I’m inclined to view Lincoln as steadfast in his determination to end slavery (or is that “enslavement?” 😇) from the moment he entered public life. Elected to Congress in 1846, he wrote an amendment to end slavery in the District of Columbia. His positions were unpopular, and he only served one term.
One can easily imagine his concluding that he couldn’t achieve his goals if he wasn’t in office, so thereafter, he tempered his public statements until he could raise the rest of the country up to his enlightened views. His statement that he was fighting solely to preserve the Union makes sense in this context, given that the country, horrified by the continued slaughter, eventually was in a mood to sue for peace – give the South what they want, let them keep their slaves, and end the slaughter but still preserve the Union. Yet he continued to forge ahead and advance the cost of freedom and every opportunity that didn’t risk losing the war.
I can also see his colonization plans for free slaves as an act of compassion. He despaired that Blacks would ever be treated well in this country, so tried to provide an opportunity where they would be.
This is so painful to read, because it's still true, and because the current president is trying to erase all references to Blacks and their important role in our history. He is so petty and racist, he's demantling DEI programs and trying to make sure history books don't include the black story, which is our collective story. It seems he is determined to take away the few crumbs America has given to blacks over time. It's disgusting.
What a wonderful exploration of the process or evolution of emancipation of which we non-professionals who love history rarely get the details.
Something that rang for me is the impact that black soldiering had on the movement favoring immediate emancipation. Citizenship belongs to the person who does the duty of a citizen. I think something similar happened to the conscience of America in the post World War II Civil Rights Movement.
Also I never quite grasped how bizarre and dehumanizing the whole idea of compensating slaveholders was. It would have been the final institutional acknowledgement that the humans were property and like land confiscation under eminent domain their "owners" and were entitled to compensation.
An overseas slave trade based in Africa was already ongoing for centuries before Columbus set sight on the New World -- before West Africans began marching their dark-skinned brethren down to the docks in shackles and selling them into the Middle Passage.
Ironically, slavery had been largely eradicated in Western Europe -- among those very nations regularly excoriated for the slave trade -- before it was re-introduced to them by Africans.
Slavery was an African institution, and it took a bloody Civil War for America to shake off the addiction.
So who owes what to whom? Am I allowed to ask? Is there a simple answer? "Caveat emptor"?
Slavery is a human institution in which Africans participated because African slavery was based on ethnic divisions and not racial lines. Conflicts in modern Africa are still rooted in ethnic and/or religious division and not race.
Spain and had "in principle" abolished chattel slavery before Columbus even sailed for America. Columbus wanted to import Native Americans as slaves but that was also outlawed by Ferdinand and Isabella. In most continental Catholic countries chattel slavery was outlawed in the middle ages.
Interestingly it was Protestant Europe (Britain, Norway, Sweden and Denmark) that maintained the slave trade economics though slavery in their homelands had long been abandoned.
It is pretty clear that chattel slavery was adopted by the Hebrews after the Exodus as a normal feature of civilization and a subject treated extensively in The Torah.
And slavery still exists under many names and modern disguises. Though many of the slaves are volunteers to be slaves due to economic pressures.
My only quibble here might be whether "race" is merely another name for (or characterization of) ethnicity -- and whether (the sooner the better) it's best acknowledged as such.
Nevertheless, for centuries prior to the Atlantic slave trade, Africans had been selling their slaves -- whether based on ethnicity or "race" -- into bondage overseas.
Also, among the European powers (Catholic) Portugal was the most zealous in pursuing and maintaining the slave trade (in Brazil). And then there's (Catholic) France's infamous exploitation of Haiti.
The ethnicity only mattered to the Africans selling other Africans--- for the cracker consumers it was ALL about the race... Especially when it was clear the white endured servants and penal colonies weren't going to supply the labor needed to maintain their economies.
My only quibble here might STILL be whether "race" is merely another name for (or characterization of) ethnicity -- and whether (the sooner the better) it's best acknowledged as such (by all sides).
To paraphrase Barack Obama, "There's no 'Black' America, no "white' America..."
Or was that merely "aspirational" rhetoric, intended (in the real world) as a bait-and-switch?
I gained many new insights and facts that I was not previously aware of, particularly regarding political ideas and activism, including those related to colonization. Thank you for this text with a "post-colonial" touch.
How sad that all that has stuck with you from this rich, historical piece are two words that triggered you. This is the true closing of the American mind.
I’m well-versed in the events and influences that shaped Lincoln’s slow journey toward emancipation, and I've even read (and very much liked) the author's book 'The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition'. Thanks for assuming that my mind is somehow closed just because I suggested first-person, humanizing language whenever possible. I suggest you read Lera Boroditsky's work on how the language we use shapes the way we think, and its anti-racist implications.
I agree with you that "enslaved people" would be the preferred language. But I also don't think that that's the only thing to focus on if you appreciate and agree with the piece. But thanks for the clarification.
LOL! There probably is a politically correct Seder booklet that has made it "We were an enslaved people..." First avoiding the use of slaves and then adding "an" to not exclude other enslaved peoples or prioritize the slavery and suffering of the Hebrews.
"Holocaust" and "genocide" have been increasing misapplied and misused a lot.
I’m inclined to view Lincoln as steadfast in his determination to end slavery (or is that “enslavement?” 😇) from the moment he entered public life. Elected to Congress in 1846, he wrote an amendment to end slavery in the District of Columbia. His positions were unpopular, and he only served one term.
One can easily imagine his concluding that he couldn’t achieve his goals if he wasn’t in office, so thereafter, he tempered his public statements until he could raise the rest of the country up to his enlightened views. His statement that he was fighting solely to preserve the Union makes sense in this context, given that the country, horrified by the continued slaughter, eventually was in a mood to sue for peace – give the South what they want, let them keep their slaves, and end the slaughter but still preserve the Union. Yet he continued to forge ahead and advance the cost of freedom and every opportunity that didn’t risk losing the war.
I can also see his colonization plans for free slaves as an act of compassion. He despaired that Blacks would ever be treated well in this country, so tried to provide an opportunity where they would be.
This is so painful to read, because it's still true, and because the current president is trying to erase all references to Blacks and their important role in our history. He is so petty and racist, he's demantling DEI programs and trying to make sure history books don't include the black story, which is our collective story. It seems he is determined to take away the few crumbs America has given to blacks over time. It's disgusting.
What a wonderful exploration of the process or evolution of emancipation of which we non-professionals who love history rarely get the details.
Something that rang for me is the impact that black soldiering had on the movement favoring immediate emancipation. Citizenship belongs to the person who does the duty of a citizen. I think something similar happened to the conscience of America in the post World War II Civil Rights Movement.
Also I never quite grasped how bizarre and dehumanizing the whole idea of compensating slaveholders was. It would have been the final institutional acknowledgement that the humans were property and like land confiscation under eminent domain their "owners" and were entitled to compensation.
An overseas slave trade based in Africa was already ongoing for centuries before Columbus set sight on the New World -- before West Africans began marching their dark-skinned brethren down to the docks in shackles and selling them into the Middle Passage.
Ironically, slavery had been largely eradicated in Western Europe -- among those very nations regularly excoriated for the slave trade -- before it was re-introduced to them by Africans.
Slavery was an African institution, and it took a bloody Civil War for America to shake off the addiction.
So who owes what to whom? Am I allowed to ask? Is there a simple answer? "Caveat emptor"?
Slavery is a human institution in which Africans participated because African slavery was based on ethnic divisions and not racial lines. Conflicts in modern Africa are still rooted in ethnic and/or religious division and not race.
Spain and had "in principle" abolished chattel slavery before Columbus even sailed for America. Columbus wanted to import Native Americans as slaves but that was also outlawed by Ferdinand and Isabella. In most continental Catholic countries chattel slavery was outlawed in the middle ages.
Interestingly it was Protestant Europe (Britain, Norway, Sweden and Denmark) that maintained the slave trade economics though slavery in their homelands had long been abandoned.
It is pretty clear that chattel slavery was adopted by the Hebrews after the Exodus as a normal feature of civilization and a subject treated extensively in The Torah.
And slavery still exists under many names and modern disguises. Though many of the slaves are volunteers to be slaves due to economic pressures.
My only quibble here might be whether "race" is merely another name for (or characterization of) ethnicity -- and whether (the sooner the better) it's best acknowledged as such.
Nevertheless, for centuries prior to the Atlantic slave trade, Africans had been selling their slaves -- whether based on ethnicity or "race" -- into bondage overseas.
Also, among the European powers (Catholic) Portugal was the most zealous in pursuing and maintaining the slave trade (in Brazil). And then there's (Catholic) France's infamous exploitation of Haiti.
The ethnicity only mattered to the Africans selling other Africans--- for the cracker consumers it was ALL about the race... Especially when it was clear the white endured servants and penal colonies weren't going to supply the labor needed to maintain their economies.
My only quibble here might STILL be whether "race" is merely another name for (or characterization of) ethnicity -- and whether (the sooner the better) it's best acknowledged as such (by all sides).
To paraphrase Barack Obama, "There's no 'Black' America, no "white' America..."
Or was that merely "aspirational" rhetoric, intended (in the real world) as a bait-and-switch?
I gained many new insights and facts that I was not previously aware of, particularly regarding political ideas and activism, including those related to colonization. Thank you for this text with a "post-colonial" touch.
"Enslaved people" not "the slaves" please.
I appreciate that clarification when it is made. Others may not. Are they 'word police' police?
How sad that all that has stuck with you from this rich, historical piece are two words that triggered you. This is the true closing of the American mind.
I’m well-versed in the events and influences that shaped Lincoln’s slow journey toward emancipation, and I've even read (and very much liked) the author's book 'The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition'. Thanks for assuming that my mind is somehow closed just because I suggested first-person, humanizing language whenever possible. I suggest you read Lera Boroditsky's work on how the language we use shapes the way we think, and its anti-racist implications.
I agree with you that "enslaved people" would be the preferred language. But I also don't think that that's the only thing to focus on if you appreciate and agree with the piece. But thanks for the clarification.
At the Passover seder, Jews recite, "We were slaves unto Pharoah in Egypt..."
Now we're free.
Enough with the niceties. Stop policing language! That's the sort of crap that elected Trump.
Get over it.
LOL! There probably is a politically correct Seder booklet that has made it "We were an enslaved people..." First avoiding the use of slaves and then adding "an" to not exclude other enslaved peoples or prioritize the slavery and suffering of the Hebrews.
"Holocaust" and "genocide" have been increasing misapplied and misused a lot.
Hard to tell how much snark was intended by these comments -- e.g;, Harley's first paragraph. ("LOL" is certainly suggesive.)
Come to think of it, I wonder whether Jennifer Dillon was herself just being sarcastic. ;-)
That Lincoln wasn't born with his anti-slavery views should not come as a surprise to anyone aware of how ubiquitous slavery once was to humanity.