2 votes

The Democrats' beloved Republican, Lincoln, was a horrible white supremacist

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that 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; and 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” — Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145–146.)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Day the Constitution Died

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution died on April 9th, 1864. An amendment, without which, the Constitution would not have been ratified. The Anti-Federalists would never have agreed to the weakening of, or exclusion of, this amendment.

IMHO: The War of Northern Aggression -- (AKA improperly labled 'Civil War' as then South did not intend to take over the government they wished to seceed) -- and the subsiquent ratification of the 13th amendment, put an end to individual slavery and replaced it with the collective slavery we all enjoy today.

For that you can thank Abraham Lincoln...

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

This isn't a good argument to

This isn't a good argument to make I'll explain why.

When someone says "Oh I'm not voting for Paul because he's a racist." (for the record I've never heard anyone say this.. but lets say they did)

Your response should not be "Well Lincoln was worse!" because that confirms the premise that Paul is a racist in the argument.

A much better argument to

A much better argument to make is ask them if he is a racist then why was all his raciest statements only in this one newsletter (that he says he did not write) and not in everything else such as his books, speeches and documentaries?

And sorry if I missed your point in the OP.

Who said it's an argument for Paul?

.

This is a very dumb

This is a very dumb argument.

For his time, Lincoln had incredibly progressive views on race.

By comparison Thomas Jefferson, the hero of the Tea Party and libertarians, was an incredible racist who used government power to subjugate people based on their skin color.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

False

Do yourself a favor and read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. But first, you also got a couple things wrong on TJ:

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."

Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.

As historian David Brion Davis noted, if Jefferson had died in 1785, he would be remembered as an antislavery hero, as "one of the first statesmen anywhere to advocate concrete measures for eradicating slavery." After that time, however, there came a "thundering silence." Jefferson made no public statements on American slavery nor did he take any significant public action to change the course of his state or his nation.

Countless articles and even entire books have been written trying to explain the contradictions between Jefferson's words and actions in regard to slavery. His views on race, which he first broadcast in his Notes on the State of Virginia in 1785, unquestionably affected his behavior. His belief in the inferiority of blacks, coupled with their presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson's emancipation scheme. These convictions were exacerbated by the bloody revolution in Haiti and an aborted rebellion of slaves and free blacks in Virginia in 1800.

While slavery remained the law of the land, Jefferson struggled to make ownership of humans compatible with the new ideas of the era of revolutions. By creating a moral and social distance between himself and enslaved people, by pushing them down the "scale of beings," he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection. As he wrote of slaves in 1814, "brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, [they] are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves." In the manner of other paternalistic slaveholders, he thus saw himself as the benevolent steward of the African Americans to whom he was bound in a relation of mutual dependency and obligation.

By 1820, during the political crisis that resulted in the Missouri Compromise, Jefferson had come to believe that the spread of slavery into the west&—its "diffusion"&—would prove beneficial to the slaves and hasten the end of the institution. The prospect of a geographical line based on principle running across the country, "like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror." He feared it could threaten the union and lead to civil war. As always, his primary concern was the stability of the nation he had helped to found.

I love how you call my

I love how you call my statement false, even though you don't disprove it.

Jefferson owned slaves, and the fact that he justified that by thinking of Blacks as sub-human is even worse.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I did disprove it. Your statements are false hyperbole

"...he could consider himself as the "father" of "children" who needed his protection...In the manner of other paternalistic slaveholders, he thus saw himself as the benevolent steward of the African Americans to whom he was bound in a relation of mutual dependency and obligation." He did not see anyone as sub-human.

Jefferson lived in a slave-owning society. Slavery, or indentured servitude, was the primary means of production in the agriculture and textile industries. And this wasn't just America, it was all over the world for thousands of years. Damning Jefferson for owning slaves is like being a Monday morning quarterback. The economic evolution away from slavery to voluntary paid labor was not yet upon humanity itself, so you're basically just damning the founders because of the period of time in which they lived. Your disdain should be spread over all of humankind, I guess, including many parts of the world even today. They had to compete and survive, it isn't like they could turn slavery off like a switch. Britain, France, etc, would have crushed them economically if they had done that. But most of the founders were pretty clear in their writings that they abhorred the practice of slavery. It was against the core tenets of libertarianism and classical liberalism, which was the driving philosophy behind the first nation to embrace the ideas of individual freedom. They knew the days of owning other humans had the best chance of ending right here in their new country.

It's also sad that Lincoln had to invade the South and destroy the Constitution over his corrupt tarrifs and railroad special interests. We're sold the line about it being over slavery. That premise has been debunked and is foolish to still be believed. The rest of the world was able to move away from the indentured servitude model without any shots being fired. 13 countries did it prior to the War Between the States. Even the abolitionists of the time were damning Lincoln for hijacking the banner of emancipation for his political power war. Read Lysander Spooner.

The majority of the countries

The majority of the countries that abolished slavery without a conflict did it through forcibly purchasing the slaves from the slaveowners. The US slaveholders had no desire for that too happen. Doing so would have been a violation of the 5th amendment anyways.

You fail to understand my main point. Condemning Lincoln for being racist, a very popular view at the time, is like condemning Jefferson or the founders for being slave-owners...that was just the way it is. You have to consider their beliefs in the context of their time period.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

C'mon, guy...

Some bought them, some did not. The economics of production was phasing it out. There were plenty in the South that were catching on to it and would have taken the money. The buy-out option WAS presented to Lincoln. He chose not to attempt it. He wanted the war to destroy the 9th and 10th amendments, force a railroad through the South and realize Hamilton and Clay's "American System". And don't bring on the 5th Amendment. Lincoln violated every single amendment and much of the body of the Constitution itself for his war. If he violated just one amendment to free the slaves, saving killing 600,000 young men, tens of thousands of civilian women, children and slaves, and decimating the country's economy and property, I might have been ok with it. No, he wanted that war and it's a tragedy that destroyed this nation.

Your original statement was that Lincoln had progressive views of slavery in his time. I recommended a book that would clearly illuminate otherwise. Your other statement was that Jefferson used laws to subjugate blacks. I debunked that. But your new main point is MY point on Jefferson. And it is NOT comparable to Lincoln. Lincoln was a terrible white supremacist. Ironically, General Robert E. Lee and many Southerners carried the "progressive" views of slavery of that time! He knew it could be abolished without violence and without sacrificing Constitutional principles.

Robert E. Lee's Opinion Regarding Slavery
This letter was written by Lee in response to a speech given by then President Pierce.
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

Hey buddy, remember when

Hey buddy, remember when Lincoln freed the slaves, he did so ONLY in the south. Lincoln himself owned slaves. The only reason Lincoln used the argument that slaves should be freed was to cripple the south which was dependent on slavery at the time. The above statement saying you are wrong...is correct.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

And of course the order was meaningless

And not a single slave was freed.

The North had hoped that this tactical measure would lead to a revolt, but it did not.

Republicae's picture

Actually, no Lincoln didn't,

Actually, no Lincoln didn't, he had the common Northern view. He was for mass deportation, his friend and later one of his appointees Hinton Helper wrote what was to become the "bible" of the Radical Republicans. In his two books, one entitled The Negro in Negroland, Helper called for the complete genocide of every Black, not only in this country but world-wide.

Now, if Lincoln and the Radical Republicans viewed Helper's ideology as the basic foundation of the Radical Republican policy, what does that really say about Lincoln? You think that is progressive for the time?

I've read just about every word Lincoln wrote or said and it is very, very evident that Lincoln was a hideous man among hideous men. Speaking of genocide, there was not only talk of exterminating the black race, but also every Southern man, woman and child. The Radical Republicans hated the Constitution and, in fact, spear-headed its destruction and the destruction of the Republic.

The fact is that it was the other President during the 1860s that actually had very progressive views on race, that President was the Honorable Jefferson Davis.

Oh, and the reasons why Democrats love Lincoln is because during the 1860s, the Radical Republicans were Liberals!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

"his friend and later one of

"his friend and later one of his appointees Hinton Helper wrote what was to become the 'bible' of the Radical Republicans."

Ah. So because Helper was his friend, Lincoln must have been a genocidist who wanted to kill all Blacks and Southerners?

Culpability by association. You should apply for a job on Fox News!

"Now, if Lincoln and the Radical Republicans viewed Helper's ideology as the basic foundation of the Radical Republican policy, what does that really say about Lincoln"

So Lincoln and the Radical Repugblicans viewed Helper's ideology as the foundation of their policy? Really? So where are the quotes from the many Radical Republicans stating as such? Where are the actions of them killing Blacks and exterminating them?

Ron Paul hired a guy who wrote incredibly racist things in his newsletter. By your logic, Ron Paul is an incredible racist.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Extermination? Sure thing.

"Where are the actions of them killing Blacks and exterminating them?"

Study Sherman and Sheridan's extermination marches across the South. Women, children, slaves, property. There was mercy for no one. Lincoln delighted in the reports.

Republicae's picture

Two books written by Helper

Two books written by Helper were considered to be the blueprint of the Radical Republican Party in dealing with both the South and the Black race, one was The Impending Crisis of the South, the other The Negro in Negroland. There were many, even among moderate Republicans, who thought both books extremely dangerous. Lincoln's words are strong enough, with or without Helper, Lincoln chose the policy of mass deportation over genocide, but the fact that Helper's message was so very popular within the Party of Lincoln should say quite a bit about Lincoln and his views, since they were indeed very similar to those of Helper even before Helper wrote the books. Helper's books were so highly thought of by the Republican Party Leadership that in 1857, the Republican Executive Committee Secretary William Chace made the suggestion the the funds remaining from the 1856 failed election be used to distribute Helper's books more widely. The Republican big dogs Thurlow Weed, William Seward, Edwin Morgan agreed to the distribution and Helper's "doctrines" became offical Republican policy!

In fact, it was Helper's books that are credited for helping Lincoln win the election. Helper's books were condensed and used as campaign pamplets for Lincoln! Thus the cupibility is substantial, it was not just a matter of Lincoln being aware of Helper and his ideology, it was, in fact a veiw held by Lincoln and many in the Radical Republican Party Elite! A grateful Lincoln rewared Helper with the appointment of Consul to Argentina!

The difference between Dr. Paul situation and Lincoln's are substantially different. Dr. Paul has stated that he did not know those writings existed until much later. Lincoln was well-aware of Helper, Helper's ideology and suggestions, many of which became the policies of the Lincoln Administration, such as the Liberian colony, as well as plans for other colonies, the plans for a railroad into South America for the specific purpose of mass deportation of evey person of color in this country and colonialization of those deported. All you have to do is read Lincoln to see just how close his views were to Helper. I dare say that we will never find such a comparison in the case of Dr. Paul and the "ghost-writer" of the Newletters....

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Well said

It's amazing to see these shifts. The real strings that run through our history are limited government vs. big government. The two parties have switched sides before and now we pretty much just have two parties who BOTH are for big government. Prior to 1900, I surely would have been a Democrat. Lincoln is my least liked President, followed by Wilson, Roosevelt I, Hoover and Roosevelt II, Johnson and all the rest after him.

I really like what I've learned about Grover Cleveland because of Dr. Paul. Prior to learning about him, my favorites were Jefferson and Jackson. But now, I think Cleveland might take the top spot.

From the great "emancipator's" first inaugural address

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Counter all "racist" newsletter attacks

with direct Lincoln quotes supporting racist segregation!

=======
RON PAUL 2012