very short in length.
So, was he a saint or sinner? I don't believe in anything being all of this or that, black or white, but in shades of grey. He was not a saint but then who of our revered leaders are. However, he was definitely not a sinner.
A few observations: I found Professors Blight, Foner, Mumford and the one from Professor balanced in their approach but did not so find with the English professor nor Bennett.
Bennett said a few things: he was a racsist, that he stood on the sidelines when the abolitionists were pushing for abolition and he wanted to deport Black Americans. Yes, his views about Blacks would be offensive today but were pretty typical for that time. No, he was not an abolitionists but abolition was not a majority position. Had Lincoln espoused abolitionism, he never would have been elected to anything. You have to remember that Springfield, Illinois, where he came of and lived his adult life, was in the southern part of the state and southern views were very prevalent there, unlike the more liberal northern part of the state. He was in favor of colonization but not forced colonization. Bennett cites his December 1862 address to Congress but a reading of that address (which by the way, as was the fashion in those days was read aloud by a clerk) does not support the proposition that his recommendation was anything but voluntary.
The one thing that I did find exaggerated was the view as Lincoln the executioner. During the Civil War, whenever a soldier was to be executed for this or that infraction, he reviewed the sentences and in many, many cases reversed the order. As far as our policy towards Native Americans, that's pretty shameful but that applies to many an administration starting with Andrew Jackson, probably up through the present time.
Foner notes that he had a capacity for growth. He did, as Frederick Douglass became a friend. If you want to see the man he became, please read the Second Inaugural Address, an amazing speech, so full of idea, but very short in length.
So, was he a saint or sinner? I don't believe in anything being all of this or that, black or white, but in shades of grey. He was not a saint but then who of our revered leaders are. However, he was definitely not a sinner.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,439
Mitch,
Came across this transcript of an interview that Bill Moyers did with Eric Foner two year back on the 200th annivesary of Lincoln's birthday that I thought you might find interesting.
Came across this transcript of an interview that Bill Moyers did with Eric Foner two year back on the 200th annivesary of Lincoln's birthday that I thought you might find interesting.
Terp152
Major
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,274
Brad, agree it was a lost opportunity that was only resolved with the tragedy of the Civil War. The most ardent supporters of the proposed Constitution were southerners, Mason, Madison, Washington, etc. There would not have been a United States without their activity and of course they were from a slave state. They were already at odds with the planter (ruling) class and would not have prevailed in state ratifications had they taken an anti-slavery stance. I think it came down to a question of a united country with strong central gov't and slavery or remaining a disjointed regional collection of soverign states. Chris
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,439
I don't want to get in the middle of this north v south discusion about who may be more morally culpable but they both were.
The North was heavily invested in the cotton business. The port of New York was a principal embarkation point for cotton bound for Europe as well as the textiles coming back from Europe. In addition, Wall Street lent enormous sums of money to Southern planters so they could finance their operations. As lenders, they stood to lose (and did lose) significant amounts of money.
New York City was so bound up with the cotton industry that there was serious talk about the City seceding from the Union. When Lincoln came through the City on his way to Washington for his inaugural, the Mayor snubbed him.
Lincoln, when offered the opportunity to condemn the South pre 1860, always refused to because he said that if the roles were reversed, the North would act no differently.
Lastly, if you look at Lincoln's second inaugural adress, he criticizes the country, not just one section or the other.
The North was heavily invested in the cotton business. The port of New York was a principal embarkation point for cotton bound for Europe as well as the textiles coming back from Europe. In addition, Wall Street lent enormous sums of money to Southern planters so they could finance their operations. As lenders, they stood to lose (and did lose) significant amounts of money.
New York City was so bound up with the cotton industry that there was serious talk about the City seceding from the Union. When Lincoln came through the City on his way to Washington for his inaugural, the Mayor snubbed him.
Lincoln, when offered the opportunity to condemn the South pre 1860, always refused to because he said that if the roles were reversed, the North would act no differently.
Lastly, if you look at Lincoln's second inaugural adress, he criticizes the country, not just one section or the other.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,368
Brad is correct that neither the North nor the South had a monopoly on morality. In many northern cities, there were draft riots aimed at African Americans. The population of the North saw the war as the upper class abolishionists, who could buy there way out of being drafted by paying a substitute, and stay safe and comfortable at home, sacrificing the lives of the poor, who could not afford to buy there way out, for the sake of freeing the slaves. As a result, many poor Northerners attacked, beat and killed free blacks. Lincoln's government permitted the protection for the rich from the draft, and cracked down on the poor who rioted because they did not want to be drafted and die for a cause they did not believe in.
The civil war, in my opinion, was not a war about morality, it was a war about which economic system would dominate politics. Until the Civil War, for the most part, the aggrarian south had dominated american politics. When you think about the major pre-civil war American presidents, they are all Southerners - Washington (Virginia), Jerfferson (Virginia), Andrew Jackson (Tennessee). With the "three-fifths of a man" compromise, the South had the larger population, so controlled the elections. The upper class southern plantation owners considered themselves to be the american elite. As the Civil War approached, the industrialization of the north in combination with the influx of German and Irish immigrants shifted the balance of both economic power and population to the North. The aggrarian elite of the South wanted to leave the union because they realized they could no longer control the government. The Northern industrial elite did not want the south to be permitted to leave because they feared the south might sell its raw materials (i.e. cotton) to their competition in Great Britain. The footsloggers who suffered to settle this conflict between the elite were poor southerners who didn't own any slaves and the urban poor, as well as hundreds of thousands of immigrants, none of whom had any stake in the confict.
The civil war, in my opinion, was not a war about morality, it was a war about which economic system would dominate politics. Until the Civil War, for the most part, the aggrarian south had dominated american politics. When you think about the major pre-civil war American presidents, they are all Southerners - Washington (Virginia), Jerfferson (Virginia), Andrew Jackson (Tennessee). With the "three-fifths of a man" compromise, the South had the larger population, so controlled the elections. The upper class southern plantation owners considered themselves to be the american elite. As the Civil War approached, the industrialization of the north in combination with the influx of German and Irish immigrants shifted the balance of both economic power and population to the North. The aggrarian elite of the South wanted to leave the union because they realized they could no longer control the government. The Northern industrial elite did not want the south to be permitted to leave because they feared the south might sell its raw materials (i.e. cotton) to their competition in Great Britain. The footsloggers who suffered to settle this conflict between the elite were poor southerners who didn't own any slaves and the urban poor, as well as hundreds of thousands of immigrants, none of whom had any stake in the confict.