Did Lincoln Really "Free" Blacks in the United States?

Hey ATS - I was having a discussion with a buddy (also white) the other day, and it got me thinking about something.

Quick Disclaimer Before I begin, I just want to say I don't think of myself as racist in any way. I fully believe all people should have the same rights and liberties, and that we are all connected to a greater whole and one in the same. I also believe that we should all be proud of who we are, as well as our individual culture or ethnicity.
So I'm having this discussion that led into wars, and then the civil war, and my buddy says the following... (paraphrasing)

"That war was all about money. The south was making much more money because of all it's exportable commodities such as cotton, tobacco, and hemp. They got sick of sending their tax dollars to the north, and said screw you guys, we are forming our own union, in order to keep their money, and have more money for themselves"

- This all seemed pretty logical to me, then he continued...

"So the north was like '[snip] no you wont', and they went to war, when the north won, Lincoln decided to free blacks and end slavery, because by doing so, it would basically destroy the south's labor force, thus rendering them inept to continue any rebellion in the near future"

- Well that's sure as hell not what they teach in the history books!


So all this got me thinking. I have yet to do any research into this claim, this was just yesterday, and I wanted to post my thoughts on it before hand, and maybe get some thoughts from some ATSers. Here are my thoughts....

First off, I think that this a very logical claim, and worth looking into. I'm fully aware that the victors of war get to write the history books, and that not all of what they teach in the public school system is completely accurate.

But if this claim of motivation behind Lincoln's decision is true, what I kind of find to be [snip]'d up is this...

Blacks in this country weren't really "free" after the civil war, they didn't really get their freedoms until the civil rights movement after the middle of the 20th century right? And the blacks in this country are responsible for that, not some white guy from the 19th century. People like MLK Jr. are the ones that truly set blacks in the United States free. But if you ask a random person "who freed blacks in the United States", they'll probably say "Lincoln".

So the question I'm left with is this. Is Lincoln truly worthy of being someone who is taught as someone who was responsible for blacks gaining freedom in this country? And what are the thoughts of African Americans about Lincoln?

What are your thoughts, I would love to hear them. I would also love to hear some thoughts from the African American community about this one.

Personally, as a white guy, if my buds claim about Lincoln's motivation is correct, I kind of think it's a little embarrassing to whites.

Lincoln "freed" the slaves just as much as Barack Obama killed racism. It's not so much that he freed them, what he did was draw enough attention to the subject to pave the way for people like MLK and things like civil rights. IMHO.

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
Barack Obama killed racism.

Are you serious ? You should mean Obama created more racism, I don't remember flash mobs under Bush.

I learned in my AP history class that the proclamation of emancipation only freed slaves in the south. It didn't actually free slaves in the north.
oh, and the war wasn't actually over slavery. That was just brought up near the middle to end of the war.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


Well I know Obama didn't end racism, which I personally think will always exist. So I assume you're telling me you don't think Lincoln "freed" the slaves.

Well, we know he "freed" the slaves, by ending slavery. But I think we could agree he didn't "free" blacks in america.

As for shedding light on it... I dunno about that. I mean, we're talking a 100 year gap. I'm not too sure the whites in this country dwelt on the issue in the early 20th century. Though I'm not a civil rights history buff, so I could be wrong.

reply to post by Ghost375


That would make logical sense if the motivation was to keep the south from rebelling imo.

ETAThat's also something I was completely unaware of. I thinks I gots me sum lerning to do. It's funny how stuff like this I didn't really give a crap about when I was young, the older I get the more interested I become in it. Damn.... now i feel old

The republican party was formed with opposition to slavery as a key issue. However, Lincoln did not fight the civil war to free the slaves. Your friend is correct in many ways. The north had the manufacturing base and was in direct competition with Europe. US manufacturers were just starting out and could not match European prices/quality. Thus the north wanted tariffs to balance the equation. The south did not want tariffs which would increase the price and reduce their competitiveness in the commodities markets. Aside from that, old fashioned slavery was basically doomed with the invention of the cotton gin and other devices which made bulk physical labor much less important. TPTB needed new ways to enslave not just the blacks, but all of us. That is another thread though.

reply to post by Lighterside


The Civil War was fought because the South succeeded from the Union. The South succeeded from the Union over States' Rights issues. ONE of those issues that was being forced on the South was the freeing of slaves. While Abraham Lincoln did not approve of the institution of slavery, he DEFINITELY did NOT view the Black race as equal to the White race.

Abraham Lincoln was a Separatist and White Supremist. He wanted to send all of the Blacks to Central America to colonize for the Union. He even put forth a constitutional amendment to ban Blacks in America. He was all for Black "Resettlement". This is a quote from one of his speeches:

“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; 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…

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.” — Abraham Lincoln

And Barak Obama wanted to use the Lincoln bible at his coronation.. uh, inauguration.

More:

afpakwar.com...

“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Wow, he really said that? Damn! Snap-diggity, I'm pretty shocked to say the least. Can you source that for me? Or at least the name of the speech?

ETA Thank you!

Originally posted by Lighterside
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Wow, he really said that? Damn! Snap-diggity, I'm pretty shocked to say the least. Can you source that for me? Or at least the name of the speech?

I don't know where he got it, but here

Lincoln actually proposed making slavery permanent at on point by way of Constitutional amendment. He wasn't all about freeing the slaves, he needed a reason to continue a war he should have never started.

www.lewrockwell.com...

Originally posted by Lighterside
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Wow, he really said that? Damn! Snap-diggity, I'm pretty shocked to say the least. Can you source that for me? Or at least the name of the speech?

The only reason Lincoln wanted to free the slaves was to support colonization.

afpakwar.com...

The Republican program of restricting slavery to where it presently existed, he said, had the long-range benefit of denying to slave holders an opportunity to sell their surplus bondsmen at high prices in new slave territories, and thus encouraged them to support a process of gradual emancipation involving resettlement of the excess outside of the country.

Just a little different from what's taught in History class, huh?

No...he woke up after a 3 day drunk and said"I freed who"?

Well I know when I was in school (public), Lincoln was taught to us almost as if he was some american made deity, ya know? I don't know how they teach about it now (I have no kids), but looking at some of this info posted, I'm kinda thinking it's a little disgusting to be teaching kids in the same manor, especially with classrooms that have African American kids in them.

Kind of like feeding chickens, chopped up chicken parts Pretty disgusting.

reply to post by Lighterside

If you would like to read the southern states Declaration of Causes of Secession from South Carolina - Georgia etc. They all stress sovereignty of state rights and almost immediately defend the insitution of slavery.

As far as economics of slavery and the South versus the North it's no contest. The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860. The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North.


You and friend have to brush up on your Civil War Timeline - The Civil War started Jan 1861' and Lincoln did not officially become president until his Inauguration which happened in March 1861'. Even before Lincoln took office the South had already seceded from the Union & Feb 1861 formed a governmet & seized Federal forts.
Not all slave states seceded with the Confederacy. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri stayed in the Union.
Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1863' that 'freed the slaves' the US congress passed two pieces of legislation involving freedom of slaves.
In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free.
In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free.
January 1863 -- Emancipation Proclamation
Following Lincolns re-election in Nov, 1864' and seven days after the surrender of the Confederacy April 9, 1865' Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln never had a chance to oversee his post Civil War policys towards the South & post Civil War reconstruction.

reply to post by Lighterside
The victors write the history. You do know that, right?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Lincoln actually proposed making slavery permanent at on point by way of Constitutional amendment. He wasn't all about freeing the slaves, he needed a reason to continue a war he should have never started.

www.lewrockwell.com...

edit on 10-8-2011 by adifferentbreed because: Added link

A war he started? Did you forget about the Confederacy attacking Fort Sumter which started the civil war. Also it really didn't help matters when the south seceded from the north.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


And the 'losers' make the first revision.

The war was - of course - about money/control/power.

Lincoln did not believe blacks were equal to whites - - and did suggest shipping them back to Africa.

However - Lincoln was also a very "Godly" man - - and did not believe one man had the right to own another man. His moral conscious of "man owning man" probably did influence his decision.

As one prominent black woman stated: "I'll take the baby steps".

I thought everyone knew the war had almost nothing to do with slavery. Guess those few years in private schools may have paid (payed? paied?) off somewhat.

It was my understanding that freeing the slaves was essentially an act of war, crippling the South's production of goods etc. I'm certainly glad they were freed, but I doubt too many on either side of that conflict were all that happy about it at the time.