Relevant History welcomes Warren Bull, award-winning author of more than twenty published short stories as well as memoirs, essays, and the novel Abraham Lincoln for the Defense. His most recent work is a collection of short stories entitled Murder Manhattan Style from Ninth Month Publishing, Co. For more information, check his web site and group blog.
*****
The argument that Abraham Lincoln was racist is usually based upon his words during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 and his suggestion that Blacks be relocated to Africa since he doubted that Whites and Blacks could live together in harmony. There is no doubt that at Charleston and Quincy Lincoln expressed his belief in the superiority of the white race.
In Lincoln’s words, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon a foot of perfect equality, and in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
If a candidate for the Senate used those words today, there is no doubt the candidate would be accused of and, in fact, guilty of racism. If a candidate for the Senate today used the words of Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, the candidate would offend everyone except the very most extreme members of the American political spectrum. If a physician today practiced what was the most advanced medicine of 1858, there is no doubt that the physician would be guilty of malpractice. He or she would be ignorant about germs and unable to save anyone whose appendix burst. I certainly would not trust my auto repair business to the most skilled blacksmith of 1858. If medicine and engineering advance in 150 years, should we be surprised that our ideas about human rights have changed?
In contrast to Douglas and the Supreme Court of his time, Lincoln also said, “There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence — the right to life liberty and he pursuit of happiness. I hold he is as much entitled to these as the white man.”
In 1858 Lincoln did not view the races as equal. Unlike Douglas, who compared enslaved people to farm produce, Lincoln saw enslaved people as human, not property. For that time he was more devoted to human rights than the great majority of Americans.
Fortunately, Lincoln lived beyond 1858 and served as president during the Civil War, preserving the Union, and over time, transforming the country and his own thinking. He abandoned the idea of relocating Blacks to Africa. Lincoln enforced anti-slave trading laws. He abolished slavery in the District of Columbia. He wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, introducing the idea of freeing enslaved people en mass. He recruited Blacks for the army; an estimated 200,000 served and 30,000 died. Lincoln insisted that black soldiers receive equal pay with white soldiers, and cited their bravery as a reason to end of slavery and a reason they should be given the right to vote. It has been suggested that he was assassinated not for what he had done but for what he planned to do to extend rights to all people.
Lincoln was a man of his times and a man for all times. He was not perfect. He did not escape the prejudices of the general populations. On the other hand, he learned from his mistakes. He had a heart and mind that, once fixed upon a goal, remained steadfast in spite of all opposition. Perhaps abolitionist Frederick Douglass who knew Lincoln personally expressed it best on the occasion of his Oration In Memory of Abraham Lincoln in 1876:
“I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
*****
A big thanks to Warren Bull. He’ll give away a print copy of Abraham Lincoln for the Defense to someone who contributes a comment on my blog this week. I’ll choose the winner from among those who comment by Sunday at 6 p.m. ET. Delivery is available within the U.S. only.
*****
Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.
Great post Warren. We are all too often guilty of trying to make historic figures too much like us. He was a champion of justice and accomplished a lot. He was not 21st century champion of justice. I wonder how people will look at us 200 years in the future.
Gwen, that’s an excellent point. It underscores one of the challenges for authors of historical fiction. When we strive to make our characters’ thoughts and actions period-accurate, we inevitably get readers who judge with a 21st-century mindset.
It’s misleading and short-sighted to judge historical figures by 21st century standards.
Lincoln can only be accurately and fairly judged from the standards of his own time and by comparing him to his contemporaries. He, like everyone else, was a product of his time, culture, and his upbringing.
He had no access to the cultural changes in society that happened from 1865 to our own time, so to judge him by our current standards would not be terribly useful.
Good article.
This is wonderful. I despise it when people yank people out of history and subject them to our politically correct thinking today. In Lincoln’s time, Anglo-Saxon superiority was taken for granted. He believed it, too. That does not make him “racist.” He clearly cared about the people and saw them, along with all other races, as having been created in God’s image and therefore not mere things to be bought or sold. This is an excellent article.
Spot-on, Tracy, as usual.
Henry, thanks for stopping by. Yes, context is all-important.
Henry, Thank you. I could not have said it better.
Tracy, You make my point for me.
Gwen, I have often wondered that myself. Wouldn’t it be interesting to come back in 150 years and see how our era is described.
Suzanne, One of the major difficulties for authors of historical fiction is to make our character;’s thoughts, actions, and even words contemporary with their times and yet readable and entertaining for readers in our times. I read books about Lincoln’s wit and wisdom where the author tries to “modernize” his language and loses the style and humor of what Lincoln said.
Just to continue Warren’s metaphor (and, perhaps, belabor the point), I wouldn’t want an 1858 blacksmith touching a horse of mine. Egads.
Also, when you live long enough, you watch standards shift anyway.
Thanks for tracking Lincoln’s record for us, Warren.
Warren, I’ve had the same experience. It’s like trying to modernize Shakespeare.
when you live long enough, you watch standards shift
Holy mackerel, Rhonda, I’m already saying to my sons, “Now, when I was your age…”
Posted on behalf of Marilyn Kemp:
My own ancestors were abolitionists in MA who fought and died, not for the union, but to end slavery. I’m certain the Civil War changed Lincoln in many profound ways; if he was prejudiced early in life he was not so by the end of the Civil War.
Marilyn aka: M.E . Kemp, writer of historical mysteries
I had a friend who died a few years ago who shook hands with Orville Wright and later in his life with Neil Armstrong. I shook hands with a man who shook hands with a man who shook hands with jessie James. Times are constantly changing
Good point, Marilyn,
The Civil War profoundly changed Lincoln among many others. He did not immediately promote ending slavery as a justification for the war. Some slave-holding states fought for the union. Over time his understanding changed and he came to see ending slavery as a necessary outcome of the war. Despite what those who rewrite history say, he was always morally against slavery. -“If slavery is not wrong than nothing is wrong.”
I had a friend who died a few years ago who shook hands with Orville Wright and later in his life with Neil Armstrong.
Now that’s cool.
Despite what those who rewrite history say, [Lincoln] was always morally against slavery.
So were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. During their lifetimes, however, neither man could get around the financial barrier to freeing all of his own slaves.
Suzanne, You’re right. Jefferson tried to limit slavery one way or another about a dozen times during his lifetime. His initial version of the Declaration of Independence he blamed the King of England for slavery. Lincoln based his essential political views on the Declaration of Independence.
Isn’t that just like every president? Blame the bad stuff on an earlier set of politicians!
Off topic
Suzanne,
Congratulations on on your great reviews on Amazon! You deserve them.
Thanks! My sales have skyrocketed with the 5-star rating of Paper Woman yesterday from Red Adept Reviews.
Thanks for the excellent perspective on Abraham Lincoln, Warren.
Ironically all my “heroes” have been taking it on the chin a great deal these past couple months – Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and Lincoln to name a few…
I think all I’ve come to realize is that we have a tendency, in our current evolutionary state, to regard history with a very quixotic gaze for some reason. I know that I consider myself generally a “good” person – i.e. Not out to really hurt anyone with force or intention – but I can still say and do some pretty hurtful things to those I love in the heat of the moment. I don’t understand then, why we expect our “heroes” and “heroines” to be so much more than we, ourselves, are actually capable of. Perhaps its because we also see what great evil we’re capable of and we need to believe in “people” with “hero-like” morality and behavior to balance out just how repugnant we seem to be on the other end.
I do know one thing, I wish we’d have frank, brutally frank if necessary, discussions about race and why it continues to be such an issue though – best way I know to take the p*ss of anything is to talk about it honestly, earnestly and not be shy about it.
It’s funny, my biggest take away from this whole topic is, “Later, that same day…”