DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9903--------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 25, 2021, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
We have always claimed that Lincoln was on our side. For many
years, rightists disputed this, claiming that Lincoln was
actually a closet WN who only ended slavery in order to have an
excuse to deport all "blacks" from the US ASAP. We have
countered by pointing out that Lincoln only wanted to give freed
slaves as individuals an additional option of leaving the US,
without denying them the other option of staying in the US,
whichever each individual might prefer for their own reasons.
Finally, our enemies have conceded that we were correct all
along, and have now switched to condemning Lincoln for being
ethical on the issue:
www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/02/was-abe-lincoln-really-in-favor-of-d
eporting-blacks.html
[quote]White pathological altruism is a source of embarrassment
for white nationalists. To avoid any suggestion pathological
altruism is responsible for whites’ current predicament, entire
storylines are sometimes fabricated out of whole cloth. The
belief that if it wasn’t for Abraham Lincoln’s assassination,
the negro freedmen would have been deported is typical.
Although Lincoln sought to colonize blacks in Central America
and the Caribbean, he always stressed the voluntarism of his
migration schemes. In the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
of 1862, Lincoln said “the effort to colonize persons of African
descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere,
with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing
there, will be continued” (emphasis added).
In the same year, during cabinet deliberations on various
colonization schemes, someone suggested forced elimination of
negroes from US soil, but Lincoln “objected unequivocally to
compulsion.” If negroes were to be colonized abroad, “[t]heir
emigration must be voluntary and without expense to themselves.”
If the so-called “Butler anecdote” is historically reliable,
Lincoln considered “get[ting] rid of the negroes” as late as
April of 1865, but only their voluntary migration was
considered.
In his last public address on April 11, four days before he was
assassinated, Lincoln said:
It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is
not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were
now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve
our cause as soldiers.
Conferring citizenship on the “talented tenth” meant Lincoln had
abandoned all attempts at colonization. These schemes had to be
“without compulsion,” which doomed them from the start.
Lincoln’s child-like naiveté was eerily similar to the naiveté
of modern Western leaders, who believe all white lands contain
large quantities of wealth-producing and IQ-raising “magic
dirt.” Surely, a man of Lincoln’s intelligence knew that most
blacks would not abandon the comforts of white civilization for
the jungles of Central America, where they would have to eke out
subsistence livelihoods.
If Lincoln really wanted to “get rid of the negroes,” he would
have simply rounded them up and forcibly deported them. His
pathological altruism, not his assassination, was what prevented
him from deporting blacks. Because he was forced to make
concessions to pro-colonization whites, he made a few
half-hearted, but deliberately unsuccessful attempts at ridding
the country of blacks. Likewise, globalists would never rid
themselves of their imported Third World electorates, but are
forced to make concessions to more conservative whites out of
political expediency. This white pathological altruism is the
legacy of centuries of indoctrination in Christian ideals of
universal love and brotherhood.[/quote]
I am always happy to reach academic agreement with our enemies.
---
"Lincoln’s child-like naiveté"
I am happy to reach aesthetic agreements as well.
---
This is new to me, but not surprising considering how many slave
owners were Jews:
[img width=1280
height=721]
HTML https://printculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Richmond-Jewish-Confederate-Monument.jpg[/img]
(It goes without saying that the "Abraham" mentioned on the
plaque is the Tanakh guy, not Lincoln!)
See also:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_Confederates
---
The CSA was bankrolled by Judah P. Benjamin (Jew) and his high
finance connections in London.
www.veteranstoday.com/2017/08/20/the-secret-jewish-roots-of-blac
k-oppression-white-supremacy/
[quote]Judah P. Benjamin, a Jewish member of the U.S. Senate,
the Confederate Secretary of State, and Secretary of War, a
close confidant of President Jefferson Davis, and the person who
used his relationship with the international bankers to arrange
to have another Jew, French banker Emile Erlanger, loan the
Confederacy $7 million. No wonder he became known as the “brains
of the Confederacy.” And, by the way, Secretary Benjamin was the
owner of a 140-slave plantation.[/quote]
HTML https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/17/28/7b17287d4c29eef10a20899ca4b2b3d8.jpg
[img]
HTML https://hbcuconnect.com/images/blogs/323400[/img]
[img]
HTML https://judaism.is/images/jew%20slave%20holding.jpg?crc=197731784[/img]
---
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_34p9UwjZ4
#Post#: 9904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 25, 2021, 8:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/25/first-thanksgiving-political-fight-523357
[quote]When People Thought the First Thanksgiving Was Too Woke
Thanksgiving might seem like a fairly uncontroversial national
holiday. That wasn't the case in Abraham Lincoln's day.
...
As non-controversial as Thanksgiving is today, you might imagine
the proclamation met with universal acceptance. It did not.
Reflecting the sharp polarization in national politics, many
Democrats and peace proponents refused to acknowledge the
president’s proclamation of the new holiday, and some even
denounced it as an attempt to impose a particular brand of New
England fanaticism on the whole country. Lincoln’s proclamation
unleashed the social resentments of many voters who resisted the
growing influence of evangelical churches and the concurrent
growth of social reform movements — from abolitionism and
temperance to Sabbatarianism and women’s rights.
To borrow from today’s political lexicon, Lincoln’s opponents
nursed an intense dislike of that era’s “wokeness.” Back then,
they called it “ism” — referring to the set of religious social
reform movements of the day that sought to refashion the
nation’s social and political systems in line with evangelical
Protestant sensibilities. These critics recoiled at the pace of
social change that these movements represented and resented the
suggestion that they think or pray a certain way. Conversely,
many Republicans greeted the president’s proclamation as a sign
that the government in Washington embraced their worldview.
...
But there was more to it. For years, many Southerners and
pro-slavery Northerners had pilloried the Republican Party as an
organization of religious fanatics bound by a commitment to
extreme and even (for the time) zany evangelical reform
movements — in the words of Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois,
“the black republican army is an allied army, composed of Know
Nothings, Abolitionists, Free Soilers, Maine Liquor Law men,
woman’s rights men, Anti-renters, Anti-Masons, and all the isms
that have been sloughed off from all the honest parties in the
country.”
...
In the same way that some [s]Americans[/s] today lump their
cultural resentments under the banner of “wokeness,” many
conservatives in Lincoln’s day decried the Republican Party’s
affinity for “isms” — “an abolition conglomerate of all the isms
at war with the rights of the States,” “all the isms … combined
in the superlative ism, which I denounce as demonism, ” as Gov.
Henry Wise of Virginia stated the case. George Fitzhugh, a
leading Southern polemicist before the war, echoed Douglas when
he denounced the “Bloomers and Women’s Rights men,” the “I vote
myself a farm men,” the “Millerites, and Spiritual Rappers, and
Shakers, and Widow Wakemanites, and Agrarians, and Grahamites,
and a thousand other superstitious and infidel isms."
While most Americans in Lincoln’s time identified as evangelical
Christians, and while the ranks of War Democrats included many
evangelicals, the churches were closely associated with many of
the reform movements — including abolitionism — that Democrats
so sharply opposed. Particularly in the Midwest, many Democrats
resented the increasingly partisan tone that “political priests”
assumed in their Sunday sermons and, as one newspaper editor
wrote, the “fanatics [who] have assumed the cloak of religion to
carry out schemes entirely at variance with the Almighty’s
commandments.”[/quote]
The war between the Old Testament and the New Testament is still
ongoing:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/right-left-(judeo-)christian-divergence/
Back to the main article:
[quote]It became increasingly popular for administration critics
to lump the offending religious reform movements under the
moniker of “Puritanism,” given the central role that New England
played in organized abolitionism. It made little difference that
Puritanism bore nothing in common with evangelical Christianity,
either intellectually or theologically. By 1863, the term had
become a political descriptor, devoid of its original meaning.
The Republican Party, as one Confederate political cartoonist
portrayed it, was built on the foundation of “PURITANISM,”
supported by pillars that included “WITCH BURNING,” “SOCIALISM,”
“FREE LOVE,” “SPIRIT RAPPING,” “RATIONALISM” and “NEGRO
WORSHIP.”
...
As Americans sit down to their holiday meal this Thursday, we
remain steeped in a debate over “isms“ — “wokeness” — “political
correctness.” Just as it was with “Puritanism” in 1863, in
today’s political landscape, the actual meaning of terms like
“critical race theory” is less important than what such terms
symbolize to many people who are unnerved by the pace of social
change in American society, and, conversely, to those who
welcome it.[/quote]
Hence:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/trumpism-is-an-echo/
#Post#: 9922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 27, 2021, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://archive.md/VBEZI
[quote]Lincoln Broke Our Constitution. Then He Remade It.
Who created the Constitution we have today? As a law professor,
I’ve always thought the best answer was “the framers”: James
Madison, Alexander Hamilton and the other delegates who attended
the Philadelphia convention in the summer of 1787.
The Constitution they drafted has since been amended many times,
of course, sometimes in profound ways. But the document, I’ve
long reasoned, has also exhibited a fundamental continuity.
We’ve always had one Constitution.
I no longer think this conventional understanding is correct.
Over the course of several years of research and writing, I’ve
come to the conclusion that the true maker of the Constitution
we have today is not one of the founders at all. It’s Abraham
Lincoln.
This might sound like mere rhetorical license, since Lincoln did
not take office until 1861, some 70 years after the Constitution
was ratified. And we all recognize that his presidency played an
instrumental role in the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments, which, by making a decisive break with slavery,
became a turning point in our nation’s history.
But I’m making a stronger argument. What has become clear to me
is that even before the passage of those Reconstruction
amendments — indeed, as a kind of precondition for them —
Lincoln fatally injured the Constitution of 1787. He consciously
and repeatedly violated core elements of that Constitution as
they had been understood by nearly all Americans of the time,
himself included.
Through those acts of destruction, Lincoln effectively broke the
Constitution of 1787, paving the way for something very
different to replace it. What began as a messy, pragmatic
compromise necessary to hold the young country together was
reborn as an aspirational blueprint for a nation based on the
principle of equal liberty for all.
Today, when the United States is engaged in a national reckoning
about the legacies of slavery and institutional racism, the
story of Lincoln’s breaking of the Constitution of 1787 is
instructive. It teaches us not only that the original
Constitution was deeply compromised, morally and functionally,
by its enshrining of slavery, but also that the original
Constitution was shattered, remade and supplanted by a project
genuinely worthy of reverence.
Let’s go back to the 18th century. Americans today tend to think
of the Constitution of 1787 in exalted moral terms. But the
history is otherwise: The original Constitution was a complex
political compromise grounded in perceived practical necessity,
not moral clarity.
The need to garner the support of smaller states, for example,
gave us the Senate. More damning were the compromises over
slavery, without which the Constitution could never have been
ratified: the repugnant “three-fifths” provision, by which
enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person for
purposes of political representation; the promised 20-year
preservation of the slave trade; and the fugitive slave clause,
which required even free states to support slavery by returning
escapees to their putative masters. These compromises were
reaffirmed and reinforced by further compromises enacted by
Congress from 1820 to 1850.
In April 1861, when the Civil War began, Lincoln was thoroughly
committed to the compromise Constitution, which he had endorsed
and embraced for his whole political life. Indeed, the month
before, in his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln promised to
preserve slavery as a constitutionally mandated permanent
reality.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with
the institution of slavery in the states where it exists,” he
said, vowing never to defy what was “plainly written” in the
Constitution. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I
have no inclination to do so.”
But in the 18 months that followed, Lincoln violated the
Constitution as it was then broadly understood three separate
times.
First, he waged war on the Confederacy. He did this even though
his predecessor, James Buchanan, and Buchanan’s attorney
general, Jeremiah Black, had concluded that neither the
president nor Congress had the lawful authority to coerce the
citizens of seceding states to stay in the Union without their
democratic consent. Coercive war, they had argued, repudiated
the idea of consent of the governed on which the Constitution
was based.
Second, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus unilaterally, without
Congress, arresting thousands of political opponents and
suppressing the free press and free speech to a degree unmatched
in U.S. history before or since. When Chief Justice Roger Taney
of the Supreme Court held that the suspension was
unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored him.
Lincoln justified both of these constitutional violations by a
doubtful theory of wartime necessity: that as chief executive
and commander in chief, he possessed the inherent authority to
use whatever means necessary to preserve the Union.
Third, and most fatefully, Lincoln came to believe that he also
possessed the power to proclaim an end to slavery in the
Southern states. When he finally did so, issuing the
Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, he eliminated any
possibility of returning to the compromise Constitution as it
had existed before the war.
Unlike his first two violations of the Constitution, which came
quickly, Lincoln’s movement toward emancipation was agonized and
slow, precisely because he knew that emancipation would have the
effect of destroying the core of the constitutional compromise
he had pledged to uphold.
As Lincoln explained in a letter to Senator Orville Browning of
Illinois in September 1861, emancipation would be “itself the
surrender of the government” he was trying to save. “Can it be
pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S. — any
government of Constitution and laws,” Lincoln asked, if a
general or a president were able to “make permanent rules of
property by proclamation?”
In the end, Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation
Proclamation turned on his realization that the war could not be
won as he had originally hoped — namely, by inducing the
Southern states to rejoin the Union on compromise terms similar
to the status quo before the war. To proclaim the enslaved
people of the South as emancipated was to announce that there
was no going back. The original compromise Constitution would no
longer be on offer, even if the South gave up and rejoined the
Union.
Contemporary observers, even those unsympathetic to slavery,
understood that the Emancipation Proclamation left the original
Constitution in tatters. The retired Supreme Court justice
Benjamin Curtis, who had dissented from the notorious 1857
decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (in which the court held that
Americans of African descent could not be citizens), said as
much in a pamphlet condemning Lincoln’s declaration as a
repudiation of the constitutional rule of law.
“By virtue of some power which he possesses,” Curtis wrote,
Lincoln “proposes to annul laws, so that they no longer have any
operation.”
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln did just that. The
13th Amendment, which with Lincoln’s encouragement was passed by
Congress and sent to the states in February 1865, outlawed
slavery in the United States. But in a meaningful sense it
merely formalized Lincoln’s guarantee, in issuing the
Emancipation Proclamation nearly three years before, that
whatever new constitutional order followed the war would no
longer be a slavery-based compromise.
Likewise, the 14th and 15th Amendments, enacted after Lincoln’s
death in April 1865, formally secured the equal protection of
the laws and enfranchised African-American men. But Lincoln had
already transformed the Constitution from a political compromise
into a platform for defending moral principles by invoking its
authority to end slavery.
In the last paragraph of the Emancipation Proclamation, for
example, Lincoln declared “this act” to be “warranted by the
Constitution” — notwithstanding the consensus view to the
contrary, which he himself had long endorsed.
The fact that the Constitution of 1787 was not so much modified
as broken and remade during and after the Civil War should be a
starting point for nuanced conversations about the true meaning
of the Constitution today. Indeed, even before Lincoln broke the
Constitution, some of the most sophisticated thinkers about the
nature of the Constitution were attuned to the complexities of
the question.
Frederick Douglass, for example, began his career as an
abolitionist in the late 1830s by rejecting the Constitution as
immoral. Over time, however, his views changed. In 1850, he
wrote that “liberty and slavery — opposite as heaven and hell —
are both in the Constitution.” The Constitution, he concluded,
was “at war with itself.”
Even this would turn out to be a transitional position for
Douglass. In 1851, he declared that he now believed that slavery
“never was lawful, and never can be made so.” He pointed out, as
some defenders of the framers still do today, that the
Constitution of 1787 did not actually use the word “slavery.”
Douglass would hold this view for the next decade, until the war
came. It was intended to leverage a redemptive reading of the
Constitution to change the existing document into something new
and better.
Of course, the “moral” Constitution made possible by Lincoln’s
defiance of the Constitution of 1787 has too often been
thwarted. About a decade after the Reconstruction amendments
were ratified, the moral Constitution was betrayed by the
imposition of segregation and disenfranchisement on Black
Southerners. It took Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the
modern civil rights movement to start redeeming the promise of
Lincoln’s new Constitution.
Persistent inequality still afflicts the United States,
including inequality before the law of the kind the moral
Constitution prohibits. The reality is that Lincoln’s moral
Constitution, like all constitutions, is not an end point but a
vow of continuing effort. Through that Constitution, we define
our national project and strive to achieve it, even if we never
fully succeed.[/quote]
As our enemies today increasingly explore Red secession from
what they can anticipate will become a demographically
Blue-dominated US, we should rhetorically lean into Lincoln more
in order to justify military action to crush future secessionist
attempts. Portraying Lincoln as more American than the 1787 guys
is coherent with this.
#Post#: 9924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: rp Date: November 27, 2021, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems like Lincoln thoroughly repudiated the Judeo-Masonic
ideology of his predecessors.
#Post#: 9925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: Polinc_Socjus Date: November 27, 2021, 11:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Confederates like to call the Civil War the "War of Northern
Aggression" despite confederate cadets from the South Carolina
Military Academy first firing at an unarmed American vessel
called The Star Of The West. We should instead call it the "War
of Dixie Aggression" or just the "Dixie War," because Dixie is
not synonymous with The South.
HTML https://www.woot.com/blog/post/the-debunker-when-were-the-first-shots-of-the-civil-war-fired
#Post#: 10507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: Zea_mays Date: January 11, 2022, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln summed up in a single sentence:
[quote]"He [Lincoln] knew the European doctrine that the king
makes the gentleman; but he believed with his whole soul the
doctrine, the American doctrine, that worth makes the man." -
George William Curtis, The Good Fight (1865).[/quote]
Another important thing about Lincoln is that he advocated
against the stupid tradition of allowing the Supreme Court to be
the final arbiter of how to interpret the Constitution (even
before he was President during wartime conditions). The Supreme
Court during Lincoln's time was arguably the most racist and
anti-American it had ever been in US history, and Lincoln's
views on it will be important with the current composition of
the Supreme Court (which has already been called illegitimate by
Democratic Party leaders!)
[quote]Lincoln had already transformed the Constitution from a
political compromise into a platform for defending moral
principles[/quote]
This interpretation lasted until at least 1991:
[quote]Thurgood Marshall (July 2, 1908 – January 24, 1993) was
an American lawyer and civil rights activist who served as
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from
October 1967 until October 1991. Marshall was the Court's first
African-American justice. Prior to his judicial service, he
successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court,
including Brown v. Board of Education.
[...]
Marshall wanted to study in his hometown law school, the
University of Maryland School of Law, but did not apply because
of the school's policy of segregation
[...]
Marshall once bluntly described his legal philosophy as this:
"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up",[27] a
statement which his conservative detractors argued was a sign of
his embracement of judicial activism.[28][29]
[...]
In 1987, Marshall gave a controversial speech on the occasion of
the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution of the United
States.[30][page needed] Marshall stated:
... the government they devised was defective from the
start, requiring several amendments, a civil war and major
social transformation to attain the system of constitutional
government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and
human rights, we hold as fundamental today.[31][32]
In conclusion, Marshall stated:
Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle,
and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong
with the original document, and observe the anniversary with
hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to
celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living
document, including the Bill of Rights and other amendments
protecting individual freedoms and human rights.[32][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
(Of course, to add insult to injury, Republicans replaced
Marshall with an "Uncle Tom" whose wife was a Red Coup
supporter.)
[quote]Thomas is often described as an originalist and as a
textualist.[115][116] He is also often described as the Court's
most conservative member,[24][117][118]
[...]
Some critics downplay the significance of originalism in
Thomas's jurisprudence and claim Thomas applies originalism in
his decisions inconsistently.[125][126][127][128] Law professor
Jim Ryan and former litigator Doug Kendall have argued that
Thomas "will use originalism where it provides support for a
politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when
"history provides no support" for a conservative
ruling.[126][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Conservatism_and_originalism
#Post#: 11014--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Archetype of the Warrior – How Films Help Empower Us All
By: guest55 Date: February 2, 2022, 11:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone seen this yet? Think I may watch it next. Perhaps it's a
good film that can be used to create new myths for America
considering Americans may actually have to become literal
vampire hunters in the near future?
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/abraham-lincoln/
[img width=960
height=1280]
HTML https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p8815737_p_v10_aa.jpg[/img]
HTML https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/34/13/23341331f8199996503448162ef76e11.jpg
#Post#: 11764--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 6, 2022, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/breaking-down-color-line-white-141500966.html
[quote]‘A breaking down of a color line in the White House’:
Book explores Lincoln’s connection to the Black community during
Civil War
In spring 1864, President Abraham Lincoln invited a guest to one
of his private rooms in the White House — the room he often
napped and read his Bible in.
His visitor was Caroline Johnson, a Black woman from
Philadelphia who was known for making intricate wax fruit. While
the nation was embroiled in the Civil War, the pair sat and
discussed the fruit Johnson had gifted Lincoln and his wife.
“It shows in a very practical way, a breaking down of a color
line in the White House that had been very strong before the
war, and unfortunately, would return after the war,” said
Jonathan W. White, an American studies professor at Christopher
Newport University.
...
Johnson was among a slew of Black people invited to the White
House between 1862 and 1865, making a bridge with members of the
Black community for a short but notable time.
...
Lincoln routinely met with formerly enslaved people and those
born free. His guests included Norfolk natives, such as Joseph
Jenkins Roberts, who would become the president of Liberia, and
Alexander T. Augusta, who was born free and became the
highest-ranking African American officer in the Union Army
during the war.
...
Colonization was a popular idea, the belief that Black people
would have to relocate because the races couldn’t live together
in freedom, White said. Lincoln had even met with Roberts, the
Norfolk native, that year and Roberts encouraged Lincoln to send
former slaves to Liberia, which had been established for them.
But Lincoln had a transcriptionist at the meeting with the five
men, and he wanted his comments published in newspapers. White
said white Northerners would think, “If Emancipation comes, we
don’t have to be as concerned about it because the president is
supporting colonization.”
The meeting is often used to depict Lincoln as racist, White
said, even though Lincoln thought colonization should be
voluntary.
“He never advocated for forced deportation,” White said.
Later, Lincoln’s interactions with the Black community evolved.
He issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. He met
with abolitionist and writer Frederick Douglass on several
occasions. Douglass was initially critical of Lincoln but
changed his mind after meeting him. Douglass often gave speeches
and included stories about how kindly Lincoln treated him,
describing it as one gentleman receiving another.
He considered Lincoln a friend and someone he respected.
In the spring of 1864, at least three delegations of Black
people met with Lincoln to ask for his support with voting
rights for Black men, including two men from Louisiana who gave
him a petition signed by 1,000 people.
“In both of these cases, Lincoln showed sympathy towards their
request,” White said.
The president told them he didn’t have the power to give the
right to vote; he asked the Louisiana men to show how giving
Black men the right to vote would help win the war, White said.
“These two men went away and they thought and a few days later,
they wrote out a new petition,” he said. “In this one, they
said, the white population of the South is overwhelmingly
disloyal and the Black population of the South is overwhelmingly
loyal to the Union. If you want to secure the peace after the
war is over, the best way to do that is to give Black men the
right to vote.”
Shortly after, Lincoln wrote a private letter to Louisiana Gov.
Michael Hahn asking him to consider letting Black men vote,
White said.
When the president invited Black people to the White House, he
shook their hands and treated them kindly, White said. He
listened, and policy changes came from the meetings, including
voting rights for Black men. Lincoln also met abolitionist
Sojourner Truth in October 1864. He showed her a Bible he
received from Black people in Baltimore a month earlier. The two
sat and examined it.
“I felt I was in the presence of a friend,” she said afterward.
Lincoln also mentioned limited voting rights for Black men in a
speech at the White House on April 11, 1865, arguing that Black
men who were educated or served in the Army deserve the right to
vote.
“In the audience that night was John Wilkes Booth. Booth heard
that and he said ‘That means n-word citizenship,’” White said.
That would be Lincoln’s last speech. Booth shot the president
three days later.
“I think African Americans read about these meetings in the
newspapers and they felt for the first time that they had a
president who was actually concerned with their welfare,” White
said. “Prior to the Civil War, Black people were more likely to
be bought and sold as slaves by a sitting president than to be
welcomed at the White House as a guest. That changes
dramatically between 1862 and 1865 and they recognize that.”
Because of this, White suspects Black people across the nation
felt a greater sense of loss at Lincoln’s death than most white
people did.[/quote]
Lincoln was able to stand up for American values precisely
because did not care about being popular with the majority. Here
is another example of this:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Native_American_policy
[quote]Lincoln personally reviewed each of 303 execution
warrants for Santee Dakota convicted of killing innocent
farmers; he commuted the sentences of all but 39 (one was later
reprieved).[269][268] Lincoln sought to be lenient, but still
send a message. He also faced significant public pressure,
including threats of mob justice should any of the Dakota be
spared.[268] Former Governor of Minnesota Alexander Ramsey told
Lincoln, in 1864, that he would have gotten more presidential
election support had he executed all 303 of the Indians. Lincoln
responded, "I could not afford to hang men for
votes."[270][/quote]
This is why being American has nothing to do with being
democratic.
Also recent blog post:
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/white-supremacism-defeated-hitler/
#Post#: 12994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 22, 2022, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well spotted!
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQu0hulVUAAXKk0?format=jpg&name=small[/img]
Americans face in a different direction to Westerners.
#Post#: 15182--------------------------------------------------
Re: Abraham Lincoln
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 17, 2022, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the record, Lincoln opposed Manifest Destiny:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
[quote]Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was
always contested —Democrats endorsed the idea but the large
majority of Whigs and many prominent Americans (such as Abraham
Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant) rejected the concept.[7][8][9]
...
Lincoln opposed anti-immigrant nativism, and the imperialism of
manifest destiny as both unjust and unreasonable.[45] He
objected to the Mexican war and believed each of these
disordered forms of patriotism threatened the inseparable moral
and fraternal bonds of liberty and union that he sought to
perpetuate through a patriotic love of country guided by wisdom
and critical self-awareness.[/quote]
This critical self-awareness is what rightists disparage as
"CRT"!
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page