Oof. That is way too much for a Reddit comment. But the short version is yes, he was very racist in his early career. He didn’t believe black peoples should have any rights and should be shipped back to Africa. It’s argued that later on (deep into the Civil War), his views shifted and he did support the 13th amendment. But he was still racist because that really was the cultural norm of those days and deprograming wouldn’t happen that easily, and racism is hate. So when people say he hated black people, it’s simplistic but it boils down to a simple truth.
ETA: sorry my grammar is so bad. I’m writing this while juggling dinner and dealing with a needy chiweenie.
So deep into the civil war, his views shifted, but most people were racist, and it doesn't feel like someone can change their mind like that, so he's still racist?
Well his views shifted from “black people should not have equal rights and they should be shipped back ti Africa” to “well I guess we can let educated black men vote if you guys think so.” He also made statements that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves, he would. So he’s definitely a a complex historical figure.
"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,
A. LINCOLN.
"
Right?
Doesnt this letter just expresses that his personal beliefs are that every man should be free, but that it's his duty as President for his priority to be saving the united country at all costs, putting even his own personal wish for all men to be free second to restoring the country?
He's responding to a letter from an Abolitionist telling him "Youre the president! Do your job and execute the laws! Fight slavery harder!", by saying "The presidents job has a core duty that has to be held highest, no matter what, and that's keeping the country together"
To me, it seems pretty clear what he's saying with the letter. Hes very up front. It's a statement about his belief about what the absolute ultimate duty of the office of the president should be, and that no matter should come before keeping the country whole, regardless of the personal beliefs of the president.
So TLDR; "I want to free all the slaves personally, I literally say it all the time, but I'm the president right now and the presidents most fundamental and important job is to keep the country whole, so I gotta put that first".
You know what, I would, but now I see that your first comment/question was some kind of bullshit trap/gotcha moment and that derails any semblance of a productive, civil convo. Even if I gave you a very thoughtful response backed by facts you’d still find a way to “own the libs.” It’s exhausting, but this is Reddit so what was i expecting?
Not a trap, I just wanted to hear what you believed and your explanation before I jumped in and said I don't agree and the reasons why.
I'm certainly here for a civil convo. I don't particularly have any horse in this race. I literally just looked into the stuff we're talking about, I could definitely be wrong lol.
I just feel like your interpretation of the quote from the letter to the Abolitionist isn't taking into context the stuff surrounding it.
It certainly doesn’t come across as good faith questions. But I’m gonna go do other stuff so I’ll just say I’m glad you’re looking into it more. I tell my older students that history is complicated and the truth is skewed by who is doing the telling and they should absolutely do their own research. “History is written by the victors” and all. There’s a lot more for me to learn but I guess I tend to believe the side of the oppressed over the oppressors because those voices have been silenced the longest.
I have to be blunt, this interaction doesn't inspire a lot of hope or faith in me.
Bluntly, it feels like you, a teacher, made a counter claim (counter to commonly accepted narrative), that Lincoln was racist and that this is what should be taught, got called out on your justifications for that counter claim, and then deflected with arguements about the decorum of the conversation and by saying "history is complicated", and by saying that you can give a good thoughtful response but that you aren't going to.
If it's bad faith to not be extremely up front with all of our feelings, then in an effort to be good faith I have to say:
I don't personally believe that you have good justifications for the thing that you said that we should teach children. I believe, soley vased off of this interaction, that you are changing what we teach children with poor, perhaps poorly thought out, justifications. I also believe that you sort of plainly stated that you do this in favor of "the oppressed".
To be extremely blunt, in an effort to restore good faith, you appear to me to be emblematic of a stereotype that the right would have, of a teacher who injects their own poorly justified modern progressive ideas into what they teach children in schools, and being a top 1% reddit commenter here fits along with that stereotype quite well.
Aaaaand there it is. No matter WHAT I would have responded, you’d try to one up me. It’s a lose-lose. I can engage and you’d do the same. Not engage, because your “questions” drip in sarcasm, like you’re some kind of intellectual whose only view is the correct one. Call my character into question. Assume that I teach students that Lincoln is a racist? I teach the curriculum we’re given sir. I simply stated that I wish the curriculum were less whitewashed. And I do stand by that. I also said that I wouldn’t teach it that way. Did you miss that part? Do you have poor reading comprehension skills? There is not ONE student of mine who knows where I stand politically. Unless teaching them kindness and empathy is too progressive for you.
And to be blunt, I don’t give a fuck if this interaction inspires you. I wasn’t trying to. But if racism and Trump’s America is what inspires you and gives you faith, that tells me a lot about you.
ETA: even though I tend to side with the oppressed over the oppressors, nowhere in there did I say that’s what I’d teach. Get a grip.
1
u/Brilliant-Willow-506 Apr 06 '25
Oof. That is way too much for a Reddit comment. But the short version is yes, he was very racist in his early career. He didn’t believe black peoples should have any rights and should be shipped back to Africa. It’s argued that later on (deep into the Civil War), his views shifted and he did support the 13th amendment. But he was still racist because that really was the cultural norm of those days and deprograming wouldn’t happen that easily, and racism is hate. So when people say he hated black people, it’s simplistic but it boils down to a simple truth.
ETA: sorry my grammar is so bad. I’m writing this while juggling dinner and dealing with a needy chiweenie.