"Look to Lincoln's Interactions with Black Americans to" Topic

…Understand His Racial Attitudes

"Six weeks after Lincoln's death, Frederick Douglass described him as "emphatically the black man's president, the first chief executive "to show any respect for the rights of a black man, or to acknowledge that he had any rights the white man ought to respect," the first one to rise "above the prejudices of his times and country." Lincoln treated each African American "not as a patron, but as an equal." Speaking of his own experience in 1864 when the president summoned him to the White House to discuss public affairs, Douglass concluded: "In daring to admit, nay in daring to invite a Negro to an audience at the White House, Mr. Lincoln did that which he knew would be offensive to the crowd and excite their ribaldry. It was saying to the country, I am President of the black people as well as the white, and I mean to respect their rights and feelings as men and as citizens." Echoing Douglass, historian David Reynolds has recently deemed the sixteenth president a "radical antiracist" and a "leftist abolitionist who loathed racism."

In The Black Man's President: Abraham Lincoln, African Americans, and the Pursuit of Racial Equality, I attempt to illustrate Lincoln's racial egalitarianism by describing his interactions with African Americans, both during his presidency and his Illinois years. As Reynolds recently observed, it is only by studying Lincoln's "personal interchange with black people" can "we see the complete falsity of the charges of innate racism that some have levelled at him over the years."…"

Main page

link

Armand

Lincoln was known as a kind man and race did not matter to him in dispensing this kindness. He has been unfairly characterized using "racist" remarks from younger days, or out of context. Booth's reaction to hearing him speak on black voting rights did seal his fate, and perhaps ours, as we could have used a few more years of Lincoln's gracious approach to the upcoming post war period.

+1 Tortorella

It's ironic that, for very different purposes, both racists and racial equality activists have joined hands in condemning Lincoln as a someone who was indifferent (if not downright hostile) to both slavery and the welfare of Black Americans.

Although it is indicative that racial insensitivity manifests many degrees and complexities, this illustrates another example of politics making for strange bedfellows.

Meanwhile, Booth is a perfect example of so many things that America needs to reconcile. His desire to get his way through assassination after the fact that triggered him was already decided. A belief that you should shut people up via violence; that it really isnt violence because you were "driven" to it by outrages from the other side.

A poorly thought out plan with no regard about the consequences for the recently surrendered confederacy or the nation. In many ways, this selfish man did something that most of the confederate intelligentsia never would've sanctioned or even considered.

Pretty much everyone is racist back then, certainly including Lincoln and most Republicans. Opposition to the expansion of slavery into the west had a racist component; keep the west as white man's country.

But Lincoln was certainly Great-Hearted (Magnanimous) and demonstrably capable of ignoring or overcoming his racial attitudes.

And yes, of course, Booth did the South the worst evil imaginable in killing Lincoln. But only if you read contemporary material do you understand how unpopular and even hated Lincoln was during his political career, among many in the north as well as, obviously, the south.

Ah! Contemporary material! This sounds like more revisionism, trying to tear down our country, change our history, indoctrinate our children, etc!!

Lincoln evolved, he was an imperfect visionary who gradually came to see beyond politics even though he practiced the art. He articulated the spiritual big picture, the soul of the United States as a concept, and what it might mean to lose it. Slavery could not exist as part of this vision.

@Tort as I have expressed before, revisionism is a slippery slope once you start down that hill. Someone or some group is going to find something wrong with everyone eventually.

Lincoln evolved, he was an imperfect visionary who gradually came to see beyond politics even though he practiced the art. He articulated the spiritual big picture, the soul of the United States as a concept, and what it might mean to lose it. Slavery could not exist as part of this vision.

Bill McClay says pretty much the same in LAND OF HOPE (Young Reader's Edition). Out July 4.

You are right 35th, you cannot please everyone. But I do respect historians who work to undo misleading or mistaken versions of history and apply research standards and primary sources to this work. Revision has been long overdue in some cases.

I am not talking about 1619 here, which is a series of essays by people from various walks of life. The historical accuracy of which has been rightly questioned here.

Revisionism is a double-edged blade, IMO, 35th. Some leaders revise history as they make it, leaving the truth to be uncovered later – by revisionists.

1619 is not solid academic history in key areas, as we have discussed here. It is a collection of essays. Not good revision.

If ever there was an example of history in need of revision has been the Lost Cause narrative. Grant has been a very deserving beneficiary of scholarly revision, for example.

Thanks!.

Armand

There was a time when the country needed to reconcile the ex-Confederates with the rest of the nation, and the Lost Cause helped with that, was even perhaps essential in that. We have different needs now.

This generation's revisionists are next generation's establishment. See Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Pretty much everyone is racist back then, certainly including Lincoln and most Republicans. Opposition to the expansion of slavery into the west had a racist component; keep the west as white man's country.

Well it was social darwinism and white man's burden and all that. But the prevalence of racism as a given makes Lincoln's evolution that much more admirable.

But Lincoln was certainly Great-Hearted (Magnanimous) and demonstrably capable of ignoring or overcoming his racial attitudes.

Well, racism isnt present in everyone evenly and people can and should change.

And yes, of course, Booth did the South the worst evil imaginable in killing Lincoln. But only if you read contemporary material do you understand how unpopular and even hated Lincoln was during his political career, among many in the north as well as, obviously, the south.

I'm sure Lincoln had a lot of enemies because he had a lot of radical ideas. I believe a lot of other presidents wouldve let the South go.

I see Booth as a pure form of what damage white supremacy can accomplish. This meek non entity was a shadow during the war but was driven to courage by the thought of losing a privilege he thought sacred. It's a lesson to whites that white supremacy is a rancorous, paranoid, mindless basilisk and will turn on anyone it believes doesnt completely support it.

Today the demand for white supremacy for exceeds the supply.

"Today the demand for white supremacy for exceeds the supply."

+1 Big Smile

B

Agreed +1

How do we know this, doc? You have me thinking, and data is the only way to find out….

WSEs continue to be considered the biggest threat to homeland security by federal agencies. This is mainly because the number of their attacks has been so much larger, especially in 2018-19, than from other groups, resulting in this 2020 finding.

But this may also mean they are simply more prone to violent acts, not that there are more of them. They have caused more fatalities as well. From a law enforcement point of view, this group commits more serious crimes than other foreign and domestic threat groups, so it gets more attention. Obviously, not counting 9/11. Based on numbers of incidents and severity, WSEs have to be a priority.

What I mean, of course, is that the fear of white supremacy far exceeds the real danger. As to numbers about violence, come on: the deaths by gunfire in Chicago probably exceeds the carnage by your WSE's each and every week, probably by an order of magnitude. That is mostly blacks killing blacks so it is ignored. (We had a flurry of gunfire here in Chattanooga a few days ago, with six shot. All gangbangers.)

link

Here's some numbers.

According to the FBI, in 2019 3299 whites were murder victims, of which 566 were killed by blacks. (In general most murders take place within a given ethnicity.)

Meanwhile 2906 blacks were killed, of which 246 were killed by whites and 2574 killed by blacks.

Bear in mind that whites are roughly three times more numerous within the population.

Today the demand for white supremacy for exceeds the supply.

With Booth, I was talking about how white supremacy gladly kills white people to keep its hierarchy in place. I dont remember mentioning numbers of white supremacists. A little paranoid here?

Then, right after I say it kills a lot of white people in the name of maintaining itself, you give stats about race and murder? What about Chicago? That's not helpful and it is its own problem. However, the idea that unless youre murdering a black person you cant be a white supremacist is very self delusional.

Incidentally, White supremacy includes anti-governemnt groups who want state's rights to make sure that minorities can continue to be bullied; really, that everyone can continue to be bullied. They see the US Government as interference in their vision of a society not based on merit but on kin or something similar.

The vast majority of the ideology is grounded in maintaining hierarchies and caste systems. It has no problem discriminating among white groups either. In fact, it's a never ending pecking order that we inherited from British society. White supremacy is about keeping privilege in place and doesnt have to involve physical violence.

What I mean, of course, is that the fear of white supremacy far exceeds the real danger.

Really? There have been an awful lot of white supremacy terror events recently. Frankly, I think it's the opposite and many white supremacist activities have historically been ignored and continue to be ignored.

Doc, do you ever hear anybody talk about "white on white crime"? You could say it's a serious problem!

I know where people get shot. The disproportionate number of black people who live in de facto segregated neighborhoods because of poverty is the reason for the numbers. As it was in many immigrant waves also. Gangs and warfare are as old as the hills.

Chicago is not ignored. It's numbers have slowly been getting better. It's a huge city with a lot of poverty. Everything from high infant mortality, malnutrition, truancy, gangs, to unemployment, decent housing, lack of medical care.

Most important, these kids do not kill each other because they are black.

You cannot compare this with white supremacy, where crimes are based sole on race hatred. Is does not get more scary than that.

Incidentally, White supremacy includes anti-governemnt groups who want state's rights to make sure that minorities can continue to be bullied; really, that everyone can continue to be bullied. They see the US Government as interference in their vision of a society not based on merit but on kin or something similar.

The vast majority of the ideology is grounded in maintaining hierarchies and caste systems. It has no problem discriminating among white groups either. In fact, it's a never ending pecking order that we inherited from British society. White supremacy is about keeping privilege in place and doesnt have to involve physical violence.

No, I do not believe so. Unless you are condemning all ethnocentrism. Good luck with that, as it is a human survival trait.

Pas, the opposition to, say, reverse discrimination is precisely that it is NOT based on merit.

I care not a whit about what color the physician is who treats me. I care very much whether he was an affirmative action graduate of medical school. As usual, you do not really understand those of us on my side.

Tort, I would not have to look very hard to find crimes based on race hatred by non-whites. More in recent decades, since they are being taught to hate Whitey.

I think we had better leave this one doc. Not really a TMP topic at this point, IMO.

Agreed.

Pas, the opposition to, say, reverse discrimination is precisely that it is NOT based on merit.

Are you talking about affirmative action? You know, accepting a handful of minority students doesnt mean they're taking something away from white students.

What makes you think it was based on merit before? What makes you think it cant be based on merit now?

Frankly, school boards didn't want any diversity at all until alumni started demanding it.

Also, you seem to be a great believer in symbols. When you have some members of a group able to achieve something it causes positive social movement. I hope you are not suggesting that when a minority gets a break it's an intolerable situation?

I care not a whit about what color the physician is who treats me. I care very much whether he was an affirmative action graduate of medical school. As usual, you do not really understand those of us on my side.

Again, why do you think a doctor who gets in because of affirmative action cant be a good doctor? What makes you think he will even treat you. maybe he/she stays in her community? What makes you think there arent quack doctors who arent accepted because of affirmative action?

As usual, you do not really understand those of us on my side.

I'm sorry, I didnt realize there was a side, I thought we were trying to fix some problems to have a better country? Remind me, what side are you on?

No, I do not believe so. Unless you are condemning all ethnocentrism. Good luck with that, as it is a human survival trait.

We may not eliminate it completely but it is good to be conscious that it exists and not accept it as a tacit fact of society.

Further that an instinct is neither logical nor civilized and doesnt have to be accepted. We have all sorts of instincts that we dont accept in society and we may never eliminate them but we continue to punish them. At a minimum it gets most people to think; meanwhile, the extremists get weeded out.

Pas, it is possible to change what 'like me" means, but you will never keep humans from treating people "like me" and "not like me" differently. If we are surrounded by people "not like me" -- speaking a language we do not understand, for example -- we cannot "read the room" and we will feel unsafe. Can't help it. It is a survival mechanism.

Now, my grandchildren's definition of "like me" does not involve skin color, for a number of reasons. And that is a good thing. But they are still uncomfortable around some types of humans, and I WANT THEM TO BE.

And so do you, I think.

Over the last ten years I have probably been treated by 20 different doctors, as I have multiple conditions and have had two surgeries. Haven't kept count, because it doesn't matter, but I'd guess at least a third were not white. And so what.

But you are wrong if you think an affirmative action admission to medical school does not harm someone -- the higher scoring person not of color who otherwise would have gotten in. It is the reverse of merit; it is privileging skin color over merit.

As to sides?
Takers and makers. Takers are all of those whose income comes from government, whose money is collected at gunpoint. (Don't believe that? Try not paying taxes and see what happens to you.) So we have a party of government: bureaucrats from public school teachers up through all the GS types. Plus all whose income comes from government transfer payments. If they make a majority, they can tax the rest of us to make themselves more and more wealthy. Lots of businesses now fall into this category as rent-seekers.

Then the rest of us, who create wealth and are taxed. We are supposed to get necessary government services like order and protection, but increasingly do not.

@Tort

Tort thought you might be interested. A couple of local sources. The last is what I heard this morning. I sort of follow weekend crime stats there. It is not getting better there. I will not travel in the city by car, without carrying a gun. I now go two hours out of my way to avoid it each year.

Subject: Chicago shootings: 47 shot, 9 fatally, in Memorial Day weekend violence across city, police say | abc7chicago.com


link

Subject: Chicago weekend shootings: 52 people shot in city over Memorial Day weekend – Chicago Sun-Times


link

it has been claimed that, in the USA currently, there are more people employed by government than by the private sector.

Interesting.

B

Nope, it's around 18% of the total at any given time, bad enough. But don't forget, all these people are part of the general economy, they buy stuff just like you. And that figure includes the military, spends a huge amount of tax dollars, employees millions. It's bases in Kentucky are a major component of the economy there.

Interestingly the top ten states for largest per capita number of government workers are Red states except Hawaii. In general these states tend to get more federal dollars in aid than they pay in taxes. That's how the system works. Hopefully this money makes to people in need in the less affluent states.

35th. I never think of these places as other than a war zone, going back years.

Cops are literally outgunned in many cases. Chicago is awash in firearms as the latest gang wars play out. Chicago has had other periods in history like this, but it is a huge city by comparison now and the scale of the war there is much larger. Too late to address any gun issues, that horse left the barn years ago. We have a never ending supply on the street. We would need a lot more resources to meet force with force, which I think just deepens the anger, but I don't know the answer.

According to HR Block about 1400 taxpayers out of 150 million were indicted by the IRS in 2015, before the IRS began to be downsized.

You have to add in those whose income is transfer payments. Also, academia is a monstrously subsidized cartel. Every time Feds raise student loans available, academy raises tuition to take it. Classic rent-seeking.

link

Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2] and potential national decline.

Attempts at capture of regulatory agencies to gain a coercive monopoly can result in advantages for rent-seekers in a market while imposing disadvantages on their uncorrupt competitors. This is one of many possible forms of rent-seeking behavior.

Pas, it is possible to change what 'like me" means, but you will never keep humans from treating people "like me" and "not like me" differently. If we are surrounded by people "not like me" -- speaking a language we do not understand, for example -- we cannot "read the room" and we will feel unsafe. Can't help it. It is a survival mechanism.

To the extent that I can follow you, it appears that you have a "baby and bathwater" approach to ethnocentrism. You can push against it and have some change without 100% elimination. I didnt realize that reform had to either be 100% effective before we try it, otherwise let's just keep what we have in place?

Over the last ten years I have probably been treated by 20 different doctors, as I have multiple conditions and have had two surgeries. Haven't kept count, because it doesn't matter, but I'd guess at least a third were not white. And so what.

You tell me, you're the one who brought it up.

I suppose, considering your concerns, you could always not go to a doctor you suspect isnt up to scratch.

But you are wrong if you think an affirmative action admission to medical school does not harm someone -- the higher scoring person not of color who otherwise would have gotten in. It is the reverse of merit; it is privileging skin color over merit.

Wait a second, where did you get this idea that things have to be 100% merit? And when the devil was it ever 100% merit? I'm talking about a blend which can include items such as character, diversity and other attributes. Test scores aren't the whole picture. Frankly, accepting a robot who studies around the clock with no people skills or personality might make a horrible doctor.

In any case, your medical school example is a poor one. With have a lack of doctors and medical personnel in general. No white person with a shred of talent is getting barred from medical school and no minority candidate is taking an opportunity out of their mouths. What makes you think they dont add extra seats for diversity?

Also medical school is difficult. I rather doubt a doctor of color tending to someone would be any less a doctor because someone might suspect they only got in because of skin color; they still have to put the work in. Any suspicion that a minority doctor must be substandard is coming from somewhere inside the skeptic's mind and has little basis in reality.

Why this is a concern of yours is anyone's guess. Youre not paying for it and even if you are, so are large numbers of disadvantaged families; why shouldnt they have some representation?

Incidentally, your "two way street" approach to racism is a bit too precious and severely warped. It's the sort of argument that people who can no longer discriminate against a group use to make sure a group that they dont like never get any benefits. Im sure that isnt what you mean but do you know they use that same line of thought?

Racism as a word isn't a monolith, it can be used to prefer candidates from outsider groups who've been harmed by being purposefully discriminated against. That's a benign form of racism and it is hardly a threat to the establishment.

Please explain the idea that I'm getting from you that things should be 100% unscrupulously fair? Where is this coming from exactly? Can you demonstrate in our history where this has taken place; I mean to provide a shining example?

I dont quite follow your rent taker thingy. I do get some amusement that your link claims that landlords and the police are some of the biggest social freeloaders.

Reality, as you are well aware, has a complexity beyond human understanding. Everything affects everything else; you can never change just one thing. I have made that exact point with reference to, say, slavery.

However, a rational analysis requires isolating a variable, and also often assuming that variable is at its maximum -- or at zero.

It is a necessary way of thinking about human affairs. It is the way economic analyses are mostly done. Of course we cannot put humans in a laboratory and run the same experiment over and over while we play with a variable. We have to imagine. Which is the reason "social science" isn't.

Not really what we were talking about here.

"Regulatory capture" is a long time common practice of large, wealthy business interests. For example, at Treasury there has long been a revolving door for accounting firm junior execs to get positions within that agency to write tax regs and policy. After a few years, they return to their firms and provide services to clients based on their having helped to create or facilitate better tax rates for them by writing the very laws that regulate the businesses.

Rent seeking is a loaded term that implies that those seeking assistance from the government will take every penny they can get but will provide no value in return. There is plenty of corruption, but also millions of people have been able to survive, improve knowledge and skills, strengthen the work force, and become self supporting consumers because of government assistance. That money ends up back into the economy somehow unless the 1% can get hold of it and squirrel it away. And they invest at least some of it themselves.

Again, some states need extra federal income, other states provide it. Imperfect and wasteful, yet also vital to our national health. The United States.

Tort, study the increases in student loan money from government and the increase in tuition costs.

If NYC gives tenants an extra $50 USD/month, rents will shortly rise about $50. USD Even with rent control, there are ways. You think academics are less greedy than landlords? In fact, between unpaid jocks who produce $millions and adjunct professors, universities are the most exploitive labor market in the country. Of course they are rent-seekers.

I did not say there weren't, doc! You forgot to mention the grad students teaching classes. Like military procurement, Medicare, and many other areas, there is plenty of cheating going on, much of it has become so institutionalized people don't even think about it.

Reality, as you are well aware, has a complexity beyond human understanding. Everything affects everything else; you can never change just one thing. I have made that exact point with reference to, say, slavery.

However, a rational analysis requires isolating a variable, and also often assuming that variable is at its maximum -- or at zero.

It is a necessary way of thinking about human affairs. It is the way economic analyses are mostly done. Of course we cannot put humans in a laboratory and run the same experiment over and over while we play with a variable. We have to imagine. Which is the reason "social science" isn't.

This could be a ways off from the article linked in the initial post of the thread, "Look to Lincoln's Interactions with Black Americans to Understand His Racial Attitudes". Hopefully it isn't really being said that Lincoln's attitudes towards blacks can't be understood. And it's got me wondering which variable is being isolated in on for analysis, if any.

I think that distraction is a way to avoid explaining why certain minorities who get into medical school get there only because of affirmative action and also not explain:

1. Why affirmative action is selection purely on skin color?

2. Why he might think that whites arent chosen on skin color all the time but only someone selected for non white skin color is an offensive or negative form of racism?

3. How affirmative action is "reverse discrimination" and taking opportunities out of the mouths of deserving whites, especially in a discipline like medicine where there is a huge shortage of American medical students.

Today the demand for white supremacy for exceeds the supply.

link

Looks like someone is ramping up production.

On the supply side no less.