Lincoln........not such a saint?

@p1kef1sh (45681)
January 12, 2013 7:52am CST
This morning I read the following letter in a British newspaper - The Telegraph - from a Professor of International History at a leading University. He has also written books on the subject. I know that Lincoln is revered in the US and of course the facts about his indifference to slavery are much reported. However, are the Professor's comments valid? If so Lincoln ought not or be regarded as a great President but as the man that created the circumstances for war and racial separation that lasted another 100 years after he died, and some would say has still not entirely absent from American attitudes. "[i]Honest Abe’s saintliness is greatly exaggerated SIR – Abraham Lincoln was a racist who deliberately started a war that killed more than 650,000 people (“The lure of Lincoln”, January 10). He had no intention of freeing slaves, who freed themselves by fleeing to Unionist lines during a war that was going badly for the North and in which they became needed as recruits. In September 1863, Lincoln’s preliminary emancipation proclamation declared that the South could keep its slaves if it returned to the Union. Slave holders in the four slave states fighting for the Union were given until 1900 to consider emancipating their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation itself did not free a single slave, since it was limited to territory controlled by the Confederacy. Until the day he died, Lincoln’s ideal solution to the problem of blacks was to “colonise” them back to Africa or the tropics. This was what he told a delegation of free blacks he summoned to the White House in the summer of 1863, when he stressed that the mere presence of blacks caused pain to white Americans. He eventually agreed to the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves. Americans ignore all this since otherwise the history of the civil war looks little better morally than America’s treatment of blacks before and after. Steven Spielberg’s film sustains the myth that Lincoln redeemed America’s racist past. He did not. Alan Sked Professor of International History London School of Economics London WC2"[/i]
2 people like this
4 responses
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
12 Jan 13
History is re-written every couple of generations. When I was in school I was told that the Civil War was to free the slaves--that was elementary school in the 1960s just before minorities decided they'd had enough of being treated worse than animals. But that continued in classrooms and I did not learn the truth about the Civil War until I was an adult. No one is perfect and politicians are less perfect than the rest of us--they are common criminals but their crimes are committed under an umbrella of legality that was not intended to facilitate those crimes. Nearly anyone entering politics is mentally ill--they want power, attention, praise, and need it so badly that they will run for office. Money is the fourth thing they crave. It's nearly always been that way and I can't think of anything to do about it. Lincoln was no exception--poor, deprived as a child he grew up into a man who needed all those things but most of all, probably, the attention and approval. Politicians are the same all over the world. Scum. And history will continue to be re-written every so often to complement whoever the current batch of scum is.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
12 Jan 13
As a child I was told exactly the same thing, that the American Civil War was to free slaves. Like yourself, I did not know any better until I was much older, even though the war started several years prior to abolition. Looking back at my early school years, it is surprising just how much of what I was taught was actually rumour and not fact.
2 people like this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
12 Jan 13
Asylum, once I found the truth I did not trust public education. When I had children I found myself correcting a lot of "truth" that they learned in history, civics and even geography classes. I think it's important that we know the truth, even though it might knock some sacred cows off their public pedestals.
1 person likes this
@p1kef1sh (45681)
12 Jan 13
Isn't it truly awful that we share the we share the view that politicians are scum,and out solely for their own ends? We ought to take pride in our legislature yet time and again the individuals that are supposed to represent us lose track of why they are really there and pursue their own agendas of self aggrandisement!
2 people like this
@ElicBxn (63233)
• United States
12 Jan 13
Nobody, especially not a politician or a lawyer, is a saint. The blacks were already fleeing to the north to join and fight, it was a matter of actually getting to the north to join. Also, re-repatriation to Africa was the "go-to" solution in the 19th century for most people. Fact is that Liberia was formed by freed slaves. Honestly, the U.S. isn't ready for their "martyred" presidents, at least not Lincoln and Kennedy, to be less than saint....
@p1kef1sh (45681)
12 Jan 13
I'd not choose Liberia for my summer vacation free or not! I think that in a. Country as young as the US there have to be some 'heroes' (that term is always used so inappropriately) and Lincoln and Kennedy are easy fits.
1 person likes this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
12 Jan 13
As far as I can remember Abraham Lincoln only abolished slavery as a political measure. I saw a very in depth documentary about his life and political career several years ago that was the result of extensive research, including documents and correspondence from his time in office. His advisors apparently recommended the abolishing of slavery on a few occasions, but to no avail. When it was approaching the time for re-election he became very concerned for his career due to the status of the civil war. The war had already lasted a couple of years, with no real progress and the loss of many lives and high financial cost. He feared that this would destroy any hope of maintaining office and finally accepted the suggestion to abolish slavery. He was returned to office with a greater vote than his first term, which has often been considered to be due to this act. He is now acclaimed as a great humanitarian, but sadly it was only his own lust for power that brought about such a right decision in the first place.
@p1kef1sh (45681)
12 Jan 13
That is my understanding too. I am not sure quite how palatable that is to the average American though. Do they care?
@BarBaraPrz (45437)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
12 Jan 13
Yeah, and Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney, producers of Argo, seem to think "When six Americans take refuge in the Canadian embassy in Tehran during the 1979 hostage crisis, U.S. government agent Tony Mendez turns to Hollywood for help. Working with a producer and a makeup artist, he devises a rescue mission that centers on the creation of a fake film production company scouting locations in Iran." Excuse me?!? John Sheardown, 88, and his wife Zena, enlisted by the Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor, provided shelter to the Americans until the Canadian government eventually issued passports for the six people that would allow them to escape.
@p1kef1sh (45681)
12 Jan 13
I think that it was Hollywood that an several wars, especially WW2!
@p1kef1sh (45681)
12 Jan 13
An = won