"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 qualifyling 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 for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." AL. See also 1st Debate, Unexpurgated, p 63.
This was the rhetoric and the platform that got him elected President 2 years later.
He utterly betrayed these Northern supporters by freeing the negroes without having in place a way of getting rid of them as advertised. That was, after all, the main thing he had been elected to do. Freedom for the slaves was not, after all, at that time, for hardly any white people, the most important issue.
The most important issues for them were avoiding a believed slavery nationalization conspiracy which would mean permanent racial mixing risks and fears; and getting rid of the negroes, free or slave, but get rid of them one way or another.
It would probably have been better, according to his own Northern electorate, if he had lost the war than that he had won the war and freed the negroes without colonizing them elsewhere. That was their thinking at that time. At least they could then be kept out of the North by secession of slave holding states.
Emancipation was an enormous, irreversible, blunder, according to the politics of that time, without a colonization program firmly in place beforehand.
It probably furthermore did little to advance the Union cause militarily as Lincoln certainly hoped.
Lincoln's blundering into the Civil War and how he conducted it is very analogous to how the US has conducted most of its military encounters throughout its brief history.
Iraq is only the most recent example of blundering on many different levels at once.
That was quintessentially how the Civil War played out, especially in the so called Reconstruction era and long after.
This was the rhetoric and the platform that got him elected President 2 years later.
He utterly betrayed these Northern supporters by freeing the negroes without having in place a way of getting rid of them as advertised. That was, after all, the main thing he had been elected to do. Freedom for the slaves was not, after all, at that time, for hardly any white people, the most important issue.
The most important issues for them were avoiding a believed slavery nationalization conspiracy which would mean permanent racial mixing risks and fears; and getting rid of the negroes, free or slave, but get rid of them one way or another.
It would probably have been better, according to his own Northern electorate, if he had lost the war than that he had won the war and freed the negroes without colonizing them elsewhere. That was their thinking at that time. At least they could then be kept out of the North by secession of slave holding states.
Emancipation was an enormous, irreversible, blunder, according to the politics of that time, without a colonization program firmly in place beforehand.
It probably furthermore did little to advance the Union cause militarily as Lincoln certainly hoped.
Lincoln's blundering into the Civil War and how he conducted it is very analogous to how the US has conducted most of its military encounters throughout its brief history.
Iraq is only the most recent example of blundering on many different levels at once.
That was quintessentially how the Civil War played out, especially in the so called Reconstruction era and long after.
No comments:
Post a Comment