Tags
Abraham Lincoln: White Supremacist–How Do You Like Him Now?
In spite of many high profile preachers and theologians espousing the example of Abraham Lincoln, a.k.a ‘Honest Abe’ *cough*, and repeatedly singing his praises much to what should be their chagrin, I can only remind everyone who admires the historical myth-man the following:
Abraham Lincoln was more of a white supremacist as well as a treasonous criminal than you can possibly imagine. Maybe the biggest in American history – on both counts.
I give just one of many quotes from Lincoln himself:
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.
~ Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.
I encourage you all to get this book, Colonization after Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, by Phillip W. Magness of American University and Sebastian N. Page of Oxford University.
I encourage you to get this book especially if you homeschool. It will be an invaluable aid to historical accuracy in you’re child’s education. Among other things, you will learn that AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation:
- Lincoln was still hard at work trying to deport negroes to British colonies.
- The most pro-colonization member of Lincoln’s cabinet, Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, publicly announced that the "destined glory" of any freed slaves "is to be consummated in the American tropics" (p. 35).
- The first black man to ever hold an administrative position in the U.S. government was J. Willis Menard, who favored black colonization. He was employed as a clerk in the colonization office.
- Colonization remained the official policy of the Lincoln administration throughout 1864 and early 1865, with several plans being foiled by bureaucratic bungling, corruption, and political bickering. Lincoln is said to have completely lost his temper over such failures.
- Late in his life General Benjamin Butler recalled a "colonization interview" he had with Lincoln two days before the assassination. "What shall we do with the negroes after they are free?", Lincoln is said to have asked the general. According to Butler, Lincoln said, "I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes" (p. 109). Butler then proposed deporting the freed slaves to Panama to dig a canal, decades before the actual Panama Canal was dug. "There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that," Lincoln said.
Wow…just….wow.
You are right ofcourse. As are the authors. I have known these things for perhaps – 25 years, though sadly almost into my mid 30′s before I had ever read ANYTHING disparaging about Lincoln. Probably little chance of the authors changing near universal public perception of Lincoln. He has been elevated to sainthood, but he was very much a man of his age. And not a particularily good one at that. He almost makes Jimmy Carter look sound. Just foolin’. Nothing could do that.
Good thing we have a big statue of him in D.C. that was a wise investment? Oh wait thais a useful tool to Indoctrinate school kids.
wow … not too long ago (few weeks, months maybe) you made the first tweet I saw that spoke negatively of Lincoln. I’d never heard anyone talk about him that way. I was confused at the time as to what you were talking about.
Thanks for putting this info out there for suckers like me to read.
You’re welcme brother. God bless. Read.
I see slave owners like Whitefield and Edwards quoted quite reverently a lot on your site. Aren’t you hypocritical to respect their character while maligning Lincoln? Yes, both treated their slaves humanely, but neither of them viewed all races as equal in every respect. In fact, while Lincoln emancipated the slaves, Whitefield actually helped re-legalize it in Georgia 1751! While he treated his slaves well, surely he is responsible for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of slaves in Georgia under more cruel masters.
Very convincing reasoning. Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my serious question. The truth is all three of these men would be viewed as racists by todays standards because unfortunately, the standards were quite different back then. Who really drank the koolaid?
I think I should rather be a slave in the Edwards or Whitefield home than a free servant in any Edward Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter home and for darn sure a Finney home.
nathanj – here is a serious answer; First it is silly and meaningless to judge men of prior ages by the sensibilities of today. We live in a place and a time when almost the only “sin” (and one oddly neglected, in the modern sense, in Scripture) left standing is “racism” or “prejudice.” So, do you look back at Edwards or Whitefield and measure their lives purely on their view of race – versus your presumably enlightened one? Don’t judge men based on pop cultural standards – if you feel compelled to judge, judge them by Scripture. Second when did viewing “all races as equal” become the one inviolate standard of respectability? I do believe that what really matters is that all men are equal under God as their Creator in the broadest sense, and that all men share an inherent worth to their fellow men AND that they are equally “all gone astray” and without hope in the world, save in the electing grace of Christ. Third, how do you know what Whitefield’s or Edward’s view of race was? Perhaps it is knowable via sermons and correspondence in Whitefield’s case or discernable in the many writings of Edward’s in the Yale edition of his works, but do YOU know?? Fourth, any arguements about race seem to boil down to ultimate irrelevance. There are only two “races” of men today that mean anything: those who are children of God via the grace of Christ and the other race of those men who are by nature the children of Satan. As a white man, the darkest, blackest Christian, or most yellow or brown is infinitely more my brother than the most white non-believer. Call me nuts, but I kinda think Whitefield and Edwards would have embraced the same position. Everything else is trivia.
Pingback: Abraham Lincoln’s Presidency: Reconstruction, Restoration « Jeinrev
Pingback: Abolitionism in the United States: The American Colonization Society (ACS),Migration « Jeinrev
Pastor Brown/Mr. Leach,
As a believer of African ancestry, I have been reading these posts about Lincoln for quite awhile. While I believe that what you say is true, I did want to ask whether your views (both of you) reflect the ones that Lincoln reportedly stated.
As far as Whitefield and Edwards, I would respectfully hold a different view that that of Mr. Leach. The fact of the matter is that they both were slave owners and I know that Edwards, while believing that the slaves needed to be saved like any other human being, did not consider them equal to Caucasian (or European ancestry). Edwards even defended an Armianian’s right to have slaves at a point. While I respect their scholarship (Edwards and Whitefield), I do not believe that this sin should be glossed over – regardless of whether they would have considered my believing ancestors brothers and sisters in Christ.
This brings me to another question: Would I, Pastor Brown, be welcome to worship with the local congregation that the Lord has entrusted you to shepherd? Would my cultural differences hinder the ability to serve in the local assembly? What if I wanted to become a member? What if I desired to be trained for full time ministry? Would I be a guest in your home, Mr. Leach? Would a young man of my similar ancestry and common faith ever be considered as one who could pursue your daughters (or any daughters of your local church assembly)? These are the questions I honestly have and the fact that I feel that I have to ask them saddens me deeply.
I mean no harm by this post, but I really want to get your views on the matter. As my elders (I am assuming that you are older than my near 33 years of age), I ask these questions humbly and respectfully. I look forward to your responses.
In Christ,
Steve
Steve: I stand by my view of Edwards and Whitefield we will just have to differ here. I have no intent to “gloss over” any genuine sin of either man, but I fail to see the point in rejecting their lives or works in toto based on a view of slavery or race that may have been more concurrent with their times, and less so with ours. If you cannot read “Freedom of the Will” with profit to your soul because it nags at you that Edwards view of slavery was not as enlightened as your own, I can only say it is your loss.
And Steve, as to being welcome as a guest in my home, I direct you to my blog written primarily for family (but which you are welcome to visit by all means) at http://beforeitallfadesaway.blogspot.com/. At that blog you will find pictured my three grandchildren. Two of those children are of mixed black and hispanic parentage. The third is fully black. All three are the adopted children of my youngest daughter and her husband. I assure you, they are QUITE welcome in my home, and are loved with fervency by myself and their Grandmother. I hope this makes clear to you that you would be more than welcome in my home. And as to my daughters, I have one at 36, unmarried. I don’t care if you are zebra colored – if you are a Christian, I’d have no problem with your “pursuit.” Christian regards.
Mr. Leach,
Thank you kindly for your response. We will have to differ on our views regarding Edwards and Whitefield. I do not reject their lives or works but want to ensure that the whole story is being told (warts and all). Their works are profitable, but it is clear that they both failed to apply their theology to the truth that all men are equally sinful under God and in need of a savior.
I do invite you, though, Mr. Leach, to not dismiss my disagreement as “my loss.” I will tell you that Trusting the Theology of a Slave Owner is something that plagues many of your brothers and sisters of African descent. There is an excellent article by the same title in the book A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards by Piper. While Piper has his theological and discernment issues, the article that Mr. Shepherd Burns is the best handling of the struggle that I am familiar with when viewing Edwards and Whitefield’s works in light of their practices regarding this issue. If you ever read the article, you would see that even Mr. Burns struggles in his writing.
So how am I, sir, to view the works of Edwards, Whitefield (or any other of the theological forefathers who upheld similar practices) in this light? What would you suggest that I tell our brothers and sisters whose initial reaction would be to reject rather than accept both men? I look forward to your answers.
Thank you also for your response regarding my questions. I will be sure to relay your welcoming heart to our zebra-colored brothers and sisters as well:)
Blessings,
Steve
Steve – thanks for the note. I could say many things, but this is not my blog, so I will try to keep my comment brief. You write: “I will tell you that Trusting the Theology of a Slave Owner is something that plagues many of your brothers and sisters of African descent.” I am confused, just a tad. It isnt enough you dislike Edwards and Whitefield due to race related issues, but is your intent that I capitulate to this concern? Or is it that you would have me formulate an intense, detailed apologetic to defend Whitefield or Edwards? I honestly do not grasp what you would have me do. Do you want me to trash the works of Edwards or the sermons of Whitefield? Do you wish me to trash THEM in some public forum? My view is essentially this – if a sympathetic treatment of slavery by either man (in word or deed) violates your sensibilties, don’t read them! No one compels you to (I do note you say that their works are “profitable” which I am unsure how to undestand!) Even the best of men sin, and are in some measure prisoners of their time and surroundings and generally accepted worldview of their family, friends and culture. By the way, I am taking your assertions at face value, I honestly do not know the history of Edwards concerning slavery, nor do I know Whitefield’s. If they beat slaves with no mercy or murdered them, and such could be proved, I admit I would see their writings with slightly different eyes. But anything short of such criminal abuse seems to me – in the overall picture, almost…petty. You are welcome to convince me, if you can, that I am mistaken.By the way, just to be very clear, I do NOT believe slavery is intrinsically evil. God apparently does not if the OT is to be believed, and I have yet to find anything about me personally more moral than God. I do recognize however, that kidnapping and enslaving blacks in Africa to be transported and sold here WAS evil. Beyond question.
Futhermore, I am curious – do you view all issues through racial eyes? Are racial concerns the crucible by which you determine all soundness? If a man from 200 or 300 years ago is 99.9 theologically sound, but his view of slavery (or any race) is suspect, is he ipso facto rejected? I wonder, what do you think of the works of Dabney or Thornwell or kindred southern partisans and participants in the War Between the States? Do I have a moral obligation to toss these works out? I own them, and others like them
You ask me what I would have you tell your “brothers and sisters.” I’m not sure. Are you referring all other black men and women as your “brothers and sisters” or is that a reference to your brothers and sisters in Christ of all races? If the former, I can’t imagine what their concern would be generally and collectively over long dead theologians. If the latter, if you must tell them something tell them that all men in this life are fallible, so eat the meat and spit out the bones. I hope this hastily written and longer-than-I-meant post helps.Christian,regards, David.
Mr. Leach,
Thank you for your response. In an effort to not take over the blog, I will provide you my email if you wish to discuss further offline:
zealot4christ@yahoo.com
If not, I bid you adieu and will respect your right to disagree. God bless.
Lincoln was not as honest as history has portrayed him to be. He repeatedly professed his advocacy for the continuation of the enslavement of Blacks. For lack of better words, he was playing both sides of the fence. While slaves were bowing down to him in the streets, behind closed doors he was trying to appease the South by finding ways to keep Blacks enslaved. He tried to sell the idea of emigration, but needless to point out, it failed. It is my belief that 95% of his struggle with the emancipation of slaves was embedded in his personal struggle with his own identity–which is WHOLE other conversation. But in essence, for the most part, historical prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Lincoln was indeed an advocate of slavery.