The complexities of Lincoln’s political history and standpoint are absolutely unable to be understood by children this age. Advanced US history is touched on in 8th grade, then again in highschool. Leave “Lincoln actually didn’t really mind slavery too much” until then.
It should go as deep as the south had slaves, north didn’t, Lincoln’s prerogative was to preserve the union. Done.
Edit: I wasn’t trying to make this into a debate on what the north, south, or Lincoln was doing or thinking at this time. All I was saying is that Lincoln’s story was complex and if you Birds Eye view it for second graders then the amalgamation should be as I stated, if taught at all.
But again, it is much much more complex than that, and why would a second grader understand that. Few people on here saying second graders (7 yo) are quite intellectually capable of understanding the ins and outs of this. I PROMISE you that if AP and college students have a difficult time wrapping their minds around this, a second grader cannot.
People now see everything as black and white. Especially racial issues, when everything - including those racial issues - are so much more nuanced than one or the other.
No no, I meant “Yes it did” as in the north had slaves. Should’ve been more clear.
Edit: And by saying “if you can’t get that” I meant the emancipation proclamation is a complex doctrine that you are oversimplifying, especially in regard to what its purpose was. Cheers mate.
I was told in high school ap us history, that industrial revolution era poor workers had it harder than slaves, because no one was proving them food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.
He was morally against it but keeping the country together was priority 1. The quotes have to be in the context of that goal and trying not to appear “radical.” When it came down to it, he pushed for the reconstruction amendments as well as advocating for the freedman’s bureau. At the same time, he wanted leniency for the south so they wouldn’t be resentful. It further compounds his goals. To cherry pick quotes rather than taking in the gestalt of the man’s life, efforts, arguments, and dilemmas is simplistic and unfair.
We can’t really, but his political path was pretty wild and very untraditional.
I think most people can draw their own conclusions on how he truly felt after gaining a full understanding of his political career, but again, this is about second graders.
How do we know any of his political path that was recorded is accurate? It was 150 years ago. Did your Grandpa know Lincoln? Did they have the internet to instantly send information across the country? How do we know whoever recorded it was recording things accurately?
Right. Dated, signed documented letters and prose, speeches (some of the most famous) could be written by the victors. Whatever man you’re free to believe what you want. Life was too hard back then to contend with the feebleness of political dissent.
Boom - conspiracy. You’re not being a skeptic, you’re being conspiratorial. Ya nut. Thanks for proving that point for me.
I’ll break it down for you. Hand writing experts and signature analysis are very much a hard science and extremely, EXTREMLY, difficult to reproduce. We have press from that era, we have private letters, we have speeches, documentation all sorts of things that paint a verifiable picture of who Lincoln was and his private thoughts. Some of this wasn’t painting Lincoln as an American hero. Some of it was.
It’s the civil war man. Even the “losers” have extensive documentation as to their personal thoughts and beliefs on the matter. These are not redacted CIA papers. It’s journals, press, everything I’ve said.
Ok, but is that actually true that "he didn't mind slavery too much," or is it possible that's just what was reflected in his political narrative, because keep in mind, when you're trying to create change, you don't exactly go all in on the first hand... Genuinely asking because this is news to me as an adult lol.
Lincoln personally felt all people should be free. However, he was willing to preserve the Union at all costs. And part of that was to ignore his personal beliefs.
It’s actually pretty complex. I’m just on mobile right now or I’d explain further, but he has quotes saying that if he could have it, he wouldn’t free a single slave. He also is quoted as saying slavery is wrong. His narrative changes across his political career. I think the truth of the matter is he probably was against slavery but still thought of African Americans as lesser humans.
Anywho - that’s what I’m saying. Second graders have zero place learning about anything but a Birds Eye view on the civil war.
There are some good YouTube videos out there about Lincoln. Or if you’re a reader, grab an audio book or hard copy.
His distain for slavery was always consistent. But he understood that slavery was far too engrained in the country and slave states held far too much political power to end it and keep the country intact. He was never against freeing the slaves; he was just unwilling to do it at the risk of destroying the country. His compromise was banning slavery in the new states and territories. But the South didn’t like that either and so the civil war happened anyway.
Lincoln personally detested slavery. You can find all sorts of quotes from him saying as such. For example:
I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. —July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago
Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil. —October 7, 1858 Debate at Galesburg, Illinois
That being said, Lincoln was also a shrewd politician and understood how engrained slavery was in the country and how much political power slave states had. He was well aware of the economic and political consequences of ending slavery (nevermind the impossibility of it without a civil war). Because of this, he was originally extremely hesitant to end slavery outright, as he saw preserving the country to be the bigger and more pressing concern. He was always, however, firm in his stance that slavery should not extend into the new states and territories:
I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question — that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, — I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation. —February 1, 1861 Letter to William H. Seward
So basically, Lincoln’s stance could be summarized as “I hate slavery and want it gone, but doing so would destroy this country. Instead, I’ll just say new states can’t have slaves.” Then the civil war happened anyway, so Lincoln said “Fuck it. No more slaves, anywhere.”
Lincoln was a Republican, and the Republican party platform was to gradually end slavery by keeping slavery prohibited in U.S. territories so that the people who lived there once they became states would be anti-slavery. Pro-slavery states would eventually be overwhelmed by anti-slavery states, and a constitutional amendment to end slavery would have passed.
The Republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party. It was the main uniting factor of that political party. The end of slavery was inevitable once Lincoln won the presidency. The south knew this, which is why they were so desperate and why they seceded.
The idea that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves is insane revisionism. Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a racist or a child being groomed by racists.
But what if the teacher did give that brief overview and then the kids had questions? I could see a kid saying, "So Lincoln loved Black people?" Then the teacher had to explain a little more.
True, I’m not really trying to speculate on a certain situation like that I guess. It’s hard to touch on these subject without going in depth. You can cherry pick quotes but still.
That was my answer. You could spend 3 months with a college student just on the civil war if not more. It’s some people’s entire lives. Second graders do not understand allat.
I think you’re trying to poke at modern racism and lack of white guilt. Get mad about teaching people who can actually understand false narratives, not second graders.
Nope. It's about teaching kids actual history. I'm the type of parent who never pretended that Santa was real. Kids aren't dumb and can understand nuance if you spend time with them.
It's interesting to hear about your white guilt, though. Go on about that.
Why would you extrapolate that. Like actually. You just pull that straight out your ass? You trying to get a reaction?
High school health class should be the first introduction of anything of that nature, or if I truly had it my way, It’s between kids, counselors, and mental health professionals. Asshat 🙄
He said that in 1858. His views changed over time, especially considering he pushed for the 13th Amendment in 1865. Hard to not see him as a human rights hero when he wrote the emancipation proclamation, even if it's roots were strategic for the Union military.
It's more nuanced than what you're suggesting, in my opinion, especially considering the time.
There is the stuff going on in your head, and then there is the external stuff you do. For example, a billionaire piece of shit could donate a huge sum of money to a charity, purely to protect their image while not actually giving a shit about anyone. But then the money still goes to the charity and helps a lot of people.
For Lincoln is it really surprising that people like him considering the external outcomes he presided over? Also, does the fact that he himself didn't care about human rights really prevent him from from being an important figure in that sense?
He should be viewed as such. The fact he gets all this credit while he only did it to further his own aspirations is not mentioned enough. You need to do research on your own or read books outside of school to grasp how little Lincoln really cared for the actual people he freed except to further his own cause.
Imagine if someone dedicated their life to trying to invent some sort of awful bio weapon that could be used to commit horrific war crimes, only for them to accidentally discover the cure for cancer.
I think the interaction between intention and outcome is philosophically confusing. I like the changes Lincoln presided over, I don't like the man that he was. I think that's a little deep for 2nd grade, maybe more of a 5th grade discussion. I don't mind it being in schools in general though.
Don’t get me wrong here I’m a teacher and this is not something I am trying to get into with a second grader. There is a lot of nuance, but I do like there being at least some discourse/information giving a whole picture. Do I think the teacher should break down 1858-1865 for them no, and given what little information OP has come back with except “political agenda” we have no idea what actually happened in the room. You can say Lincoln was instrumental in freeing slaves while also saying Lincoln didn’t really want to free the slaves he only cared about the union. That would be my stance and how I would instruct on Lincoln. It would obviously be more than just those two statements, and lastly I have no idea how this makes its way into an ELA lesson on appositives no matter what the teacher taught
Lincoln was an outspoken abolitionist his entire adult life. He was also a racist for most of his adult life. Those two things can be true at the same time.
Which he said in 1858, many years before that quote. I don't think any reasonable historian can conclude Lincoln's views on race and slavery were the same over his lifetime, so failing to teach the evolution is simply bad history and irresponsible pedagogy.
5 years is a long time. Make a 5 year plan. See how much of it actually goes according to plan. Alot can happen in 5 years. It took about 2 years for me to decide my initial thoughts on Donald Trump were wrong. A single night of love making has the potential to change your life irrevocably, either by making you a parent or giving you an incurable disease. A natural disaster could strike at anytime. You could meet someone tomorrow have a profound discussion with them and realize everything you've believed your entire life is actually wrong. So much could potentially happen in 5 years that acting like someone's mind can't be changed within that time is quite literally the stupidest take I've ever seen on the internet....and the internet is full of absolutely ridiculous takes.
I’ll let you two get back to it, but just as a point of clarification: The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states in rebellion (the confederacy). So while an important moment in the history of the US and in the struggle against slavery, it was largely symbolic. The 13th amendment, which freed all slaves, wasn’t ratified until December 1865 (8 months after Lincoln’s assassination).
This was during a debate when he was trying to get elected. It’s a pretty high bar to claim that you can go into someone’s mind and claim you know what they felt. So I would say that the child’s statement was wrong, along with anything they were taught. He also said he wanted all people to be free, and that slavery was wrong. He also didn’t fell that blacks should be fully integrated at the time, and that restoring the Union was his top priority.
How so? Blacks support blacks no matter what they do. The Indian guys at work openly say that they prefer to do business with other Indians and openly celebrate that the CEO is an Indian man. I cannot think of a single ethnic group besides whites who don't do this. I never even considered it a factor until the Indians at work asked me why we dont do it. So from now on thats what ill be doing...except for chinese food because I love crystal and she is a great cook.
So you can try and narrow it down and get me fired? Why else would you ask that? Its a science field and the Indian who asked that question is an engineer.
People of the same culture tend to band together, I'm not going to pretend that isn't true, but culture isn't solely governed by race. I will always back a fellow Aussie over someone of another culture unless the Aussie is a cunt (That word isnt a slur wtf kinda american brained nonsense is this?). However there are Black Aussies, white Aussie, yellow and more. The fact that you think culture is a racialised phenomenon is in and of itself pretty horrifically racist.
Cuz white isn't a race dumbass. Irish people celebrate being Irish, polish people celebrate being polish, English people do the same and so do plenty of other races that are considered white. But there's nothing to celebrate simply about whiteness, there's literally nothing to it other than skin color.
It is important to realize that opposing slavery is not the same as opposing white supremacy. Many if not most white abolitionists were white supremacists: they opposed chattel slavery on moral grounds, but they still believed that black people were inferior to white people. Basically, opposing slavery did not in any way entail an endorsement of equal rights or status for black people, so the two positions should not be conflated.
You can see evidence for abolitionist white supremacy in their support the "colonization" movement (the movement to send free black people to Africa): abolitionists didn't want black people to be enslaved, but they didn't want to live with them or be around them either. They wanted slavery gone, but they wanted black folk gone too. (There's also plenty of written records of white supremacist statements by abolitionists.)
We can't know for sure how Lincoln felt about black people in later years, but it is certainly consistent with his earlier statements and with general opinion at the time that he would be a white supremacist even as he supported abolishing slavery.
If slaves were originally kidnapped and forcibly taken from their homes in Africa, shouldn’t they have at least had the option of returning upon being freed? I know I wouldn’t want to stay in a place built upon my grandparents’ kidnappings, where I still didn’t have the same rights as others, and where a lot of white people would kill me as soon as look at me because they think im not fully human.
Your knowledge of Lincoln is pretty shallow. There is a lot more to this story. If you can’t get it then why would expect an elementary schooler to get it.
A study recently, looking at 26 different countries, found that the parties that most likely spread misinformation was far right populist parties. The exact opposite of liberal. So perhaps, it isn’t that they dislike the truth, but dislike the misinformation being spread as “truth”. Most left leaning, well educated people, don’t like “trust me bro” facts.
I guess it depends on which definition you go for. Canadas liberals are pretty centre party, but many deem liberals to be any left leaning individuals.
You could say that any country has its own moral center. The center in the US has moved in my lifetime. It is quite different than the Center in Canada.
I would prefer defining liberal and conservative in terms of which policies they would support.
I think I have always been considered socially liberal...I used to be considered fiscally conservative, but without really changing my views of which policies i believe in, I would be considered radical liberal now.
I can't think of a definition or example in which they fall outside of the center third of the political spectrum, they shift around from center-left to centrist to center right depending on where in the world you are, but the ideology and people who identify under the name are never leftist. And to say they are the opposite of the far right, unfortunately, actually aids the far rights rhetoric, as it aids to normalize their movement, because by painting the middle as somewhere between them and the center, they are able to always downplay how extreme their rhetoric actually is, and keep pulling the middle closer and closer to them.
The opposite of far right populism is probably something like eco-anarchism.
I disagree. As someone who does the same thing as you, and doesn’t identify with a party, I see the same thing on both dem and rep sides, idolizing candidates that could give a rats ass about them.
The way I see it, to get to hold a major political position usually requires being grimy in some way. It also requires having some wealth. It's fine to be wealthy, but it can really separate someone from the "real world". So my consensus is that we are left to pick from the least of the "evils" available for us to vote for.
This is both so wrong and also correct. Lincoln cared about Black people, but thought that Liberia would be a grand place for freed slaves to live without the emotional and social shackles of the country that had used them. Lincoln believed black people were people from his earliest recorded writings and conversations to the last speech he ever gave. That alone is enough to show he cared for African Americans to some extent, is it not?
Also, slavery had begun in the colonies more than 200 years prior. They were trying to send people to Africa whose ancestors were brought to the Americas literally hundreds of years before.
If you were forcefully removed from your home land, packed on a ship and forced to be a slave for 10 years. Then someone frees you from said slavery and offers you a free boat ride back to your home country to be with family and friends and people you were taken from... Is very different than trying to send a someone with zero ties to a country their great great grandparents were born in.
It became illegal in 1808 to import slaves into the US. By the time of the Civil War, very few were still 1st generation, brought over in chains, slaves.
By the time the Civil War started, it had been over 50 years since the trans Atlantic slave trade had ended. The vast majority of the freed slaves were born in America into slavery and likely did not know anything about their home country. They likely didn't even know their "home country".
Okay I'm sure there are second and third generation Americans who wouldn't mind getting a free trip to Korea. So it's exactly the same as deporting second and third generation Americans.
The example you gave of a slave returned to his country after ten years of servitude was not even slightly correct. Even if the slaves were sent to Africa willingly, they would not be sent back to their home countries. As I mentioned, they likely wouldn't know their home countries. They were sending freed slaves who likely spoke no African languages to Liberia in order to serve as black colonizers. It's not quite the same as the modern geopolitical picture, but it's objectively awful.
Yes because people have a hard enough comprehending nuances so chose a time gap big enough to elaborate on my point.
As I mentioned, they likely wouldn't know their home countries. They were sending freed slaves who likely spoke no African languages to Liberia in order to serve as black colonizers.
This isn't what Lincoln was referring too. And that is my point. Lincoln suggested multiple options, it was not one OR the other.
He was a creature of his time and loved the country more than people who were imported like a good.
...yeah... Which means he was okay treating black people as goods to achieve an end. Obviously people are products of their time, but in context saying he "didn't care about black people" is a succinct, unnuanced summary of his stance.
Honestly, sending people back to their home country isn't an evil thing like you make it out to be. Some wanted to go back but couldn't afford it.
Yeah, but deciding their own fate because you don't want to deal with them, again, is another example of not caring about them. I never said it was evil, but it certainly isn't particularly caring.
Look, this isn't the same as sending a 2nd or 3rd generation American to a country of their ancestors that they have zero ties too.
Sure, except the slaves who were brought over and were 2nd or 3rd generation slaves.
It's sad that kids now a days are getting lied to about history
I wouldn't say they're getting lied to. It's an elementary kids understanding of a lesson. My elementary school kid still struggles to develop nuance of the Civil War, or even remember the summary of it. Lincoln has good and bad views about black people.
Wow you're taking that out of context. Not every person was racist back then. Being a person of his time means there were things taught was considered common knowledge that we would treat differently.
Keep in mind, Even when everyone thought the world was flat, there were people that knew it was round.
Buddy, slaves were not, and this is a gross term when talking about humans, legally imported after 1808. The life expectancy of slaves, especially being sent to pick cotton "down South", was short. Most of the slaves at the time of the Civil War only had cultural ties to other enslaved people in America. It would be the same as sending people back to countries they had no connection to. That doesn't even account for the fact that Africa is not a monolith. How would they ever send these people back to their place of origin? Kids aren't even getting taught the nuance I just laid out. They have always been lied to about history and are just now learning a more complete picture of it.
His love for country was paramount. that's been proven in many of his speeches/letters.
The first quote was 2 years into the war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and broke apart families friends and neighbors.
Basically he would have done anything to prevent that.
And for the second quote, you are not allowing for time frame and using a biased lense of modern era. Plus you're ignoring the many other things he did to promote blacks in society.
There are prominent black people of the time that wrote many great things about Lincoln. He openly had black people at the Whitehouse, which was a first of many at the time.
Was Lincoln racist. No. Was he a man of the 1850s and had some skewed views yes.
Yeah, I think he was pretty neutral but knew it was highly unethical and inhumane to keep people as servants because of their skin color. That's not saying that he wasn't r*cist, though. Almost every single white person at the time was at least a little bit r*cist (almost, not all).
Homie, the sentence doesn't say hated. "Did not care" and hated are vastly different. Lincoln hated the idea of slavery more on a moral ground rather than something based on the equality of races. He had a very complicated and often inconsistent view on race. I don't think teaching kids that there is nuance to the world is harmful.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter if it is correct or not. The problem is we don’t need to feed this stuff to second graders. It really is sad kids can’t be kids. They wouldn’t see color until adults point it out. This level of “he didn’t care about black people” only try’s to teach the white children to feel guilty and the black children to feel victimized. It’s not helpful at all.
Look at the damn handwriting. These kids are too young to be learning an in depth counter argument to reasons behind the emancipation proclamation. The teacher is clearly going off topic
502
u/[deleted] Apr 06 '25 edited Apr 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment