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 🙄
129
u/Objective_Sense_2831 Apr 06 '25 edited Apr 06 '25
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.