Talk:Abraham Lincoln and slavery

I've seen this here & in the Lincoln article

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:29, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Lincoln's speech on 8/17/58 says this, distinguishing political rights (i.e. things like voting and serving on juries) from natural rights.

"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 - 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 added this quote into the article itself, so that should resolve any problemsRangerdude 07:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln's Inconsistencies

The simple statement that Lincoln's views on slavery and race are inconsistent is a matter of fact, not a POV. A POV is something that gets disagreed about and is normally an opinion of some sort. With Lincoln though it is widely acknowledged that he took the different views discussed in this article on slavery. It is also widely admitted that he was NOT a complete abolitionist and often did things that were contrary to abolition (like preventing his generals from freeing slaves early in the war). Acknowledging those facts to be true and then using weasil words to get around stating the obvious consequence of them - Lincoln's inconsistency - makes for a weak article whose body (which contains extensive evidence of Lincoln's inconsistencies) is itself inconsistent with its header (which dances around the issue via weasil words). If it looks and quacks like a duck call it a duck.Rangerdude 18:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Inconsistent perhaps to hobgoblins. Facts are statements "almost universally" agreed upon. Many people do NOT think it was inconsistent to oppose slavery yet say the constitution prohibits its non-voluntary abolition by the federal gov't - To attribute inconsistency in the same sentence as that is presented is clearly POV

Name-calling is a POV, Jim. Inconsistency, or the lack of consistency, is defined as the absence of uniformity and congruence between successive events. When applied to a person's beliefs it means simply that he changed his position (or flip flopped) on the issue he is said to be inconsistent on. Lincoln very clearly changed his mind on slavery, going from a willingness to tolerate it where it existed and only oppose it in the territories to becoming an outright supporter of emancipation. Thus he was NOT a consistent advocate of abolition in his lifetime, making him inconsistent.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are disputes over the consistency of the following views he held at one time or another.

He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves and that they had an inalienable right to liberty — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are fairly easily shown to be not inconsistent at all. --JimWae 18:25, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

That list is very incomplete. It is inescapable though that Lincoln moved from opposing slavery only in the territories to favoring its outright abolition. Thus his position in 1861 is not in congruence with his position in 1865, and that is the very definition of inconsistency.Rangerdude 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is less POV to say there is a debate about how consistent his views are than to say that he WAS inconsistent - especially when that claim is made in a sentence that also introduces something that clearly is NOT inconsistent.

If his views can be shown to be consistent, they are not inconsistent. To insist on your wording is to insist on presenting an agenda as fact. --JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC).

Then the question is to WHAT DEGREE was he inconsistent, not whether he was inconsistent at all. By indicating that there is disagreement over the extent of his inconsistency you necessarily admit that there was SOME inconsistency in what he did and said (and that much is obvious considering that he changed positions on slavery from opposing it in the territories to full abolition). Furthermore, that *some* of his views can be shown consistent does NOT prove that all of them are consistent. It only takes one example of him changing positions (and indisputably he that did on abolition - a very major issue) to show inconsistency. Whether or not he was inconsistent beyond that is debatable, but that is all a question of degree. Rangerdude 19:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, people's opinions do change over time. In fact they are always changing. This harping on about inconsistancy seems a bit silly when, because most it is taking place over years, 'development' is probably a better way to describe it. Additionally, the man WAS a politician, and a fairly canny one at that, something which would certainly color how he pitched things to the public and detractors, which would also explain changes in public statements over time (i.e. adjusting to the public mood). Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization

Jim - You are making edits to the colonization section that are your own personal speculation and some that are simply not true at all. This suggests to me that either you are advancing a viewpoint, or you are unfamiliar with the historical material about this subject and thus should not be editing it until you familiarize yourself to a more thorough degree. Let's consider your edits:

1. "After the setbacks in Panama and Haiti, there were no active plans for colonization for over a year."

This is simply not true. The Panama and Haiti plans fell through in 1862 and 1863, but the Colonization Office under Mitchell remained open and active throughout the next year. Mitchell issued a colonization report to Lincoln dated June 1864, and this was in response to a resolution by the Senate in March 1864 seeking to formulate colonization policy.

2. "Lincoln was in the process of renewing plans for colonization on a smaller scale during his second term."

This is pure speculation on your part. We do not know whether Lincoln's second term colonization plan would've been on a "smaller scale" than the first or the exact details of how they were going to do it. Butler says that Lincoln planned to enlist every ship in the navy for the transport, which I don't think is small scale by any measure.

3. " - either forgotten about or ruled out as unworkable."

Again this is blind speculation on your part. Butler was forming the plan when Lincoln died. Lincoln also had an agent down in Colombia at the time of his death to make negotiations there. But when the assassination happened everything stopped. Butler ceased pursuing the plan and the diplomat was recalled to Washington. The plan simply was abandoned. No evidence exists though that it was deemed "unworkable."

Rangerdude 19:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the "forgotten about" is speculation that has been there for months. Colonization was abandoned not because it was forgotten, but because it was unpopular & unworkable.

No Jim. It was abandoned because the most powerful and prominent advocate of it - Lincoln - died. Different presidents have different agendas, but Johnson never said "Lincoln's colonization plan can't be done so we're dropping it." It simply wasn't a priority anymore.

read the link in article for evidence of abandonment by Lincoln

That article doesn't offer much of any evidence of abandoning anything - only a vague diary entry with no context or specifics. The records of Congress, however, are very clear that in March 1864 the Senate inquired about colonization and in June 1864 Mitchell gave Lincoln a report on it.

sending some troops to Panama is smaller scale than sending 4 million out of the country

--JimWae 19:41, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Butler indicates that the troops - which numbered in the hundreds of thousands - were to be sent first. He hints that their families would've followed, but since the policy was never developed due to Lincoln's death, we'll never know the exact extent. Also, sending several hundred thousand troops to Panama is also a LARGER scale than the Haiti colony, which was to have only 5,000 at first with only 450 in the first group of settlers.Rangerdude 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Douglass

I am curious as to why there's no mention of his meetings with Fredrick Douglass, as reported by Fredrick Douglass in his memoirs. There are definitely sections of that which shed some light on (or at least add to) the issue. Novium 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

Right now there is no source for the statement in the article that Lincoln's intention before the war was to make slavery exctinct.--JimWae 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lincoln came to national prominence as an enemy of the Slave Power, vowing to stop its expansion and put it on a course to extinction. The challenge of course, was how to do it"

The 2nd sentence is too much like editorial comment. --JimWae 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good point--I fixed it. Rjensen 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln was known for his moderate views on slavery - where is the source that he "came to national prominence ... by vowing to... put it on a course to extinction"? --JimWae 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln wanted to end slavery (1858: "A house divided can not stand!") see Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President by Harold Holzer (2004). He was moderate in that he wanted to end it gradually. Rjensen 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]