Obama and Abraham
Barack Obama is actually getting a scolding for this thoughtful essay on Lincoln in Time magazine. The offending passage seems to be this one:
Decision '08 does what Obama suggests, and cites the entire document, then wonders,
I think Obama made a mistake. Instead of inviting people to simply read the proclamation, he should have invited them to read it in context: The Northern government was freeing slaves only in those places in active rebellion against it. In other words, it only "freed" slaves in the places where the government had no authority to enforce the proclamation.
So far from "quite literally" freeing the slaves, it didn't free a single one of them. And it continued in bondage the slaves Lincoln did have the physical power (if not the legal authority) to set free, those of the northern border states. But that would have been a dangerous and unpopular policy. Lincoln was playing to win the war, with emancipation or without it.
As for the rest of it, I think Obama reads Lincoln's character aright. Lincoln was ahead of almost every other white American of his day in sympathy for blacks and dislike of slavery. Yet even at his best moments he was a racist -- by modern definitions -- and he was a politician who knew he couldn't get too far ahead of the voters on these touchy matters.
Personally, Abraham Lincoln was an avid colonizationist. Though neglected by historians, the American Colonization Society was vastly more popular with ante-bellum Northerners than abolition societies. Its leading men included clergy, college presidents, and politicians of all parties. The colonizationists thought the solution to slavery and race problems in America was to send the blacks away, either back to Africa or to some third place in the Caribbean or Latin America.
Lincoln touted colonization in his annual messages to Congress in 1861 and '62, in his appeal to border-state representatives for compensated emancipation (July 12, 1862), and in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (Sept. 22, 1862). In 1861, addressing Congress, he mentioned contraband slaves who had fallen into the hands of Northern troops, as well as the possibility of border states emancipating their slaves. He advocated that “steps be taken for colonizing both classes, (or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence), at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, -- whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.” A year later, he told Congress, “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”
In his “Speech on the Dred Scott decision” (June 26, 1857), he had scolded both parties for not taking up the cause:
Perhaps his most extensive, and infamous, statement on the topic was the Aug. 14, 1862, lecture to a group of Northern black leaders in Washington.
And so forth. Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, had his eye on the Caribbean basin, which he, Lincoln, and other cabinet members thought was the ideal place to colonize emancipated slaves. Congress set aside $600,000 for this, and during the Civil War the U.S. also was exploring likely spots in Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica -- not always with the permission of the national governments. Yet the second colonization movement was as much a failure as the first had been. A projected African-American colony at Chiriqui on the Isthmus of Panama fell through. In 1863 some 450 American blacks were settled at Isle a Vache in Haiti, but it was a debacle and starvation and smallpox wiped them out.
Still, as I look at his picture, it is the man and not the icon that speaks to me. I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice.
Decision '08 does what Obama suggests, and cites the entire document, then wonders,
Sounds pretty unambigious to me; I'm not quite sure what Obama's beef with this is: the wording wasn't flowery enough? Beats me ... in any event, I think Lincoln's reputation will survive Obama's curiously tepid response. It seems to me, in a time of war, that a military document proclaiming freedom would be worth far more than a ringing speech calling for justice. Regardless of the motivation, this document quite literally freed the slaves, or most of them; that it took generations for the seed he planted to bear fruit can hardly be layed at the feet of Lincoln.
I think Obama made a mistake. Instead of inviting people to simply read the proclamation, he should have invited them to read it in context: The Northern government was freeing slaves only in those places in active rebellion against it. In other words, it only "freed" slaves in the places where the government had no authority to enforce the proclamation.
So far from "quite literally" freeing the slaves, it didn't free a single one of them. And it continued in bondage the slaves Lincoln did have the physical power (if not the legal authority) to set free, those of the northern border states. But that would have been a dangerous and unpopular policy. Lincoln was playing to win the war, with emancipation or without it.
As for the rest of it, I think Obama reads Lincoln's character aright. Lincoln was ahead of almost every other white American of his day in sympathy for blacks and dislike of slavery. Yet even at his best moments he was a racist -- by modern definitions -- and he was a politician who knew he couldn't get too far ahead of the voters on these touchy matters.
Personally, Abraham Lincoln was an avid colonizationist. Though neglected by historians, the American Colonization Society was vastly more popular with ante-bellum Northerners than abolition societies. Its leading men included clergy, college presidents, and politicians of all parties. The colonizationists thought the solution to slavery and race problems in America was to send the blacks away, either back to Africa or to some third place in the Caribbean or Latin America.
Lincoln touted colonization in his annual messages to Congress in 1861 and '62, in his appeal to border-state representatives for compensated emancipation (July 12, 1862), and in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (Sept. 22, 1862). In 1861, addressing Congress, he mentioned contraband slaves who had fallen into the hands of Northern troops, as well as the possibility of border states emancipating their slaves. He advocated that “steps be taken for colonizing both classes, (or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence), at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, -- whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.” A year later, he told Congress, “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.”
In his “Speech on the Dred Scott decision” (June 26, 1857), he had scolded both parties for not taking up the cause:
I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation.
Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.
Perhaps his most extensive, and infamous, statement on the topic was the Aug. 14, 1862, lecture to a group of Northern black leaders in Washington.
I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.
It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case. But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves.
There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.
And so forth. Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, had his eye on the Caribbean basin, which he, Lincoln, and other cabinet members thought was the ideal place to colonize emancipated slaves. Congress set aside $600,000 for this, and during the Civil War the U.S. also was exploring likely spots in Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica -- not always with the permission of the national governments. Yet the second colonization movement was as much a failure as the first had been. A projected African-American colony at Chiriqui on the Isthmus of Panama fell through. In 1863 some 450 American blacks were settled at Isle a Vache in Haiti, but it was a debacle and starvation and smallpox wiped them out.
