From Frederick Douglass' "Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln" delivered on the occasion of the unveiling of The Freedmen’s Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1876.
Today, I believe the technical term for Mr. Douglass would be "another goddamn, sell-out faux abolitionist L-bot" .
...
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.
Fellow-citizens, whatever else in this world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time, time! is impartial, just, and certain in its action. In the realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time. Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.
But now behold the change: the judgment of the present hour is, that taking him for all in all, measuring the tremendous magnitude of the work before him, considering the necessary means to ends, and surveying the end from the beginning, infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln.
...
UPDATE -- I was mistake: today, the modern technical term would be "repulsive abolitionist hypocrite". Management regrets this error.
17 comments:
I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here (and then I'll shut up for a bit - I fear I've monopolised your comment section enough). Over a century elapsed between the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I fear that the ability to watch Gettysburg, King and Malcolm X back to back in a day has occluded understanding of this fact to a lot of people.
I dare say, Driftglass, that you draw a false equivalence. A pity, since you are very good at seeing such a logical error others.
The efforts of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War, or the views of Frederick Douglas regarding Lincoln, are hardly analogous to Liberal criticism of President Obama. That does seem to be what your are implying.
OK, I'll bite this once, then I'm sitting back, I promise.
Drifty, with his usual panache, is pointing out that no less a man than Frederick Douglass understood that in a country where the abolition of slavery had only just been effected, men like Lincoln who despite opposing slavery, did not countenance the idea that black US citizens should have the same rights as their white counterparts, should be applauded and supported by those who did countenance that idea - because his actions were a step in the right direction to eventually achieve that goal.
The fact that Douglass understood that the process would be slow, despite being living proof that a black man could easily be the intellectual equal of his white contemporaries, is the cornerstone of the point Drifty is making about those who would withdraw support from President Obama on the basis of ideological purity and are chastising those who would not, even if the latter agree that progress is too slow.
If you need it simpler I've got an Etch-A-Sketch lying around somewhere...
... but what if Lincoln had possessed Drones, or declared he had the power to assassinate any American he wished (and yet still Rupert Murdoch lives!)?
Weak tea, Drifty.
No analogy there. Lincoln ultimately made true his convictions for a better nation despite holding untenable beliefs. And it was a hundred and fifty years ago. Can we give a stove-top hat wearing motherfucker a break? Obama believes in nothing but his own political survival. Or has his three year "liberal" reign been one long struggle for peace, gay rights, civil liberties and universal health care? Have I missed a meeting or rally? Is my buyer's remorse not valid? He's a war criminal and a plutocrat and sold us all a bill of goods. What good progressive wouldn't sign up for four more years? I know crunch time is approaching, but you're as obdurate as a 2004 Bush supporter. But beating "them" is the point, right? Or is it skull-fucking David Brooks on a segment of "America's Got Talent"? Even if it means destroying your own soul?
Fuck America, seriously. It's doomed. Save yourself.
Your buyers remorse is not valid. Unlike you, Obama has to operate in a real world--just like Lincoln did, as is pointed out brilliantly by Douglass in the first paragraph of his oration. "Buyers remorse" gave us Nader, who gave us Bush (with the addition of the other several obvious factors in play in 2000). The facts of the American political landscape are that close to 50% of American voters go along to a dangerous degree with the positions of CPAC--which is showing itself to be a nativist hate organization featuring on the same dias on the same day both the Speaker of the House and a founder of VDare.com. People like you who say America is doomed are creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
In answer to Kwillow, I'll leave the details to the New York Times blog:
http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/stretching-executive-power-in-wartime/
But in summary, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus for the duration of the Civil War, and allowed US civilians to be tried and sentenced in private military tribunals. That's before we get on to FDR and the internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry.
The truth is that historical figures who are considered progressive icons today did some distinctly illiberal things to get the job done if they felt the stakes were high enough.
All Obama has done is codify into law what would have been the case anyway, that the military and law enforcement are authorised to kill anyone who presents a clear and present danger to US citizens, whether they themselves are a citizen or not. It makes him sound tougher while essentially changing nothing.
Hold the damn line already.
I read this and see a sharp contrast between Lincoln and Obama.
Lincoln fought for what is right...committed the nation's resources to 'fighting the good fight'
Obama is laying down and getting rolled over.
Lincoln did not compromise with his enemies.
Obama does the opposite.
Or did I miss something here?
That's funny - I'd swear Obama passed a reasonably good healthcare bill (not great, but a start), set up legislation to rescue the jobs in the US auto industry, signed a bill to close Gitmo, avoided a double-dip recession and to top it all off, Osama Bin Laden was finally bumped off on his watch.
He may not have achieved as much as you'd like or even as much as he promised, but to say he rolled over and did nothing is patently false.
That's why I try to read this thing every damn day!!
That sound you hear is the horse belching from excessive water intake...
"The facts of the American political landscape are that close to 50% of American voters go along to a dangerous degree with the positions of CPAC..."
Someone remind me about that house Lincoln talked about.
Or did I miss something here?
What you're missing is a basic grasp of historical fact.
Now I love Lincoln, but the idea that he didn't compromise is just flat out wrong. Like all successful politicians his career was full of compromises, hedging, and often choosing the lesser of 2 evils.
Look no further than the Emacipation Proclamation, a very obvious attempt at compromise. Lincoln was willing, even after almost 2 years, to let the Confederates keep their slaves if they ended their rebellion. He put this compromise in legally binding writing, and he took a ton of heat (and justifiably so) from abolitionists for his actions.
And then after all the years of rebellions and death and destruction, what was his plan for the rebels? To embrace them with open arms.
I would like to point out that Lincoln's embrace of the rebels and appointment of Andrew Johnson led to 100 years of Jim Crow.
I wonder what the President's embrace of the Right and Wall St. lead to.
I would like to point out that Lincoln's embrace of the rebels and appointment of Andrew Johnson led to 100 years of Jim Crow.
And I would like to point out that Lincoln never actually got at chance to run Reconstruction his way and he didn't appoint Johnson as VP.
I would like to point out that Lincoln never actually got a chance to run Reconstruction his way, and that he didn't appoint Johnson as VP.
Apparently this will come in two parts:
It is always fascinating to see how we on the left employ the War on Christmas machine gun nests once we have taken them down...It seems that in most post Xmas times of re-purposing that we tend to join them in two semi-circular formations and engage in a game of Red Rover played with hot lead...Fun times.
An aside, for those that might not have caught it, KWillow was employing a form of hyperbole in the service of humor (and yet still Rupert Murdoch lives?) Forgive me if I stray into similar territory.
There are enough straw-men tossed about on this comment thread that I feel it necessary to start a Bonfire, vanities of the Straw-men be damned.
Starting with bluicebank's first comment: "I dare say...that you draw a false equivalence." It is with pity that I happen to disagree with you. You continue:
"The efforts of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War, or the views of Frederick Douglas regarding Lincoln, are hardly analogous to Liberal criticism of President Obama." I would posit that they are perfectly so. One might say that we have been fighting a low grade civil cold war since at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a high grade civil cold war (Jim Crow in the South, Redlining and segregation combined with Sundown Laws in the North are but two examples) during the previous 88 years (give or take) with occasional flame ups along the way (Greenwood, neighborhood in Tulsa, 1921 serves as one of many such examples). So in that historical context Drifty is spot one.
cont'd
cont'd...
On to the compelling Bonfire of StrawTraitorsToTheCause engineered by Pinochet Guevara. All I have to add is that only a self absorbed nihilist having grown up in possession of a pale penis and the privilege so conferred by that fact, can state with a straight face: "Fuck America, seriously. It's doomed. Save yourself." An this immediately after accusing our host of destroying his (and by extension those of us who are in agreement) and our souls.
That said, there are some problems that I have with the baby murdering Torquemada of Bagram, that genuflecting Genghis of Guantanamo, Wiley bag-man for Wall Street. First and foremost His looting of the surplus to give tax cuts to people who did't need them, which in concert with starting the war in Iraq, would eventually serve to crater what remained of our economy. Then stuffing every governmental office with staff vetted on purely a political basis, that one pissed me right off. As did his stuffing the courts with second rate federalist society jurist leading to his appointment of Roberts and Alito. We all knew they were lying sacks of shit who would give the dollar bill the right to vote at their earliest convenience. During his third term i do take solace in the fact that he seems to have moderated some of his more radical positions and put a couple of female center left candidates on the bench to counter the rightward lurch of his previous appointments...Hopefully during his fourth term he will be able to right the ship (as it were) Figure out a way to slake the hunger for blood and tears of those on his right flank while convincing those on his left flank that there might be a percentage in the conversion of daggers into plowshares...
On one point I will agree that it is unconscionable that in 3 years and three weeks that Obama has occupied the Oval with majorities in house for Two Years (closer to 22 months in reality and of course ignoring the DINO-dog caucus) and the Senate (if by majority you mean the 40 plus vote filibuster proof one the republicans enjoy) It is unconscionable I say, that Obama has not managed to executivate out of thin air, a progressive paradise.
RobSPL poses an interesting question: "I wonder what the President's embrace of the Right and Wall St. lead to." I'll get back to this loaded query assumpting factoid not yet in evidence when I finish beating my wife. i will say this, 100 years from now when our be-gilled descendants are living in saltwater world there will likely be little room or need of historians.
kent
Post a Comment