It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Lincoln a racist?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I was watching a documentary on PBS last night, and also did a little research this morning, and it turns out, if the facts presented are true, that Abraham Lincoln may have not been as heroic as many think.

It has been presented that he was in fact somewhat of a racist...


Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.

Key to Bennett's thesis is the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation which, Bennett argues, Lincoln was forced into issuing by the powerful abolitionist wing of his own party. Bennett asserts that Lincoln carefully worded the document to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave.


Lincoln a Racist?

It turns out that Lincoln only freed the southern slaves in order to cripple the southern armies during the civil war. He also wanted to sent all the freed slaves out of the country, to colonies in South America.

Thoughts? Was he a racist, or was this just the normal thinking of the time?




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
He was an early globalist and some say a fringe satanist.

He's on record in his letters saying he would do anything to preserve the union and didnt concern himself one way or the other with slavery. If keeping slaves would save the union he'd support that, if freeing them would save the union he'd support that, if shipping them to another country would save the union he'd do that, and if tossing them all in a mass grave would save the union he'd support that too.

His only concern was maintaining federal dominion. Albeit, for a federal dynasty since he refused foreign finding for the war effort but a totalitarian rule nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Lincoln was racially appropriate for his time. Considering that women didn't even have the right to vote then, you have to consider what their perspective on "rights' is.

So they country was still being dominated by white males.


It is often speculated that women were only given the right to vote in order for white people to have enough power to keep minorities out.


It is hard to remember what society was like before the uptight PC controls were put in.

In the day. Lincoln defending African American freedom, would of been advanced, it would be like us considering the man who had two babies to be perfectly in the right. So it would of seem extreme at the time.

Also, the North owned slaves. People think it was the south especially but it wasn't. It was just propagandized as so. The largest number of slaves under one family was a family in Connecticut.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
It is well documented he held racist views, the thing that makes Lincoln stand out more is that despite those views he was able to change them and actually do the right thing siding with humanity and decency.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Abraham Lincoln was seeking knowledge and learning things along the way, before being a President and while being President until he was assassinated. At least he was willing to change his views and learn from his mistakes. He knew that if slavery wasn't abolished the United States soon would be. He believed that this country could change and with his help it has. He forever will be a great President and a great man.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
He is the most overrated president in our history.

He failed to keep the United States from dissolving into armed conflict.
He allowed incompetent generals to run his army.
He refused to trade POW's, leading to massive concentration camps.
He instituted a draft, forcing people to fight against their will.

But worst of all, he took away the states ability to govern themselves.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
He was an early globalist and some say a fringe satanist.

He's on record in his letters saying he would do anything to preserve the union and didnt concern himself one way or the other with slavery. If keeping slaves would save the union he'd support that, if freeing them would save the union he'd support that, if shipping them to another country would save the union he'd do that, and if tossing them all in a mass grave would save the union he'd support that too.

His only concern was maintaining federal dominion. Albeit, for a federal dynasty since he refused foreign finding for the war effort but a totalitarian rule nonetheless.


A fringe satanist? You need to do a little more reading up on Lincoln.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
He had to free the slaves as a military move. The Confederates were looking to ally with Great Britain and get English troops to help fight the Union. They were already supplying the Confederate troops with arms and ammunition.

He know that if the South lost its slaves it economy would suffer even worse because most of the men were at war. He also knew GB couldn't ally with a force that supported slavery.

So if he made the USA a free country, the South would have to do the same to gain support from Britain, but they couldn't afford to let there slaves go. He basically only did it to bleed out the South and keep GB out of the war.

He didn't want to on a personal level.

Also General Longstreet made the quote, "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Ft. Sumter".

That would have changed the entire course of the war.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
He was an early globalist and some say a fringe satanist.
He's on record in his letters saying he would do anything to preserve the union and didn't concern himself one way or the other with slavery. If keeping slaves would save the union he'd support that, if freeing them would save the union he'd support that, if shipping them to another country would save the union he'd do that, and if tossing them all in a mass grave would save the union he'd support that too.


He was the Commander & Chief and did what he had to do to win the war. Just as the soldiers who fought and died did to win. He was focused on the task at hand and that was to restore and Unite the states from a war that caused 620,000 deaths. When you're a commander in a war you don't concern yourself about any matters but the war. You forget that Abraham Lincoln was on the Northern side of the war where there was anti-slavery laws in place to stop the spread of it in the country. He knew deep down that a slaved nation would be disaster.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye You forget that Abraham Lincoln was on the Northern side of the war where there was anti-slavery laws in place to stop the spread of it in the country.


He was on the federal side. The North was raking in the cash thanks to industrialization and went along with the federal cause to ensure those profits would keep on coming.

The North in the Civil War was a precursor to the Military Industrial Complex. By this point in history slavery was a moot point as it was on its way out anyway with rebellions and runaways more common than ever and international pressures put on the U.S. to knock it off. Without giving the fed total control over the states, without losing hundreds of thousands of lives, without solidifying federal totalitarianism the way he did slavery would have been obsolete most likely within the same time frame as the war itself but because as an institution it would have dissolved naturally and without force vis a vi tyrant the after affects of "legal" civil rights infringements would not have been nearly as severe as they were.

Getting shot in the back of the head was perhaps too good for that man.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yeah the slaves were running North. The south was trying to spread slavery but the North said no. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery and you can't take that away from him and all the soldiers who fought against the expansion. Abraham had his faults just like everybody else back then but he took a pen and signed the Emancipation Proclamation that was followed by the ratification of the 13th amendment that put an end to slavery everywhere. And it put an end to the possibility of Britain and France becoming part of this nation.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You guys really need to read my post above.

Slavery was popular in the north as well, sorry Liberal history books don't teach that like they should. Lincoln didn't care about slaves being free, and the north wasn't fighting over slavery.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Well this is the deal.

He was raised in time's where everyone disliked black's...They was inferior.

His parents would have beat that in his head...
But he still did the right thing in the end..SO why does it matter if he might have been a little bit.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Yes Lincoln was looking out for the US's best interest,seems the south were against it,he was a great president,funny how the south is so predjudiced still,guess they hold a grudge



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Now that I've researched more and have talked to friends about Lincoln I've got a different view of him. He cared about the union not the states. He made for the first time a government with more power and took away the power of the states. He went against what the union actually stood for by doing this and in return we got an 800 pound gorilla for a government. He didn't care about the slaves only the power. This in my opinion goes against the Constitution. I admit when I'm wrong about something and I'm going to educate myself some more on this subject. I'm denying my own ignorants on this one.


[edit on 2/13/2009 by Solarskye]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join