Hey northerners, did you know your heroic, historical icon was a white supremacist even though he allegedly "freed the slaves"? "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -Lincoln in the Lincoln-Douglas debate.. September 18, 1858 Page 129 if you demand proof.
September 18, 1858 Not making excuses for him. Slavery and racism is an ugly smudge in our history no matter how you slice it. Just making the observation that back then it was the politically correct thing to say. Sad. The silver lining being how far we've progressed and how far we can continue to progress if we don't let old thinking and ideology determine our future. (said the secular progressive liberal Democrat )
This was made solely for the Lincoln-loving crowd who think he's some American hero. He is one of the biggest failures in American history, up there with Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, F.D.R and Bush.
Well, that's the way many make him out to be. But that ain't fully true. http://www.snopes.com/glurge/lincoln.asp
No without him, we would've had a different president, who would've likely done the same militaristic things that FDR was instructed to do. Successful leading up to presidency, maybe so. Successful as a president, most definitely not.
The policies of his great society are though. Look at today, and the Fannie, Freddie, then CRA all born of that "GS" FDR created. We have Truman to thank for that.
Freeing the slaves was the price the south had to pay for losing the war, you start a war, you lose, you pay a price. Why is that concept so hard to understand.
The Great Society would be Lyndon Johnson, not FDR. Only off by about 30 years. McCain himself sought to bring back FDR's "direct mortgage" plan. Well, as it was Churchill and FDR who framed the alliance and successfully pushed the Japanese back to home islands while fighting on another front, and Truman didn't assume the Presidency until April 12, 1945 - 3 weeks before the capitulation of Nazi Germany, uh, sure - FDR didn't have anything to do with winning WWII, only Truman did. Another for a serious lapse of historical understanding.
I know his motivations and reasoning northpoint, that's what made him a monster. He fought a barbaric war that didn't even need to be fought - over the false belief that states didn't have the right to secede from a voluntary union. Somehow history remembers a tyrant as some great hero that saved America. It's like saying Hitler unified Europe.
Nate, take it easy - this thread is on the notion of Lincoln as a white supremacist. By saying, "haven't we covered this," I was literally saying, well, haven't we addressed this, in the other thread? I guess I don't understand the point, when you raised this months ago. Then, in part, I agreed with you. No worries, though. Create whatever thread you want, no skin off my back.
Nate: There are some aspects of libertarian thinking that I admire. I have been a buisness person most of my life. I've competed in markets. I've worked markets. I respect that focus. On the other hand, the extreme libertarian thinking that looks at history is to me a wierd effort at historical revisionism trying to tie history to a current philosophy that rewrites history in an absurd way. Libertarian concepts couldn't survive except for a wealthy and relatively free nation. I doubt you'll find libertarian thinkers in any poor or troubled nations. Find me a libertarian in Lebanon, in so many of the African nations ripped in strife. Find me libertarian thinkers in most of Latin America. Its a gift of wealth and security that allows the theory to exist. The active Presidents of the past, such as Lincoln, FDR, and others took steps to secure the strength and ultimately the wealth of the US. The Civil War was the most miserable war for America with untold death and destruction, families fighting amongst themselves. It secured the union and freed the slaves. The barbarism of slavery had already been abolished in several European nations. It is the ugliest of human concepts. The action of freeing the slaves is endlessly more heroic and substantial then a speech made by Lincoln while campaigning for office. Somehow in a nation that has worked and been fortunate to achieve the wealth and opportunities we now have much work was done by heroes that have since died. There is always work to do. It doesn't come for free.
I think you're forgetting something very important here, Earl. And that is you would have no freedom today if it weren't for the "libertarian" principles that won us Independence from Britain. How do you know what others think in less fortunate areas, the farmers, the every day joe or muhammad? Have you spoken to each of them to know how they really feel about their enslavement? As far as freeing the slaves being worth it, it could have been done without Lincoln's aggression. We are the only country in this hemisphere that ended slavery in a violent way. The point of confusion is on the topic of slavery - some of you are so overwhelmed by just that topic that every other thought is crowded out because of it. Slavery could have ended without the war.
I think the effort to gain independance from Britain, the follow through to maintain it could be ascribed to a lot of different "Principles" Nate. Libertarian principles is simply one way to describe it. I don't think libertarianism was a theory at that time. I don't know what others think. I look at a lot of nations to make the judgement that libertarian thought doesn't take affect or work in most nations that are poor, oppressed, in strife, etc. Lebanon has no effective government. It is a country in name only with two powerful bodies controlling things in some sort of uneasy peace. Go through many nations in Africa. They are primarily poor. Groups gain power and tend to oppress others. Its easy to hypothesize that folks in these nations can demand their freedom from govt. etc. But when the force is followed up by overwhelming govt or "rebel" power with guns..that is a far cry from libertarianism as it is preached here. If there is a poor nation that practises it, let me know. I'm sure it could have. Who knows how things would have turned out. Even ending slavery left this larger nation with a severe second class citizenry that has lasted for 150 years or so. My point is that the activist President's who faced crises took big steps, fortunately were successful in their own rights; i.e. Lincoln kept the nation united; FDR faced the depression and world war II etc. and the wealth of the nation moved forward. But getting back to the title of the OP; there is an enormous difference between what Lincoln said in a campaign and did as President. Actions speak far louder than words. (especially campaign words)
Ok i see what you're saying now but understand this, oppression only comes when there's a defenseless class. That's why we have the second amendment. You could argue "but how would you begin libertarianism, getting everyone armed" and I'm not even a libertarian philosopher to answer that question. Whole 'nother subject. Sure these presidents got us out of bad times in history, but they usually created them too. And in the process of the difficult times they wrecked the principles of the Constitution. I just wanted to let everyone know in this thread, that if you love Lincoln - you loved a white supremacist .