Iraq (4.00 / 4)

Seeing this also leads me to wonder: What if we'd been forced to wrestle with reality and informed debate about our invasion of Iraq?  Compared to the recent Gaza war, the US invasion of Iraq:
- Was many times longer
- Was much less justified
- Caused orders of magnitude more death and sufferring (at least hundreds of thousands dead)

Is a country, any country, constitutionally incapable of having a real debate about its own wars?  Is there anything we can do about this in the long term?

---

by: cos @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:12:57 PM UTC

some countries are, but we're not -- our whole identity is based on (4.00 / 3)

the fact that we're "the good guys" always no matter what, and that we're special, and not bound by the rules we impose on others -- especially those "others" we've identified as "enemies". We've always always used some bad and evil "other" to justify our "goodness" and rightness, etc -- from the British and "savage" Native Americans -- to the USSR and now "terrorists".

Israel isn't either -- they justify their horrors in different ways, and point to the entire Arab world as justification and as evil "enemy"/"other".

I think only countries not engaged in (or with a history of) empire-building and resource-grabbing abroad look at things more realistically.

Britain and Israel are wholly embedded and part of our actions and are not able to do this -- even if they both have more of a range of allowable opinion on it all.

---

by: amberglow @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:19:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you can add to Iraq (4.00 / 3)

all of this stuff from William Blum and more.  A partial excerpt:

During the early 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency instigated several military incursions into Communist China. In 1960, CIA planes, without any provocation, bombed the sovereign nation of Guatemala. In 1973, the Agency encouraged a bloody revolt against the government of Iraq. In the American mass media at the time, and therefore in the American mind, these events did not happen.
    "We didn't know what was happening", became a cliché used to ridicule those Germans who claimed ignorance of the events which took place under the Nazis. Yet, was their stock answer as far-fetched as we'd like to think? It is sobering to reflect that in our era of instant world-wide communications, the United States has, on many occasions, been able to mount a large- or small-scale military operation or undertake another, equally blatant, form of intervention without the American public being aware of it until years later, if ever. Often the only report of the event or of US involvement was a passing reference to the fact that a communist government had made certain charges -- just the kind of "news" the American public has been well conditioned to dismiss out of hand, and the press not to follow up; as the German people were taught that reports from abroad of Nazi wrong-doings were no more than communist propaganda.
    With few exceptions, the interventions never made the headlines or the evening TV news. With some, bits and pieces of the stories have popped up here and there, but rarely brought together to form a cohesive and enlightening whole; the fragments usually appear long after the fact, quietly buried within other stories, just as quietly forgotten, bursting into the foreground only when extraordinary circumstances have compelled it, such as the Iranians holding US embassy personnel and other Americans hostage in Teheran in 1979, which produced a rash of articles on the role played by the United States in the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. It was as if editors had been spurred into thinking: "Hey, just what did we do in Iran to make all those people hate us so?"
    There have been a lot of Irans in America's recent past, but in the absence of the New York Daily News or the Los Angeles Times conspicuously grabbing the reader by the collar and pressing against his face the full implication of the deed ... in the absence of NBC putting it all into real pictures of real people on the receiving end ... in such absence the incidents become non-events for the large majority of Americans, and they can honestly say "We didn't know what was happening."
    Former Chinese Premier Chou En-lai once observed: "One of the delightful things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory."
    It's probably even worse than he realized. During the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, a Japanese journalist, Atsuo Kaneko of the Japanese Kyoto News Service, spent several hours interviewing people temporarily housed at a hockey rink -- mostly children, pregnant women and young mothers. He discovered that none of them had heard of Hiroshima. Mention of the name drew a blank. (20)
    And in 1982, a judge in Oakland, California said he was appalled when some 50 prospective jurors for a death-penalty murder trial were questioned and "none of them knew who Hitler was". (21)
    To the foreign policy oligarchy in Washington, it is more than delightful. It is sine qua non.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:22:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hope and expectation are not (presently) the same (4.00 / 5)

As with issues of war and peace, from the Cold War to the GWOT, so also with almost any other issue you can name. If you watch television, you might be forgiven for assuming that the only reasonably unique contribution of the United States to world culture is the industrialization of hypocrisy. We expend more energy in pretending to virtues we don't possess than we do in healing the sick, or in educating our children.

A reference in one of Scott Horton's pieces in Harpers prompted me to re-read Lincoln's Cooper Union address yesterday. If scarcely a patch on the inaugural addresses in terms of rhetoric -- which was Horton's point, I think -- it does reveal very clearly both how far we have come, and yet how near we are to where we started. As you've been at pains to point out recently, there can be little doubt that slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War, and of its viciousness. Lincoln's address confirms the cause in no uncertain terms, but it does more than that. It confirms as well that the defensive hypocrisy of the South began very early, and that it was as transparently self-serving as anything you can hear today from IDF spokesmen, or from Tzipi Livni, or from Abe Foxman.

What was different is that in 1860 we had Lincoln, and today we have David Broder. Scott Horton was making the point in his piece that Obama's speech lacked the anticipated rhetorical flourishes for exactly the same reasons that Lincoln's Cooper Union speech lacked them. Perhaps, but Obama's speech also lacked the careful argument of Lincoln's speech; it was full of signals, of invitations to haruspicate and scry, but in the end -- for me at least -- it was mute about the reasoning which lay behind those signals. It exhorted, but it didn't persuade, and so left Obama plenty of room to temporize, and us with room to doubt his commitment to the principles he appeared to be espousing.

Perhaps it would have been inappropriate, in an inaugural address, to do anything else. Certainly Lincoln's own inaugural speeches were less appeals to reason than to our emotions. Nevertheless, with talk as cheap as it's become in our age, one longs for a major political figure to be heard, in public, taking the issues which face us as seriously as they deserve to be taken.

There's some hope of that, I think. There's no hope whatever that our media spokespersons will do likewise.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:12:57 PM UTC

Actually, William (4.00 / 5)

I've been meaning to write about this for some time.  Obama talks about having a dialog and/or a debate about various issues, but instead of actually having it, we are treated to posturing instead.  (Where, exactly, was the dialog with Rick Warren?) The lack of argument in the inaugural you speak of is part of the same phenomena, I think.

And it's what's got folks like me most deeply worried.  We just don't hear enough of Obama himself working through the argument for what he believes, and therefore we're left with little more than talking points.  And talking points are very thin gruel, indeed, which can readily be changed or even "just" overshadowed with a new set of talking points, as already happened with FISA.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:20:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and yet lincoln didn't free a single slave (4.00 / 3)

and he resisted radical reconstruction, which might have advanced Black people's rights by a century (or perhaps not).  So let's not kid ourselves that our moderates are different from the ones of the past.

This is not to defend Obama, but simply to say - he is just another politician.  Whether he delivers great speeches or speaks to his era by speaking in soundbytes or combines different discourses in the same speech or blatantly lies, that doesn't change our job.  If we can force him to spend his political capital to stop Israel from suffocating the life out of the people of Gaza or to promote real critical historical education in the United States, rather than to get an extra ten million dollars for ethanol in his stimulus package, we will be doing our jobs.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:31:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Job one...and two...and three (4.00 / 1)

It's not that they are or aren't any different; it's that we don't know -- can't know -- where they stand. If you look at what Lincoln did or didn't do, you invariably also find fairly candid comments from Lincoln which explain why he did what he did. This is manifestly not the case today.

As for what our jobs are, you'll get no argument from me. Dialogues like this are part of that job, but they're not all of it. Whatever else happens, I'm more confident today that we'll do what's necessary than I have been in years. It is, as Churchill said, the end of the beginning.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

lincoln didn't live in the era of postmodernism and internet (0.00 / 0)

anyway, i just can't stand the endles breathless waxing on from progressives (not you, but in general) about what Obama will or won't do, what he is or is not.  Just let the man be and let's move on.  I too, am optimistic - about the possibility of movement building.  so let's do that.  Obama will fit in where he fits in (which I hope will be - far left behind).  He's welcome to take the credit as long as we get to keep the ChangeTM brand.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:13:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BULLSHIT! (4.00 / 4)

The Emancipation Proclamation freed millions of slaves.  Not by itself, of course.  Not without the Union armies.  But all the armies in the world without the Emancipation Proclamation would not have freed a single slave.  And given what we know of the South, every single last slaveowner would have been raising holy hell to get his "stolen property" back after the Civil War, if not for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Enough with this "they're all the same" BS.  They are not all the same.  They may have similar constraints.  That is undoubtedly true.  And Obama may end up as progressive as Lincoln or FDR.  But diminishing the degree to which Lincoln and FDR took progressive directions as president does nothing to help our historical understanding, or our political strategizing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:45:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well they did get their "stolen property" back in many ways (0.00 / 0)

and a lot of that was due to Lincoln, who considered the unity of the union (read white elites) more important than Black people's well being - from start to finish.  He was a freesoiler when he was elected - and it was the paranoia of the South that allowed the possibility of the war to end slavery.  He also was trying to ward off British entrance into the war with the emancipation proclamation and encourage slave revolts to help the Northern army.  of course it was important - i'm just saying - again - he was a politician (or statesman if you prefer, since he was, I begrudgingly agree, possibly less of an ass than most) and we should understand him in that context.

I'm not saying Lincoln wasn't better than Buchanan or Polk- I'm just saying that a moderate is a moderate is a moderate - and that's what passes for progressive in particular moments in time.  Does Obama do his best to capitalize on the IDEA of change without doing enough to PROMOTE change in a way that Lincoln and FDR did not?  Sure.  I'm just not going to pretend that Lincoln and FDR and Thomas Jefferson et al were more than human or that they committed magnificent acts which we must all emulate in order to create a more perfect blah blah blah.

But believe me - I agree with you wholeheartedly that all American politicians and more pertinently the social forces they represent are not the same - if I thought that, I wouldn't see the difference between Obama and (@#$@#$@#$@#) Bill Clinton.  But we spend too much time worrying about what Obama is going to do or is doing or might do and not enough about what we can do.  Let him decide what he wants to - it shouldn't change our proactive agenda, though it could change the strategy or tactics - i.e. the things that are actually in our control.  Where's Cindy Sheehan?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:02:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mmm.... (4.00 / 2)

If you're blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow or 100 years of sharecropping in the South, I'd say that you're essentially completing John Wilkes Booth's work for him.

Yeah, okay, where's Cindy Sheehan? Where's Joe Hill, for that matter? Will you fill in for them, or should we just cancel the program?

---

by: William Timberman @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:12:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm not blaming him (4.00 / 1)

i'm saying he's not all that.
And I meant "where's cindy sheehan" like "let's go find her!"  I had read that she was going to be working to bring what we optimistically call "3rd parties" together.  Which would be useful.  And in general, she seems like a useful person.

So really - does anyone know what she's up to? :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:14:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Think You Willfully Misread Lincoln (4.00 / 2)

Over time, he listened to Frederick Douglass to an astonishing degree that you simply fail to credit.

Sure, there were hard pragmatic reasons for that listening.  But it was still Frederick Douglass he was listening to.

Furthermore, he was killed far too early to take the blame for most of what you want to lay at his door.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:30:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so we're going to hold Obama accountable for his appointments, (0.00 / 0)

but Lincoln gets a free pass on Andrew Johnson?
Anyway, look, I'm not a Lincoln expert, but I think idolatry is unhelpful at best and dangerous to our brains at worst.  

Here's my critique:

1. "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...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."

+

2. Moderate reconstruction.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:48:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Really ARE Twisting Things Here, My Friend (4.00 / 1)

Lincoln's choice of a running mate was arguably crucial for preserving the Republic.  At the time, precisely one VP had gone on to become President in his own right after a President had served a full 2 terms.  Of course, two previous VPs had become President after the President died in office, but Lincoln can hardly be accused of planning ahead on that basis, now can he?  So, the VP slot was rationally seen as far more of a symbolic token of reconciliation than anything else.  And Lincoln's opponent in, McClellan, almost certainly would have settled the Civil War on disastrous terms.

So, yes, faulting Lincoln for the Johnson appointment, no matter how bad it turned out, really is treading on thin ice.  Moreover, it's not at all comparable to Obama's appointments, since the VP has no duties other than tie-braking in the Senate, while Obama's appointees have all sorts of powers and duties.

Here's my rebuttal:

(1) When did he say that?

(2) How would he have reacted to Southern intransigence?

Like I said, he was killed too early for your critiques to have merit.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 22:02:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you make my point for me (0.00 / 0)

"Lincoln's choice of a running mate was arguably crucial for preserving the Republic."

The letter is a letter from August 1862 to Horace Greeley in response to an article in the New York tribune.  

Whhat is "preserving the Republic" or "free-soiling" or "moderate Republicanism" if not the mid nineteenth century version of centrism?  For me, the argument is the extent to which Lincoln was a better person (or to put it in bette rterms, did all he could for decency) who was constrained by political circumstances or whether he was more opportunistic than that.  Like I said, I'm not a Lincoln scholar, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question, but I do believe that Lincoln placed a higher priority on holding the Republic together than he did on freeing the slaves - as did most White Presidents (i.e. Presidents) throughout that era.  

For someone who has a strong critique of the institutions of the South, you are letting off Lincoln's version of reconstruction (which Andrew Johnson continued) fairly easily, as part of a trend that preceded it.  You can argue it was better in the long run for state stability and I won't contest that, but you have to acknowledge that it did more to allow the White elites in the South to regain power rather quickly.  What would Lincoln's reaction to Tilden vs. Hayes have been?  I don't know.  But I do believe that, like Kennedy, we (the progressive portion of the populace) would see him as a far more complex figure rather than some kind of knight in shining armor if we took a critical look and if he hadn't been assassinated.

That said, like Obama, I understand that somtimes the brand is more important than the man.  So I'll leave it at that.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:17:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Not Just That You're Not A Lincoln Scholar (4.00 / 1)

You're not thinking clearly.

I do believe that Lincoln placed a higher priority on holding the Republic together than he did on freeing the slaves - as did most White Presidents (i.e. Presidents) throughout that era.

 

How, exactly could Lincoln have freed the slaves if the South had been allowed to secede?

You appear to be caught up in some sort of ideological fantasy that's obsessed with labels (Lincoln, FDR, Obama are all "centrists" ergo, interchangeable), and utterly oblivious to the actual sequence of historical events, and how Lincoln's views changed over time.

When I asked about the quote, I knew the answer.  It was 1862. The Emancipation Proclamation was 1863.  Johnson (a Southern Democrat who stayed loyal to the Union) was selected as VP in 1864.

That means that Johnson's selection was intended to help (a) win the war, and thus (b) preserve the union and (c) free the slaves (by enforcing the Emancipation Proclamation, which could only be enforced by winning the war).

You don't have to be a Lincoln scholar to know this stuff.  It's basic high school history, and anyone who doesn't already know it can put it together in about 5 minutes with Wikipedia.  You're not just anyone.  You're a very smart dude.  The fact that you don't get this is clearly the product of pre-conceptions that are getting in your way.

You should know from our past discussions that I'm generally sympathetic with your political analysis.  Where we differ here is not due to your point that there are significant ideological limits at work.  That's undeniably true. Where we differ is your misreading of how, during a time of extreme duress, those limits shifted significantly, and Lincoln played a major role in their shifting.  Still, shifting them did not eliminate them, nor was the shift necessarily permanent, as discussed in my somewhat recent post on post-Civil War narratives about the Civil War.  Historical realism is not at war with ideological realism.  The two illuminate one another.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 15:45:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm discussing this at a less nuanced level than you are because what I'm responding to is popular history and mythmaking (0.00 / 0)

My simplest point, as I said in an earlier response to William that Lincoln - like FDR and Obama and Clinton - "is not all that" and needs to be contextualized as a human being operating within specific contexts.  And I hope that is agreed upon.

You appear to be caught up in some sort of ideological fantasy that's obsessed with labels (Lincoln, FDR, Obama are all "centrists" ergo, interchangeable), and utterly oblivious to the actual sequence of historical events, and how Lincoln's views changed over time.

This is not just a matter of basic high school logic - there are many, many, many different scenarios that could have been generated by a figure and an era as nuanced as Lincoln-Civil War, regardless of whether the Southern elites were deadset against him in their total refusal to compromise on slavery.

Though you're in a better position than me to contextualize him, you continue to emphasize that he underwent some process of change as a political figure without recognizing this: that where he ended up at his death in comparison to the options available to him is where he was most of his life in comparison to the options available to him.  To put it more crassly- Free soil:abolitionism as preserving the union:freeing the slaves is to moderate reconstruction:radical reconstruction.  That is, to me, the defining aspect of his sensibility- and it's sensibilities that I'm talking about, not specific policies or appointments.  But where it matters to me is that the policies he advocated at the end of his life with regard to Southern political institutiosn helped shape reconstruction - he obviously is not The Great Man that is responsible for all good or evil, but he IS responsible to some extent for the failure to make a more fundamental break with the politics of sectional compromise in one of those rare opportunities throughout history in which that was available.  In contrast, to, say, LBJ in 1964-65, at least on civil rights.

If i'm wrong about this - then show me.  You keep insisting, but I see no evidence.  Short of offering me some evidence that in fact he did end up changing fundamentally or that somehow he transcended a political career built on upholding the existing order while promoting changes when presented with the opportunities, i would accept that he was better rather than worse - and even that he was a "good president" - but a hero?  I have a hard time with that one without further evidence.  Maybe if I ever do become a lincoln scholar I'll come to agree with you.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 19:47:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On The One Hand (0.00 / 0)

You are deliberately less nuanced, dealing with "popular history and mythmaking" and "sensibilities...not specific policies or appointments.

OTOH, you fault me for not presenting, "some evidence that in fact he did end up changing fundamentally."

The latter is, of course, an impossible task, since by your own words, you are not interested in "specific policies or appointments", which is what evidence is all about.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 21:18:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm not faulting you, i'm beseeching you (0.00 / 0)

and i'm stating what my limitations are - and telling you how you might change my mind if you're so inclined.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 21:52:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Just Saying (0.00 / 0)

It looks like an impossible task from where I stand.  No matter what evidence I might present, it's crapshoot, at best, whether it makes any difference to you.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 22:38:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's not that hard (0.00 / 0)

Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated today. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect, let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion--merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months' grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.

Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.

some of the academic articles on the impact of the emancipation proclamation in terms of how the war was seen by people living at the time also make a strong case for what you're arguing in defense of his character.

I still say it's an open argument - as it should be.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 01:06:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and to answer your question (0.00 / 0)

i think lincoln was eminently pragmatic and would have secured SOME civil rights for Black people in law but not so many in practice and left most of the political and social institutions of the white elite in place- as happened.  I don't know what he would have done about attempts to legally reinstate slavery- I assume he would have opposed it on "I won." grounds but I don't think he would have done much to stop its reemergence in practice or else he would have pursued a different set of policies based on different priorities.

I believe if the South hadn't seceded, he would have attempted to contain them (and slavery) without endangering the Republic, as American politicians repeatedly said prior to the civil war.  So perhaps you can argue that he would have provoked the crazies in the South through his "moderate" actions.  But my point remains about who he was and what his priorities were, given that I've acknowledged that I don't know when to understand "Lincoln" as historical agent and what is "Lincoln" as product of social and political circumstances.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:26:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right, you're not a Lincoln expert (0.00 / 0)

You're going to blame Lincoln for Andrew Johnson?  Ridiculous.

Lincoln was not the only one fooled by Johnson.  The Radical Republicans, who of course, came to hate and impeach Johnson, were, for a brief period after Lincoln's assassination, themselves under the impression that he was a silver lining in the assassination, that he would give them the free hand that Lincoln wouldn't have.

Criticize Lincoln all you want, but to imply that Lincoln's choice of Johnson was a part of some mutual "Southern Strategy" is not historically accurate.

Johnson was a political choice and nothing more, at a time when a political choice was required.  Nobody knew very much about him.  He was reaching out to Democrats.  Nothing more.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 00:41:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

okay, don't blame him for johnson (0.00 / 0)

explain moderate reconstruction or free soil politics or any of the other things that lincoln-in-context did that were pretty moderate (i.e. interested in preserving the union over a radical change in american politics).  I won't argue withh you if you say he's a great guy (see above) and I'm not saying he was manipulatively plotting to enslave as many people for as long as possible- it's more complicated and there's a difference between him and John Calhoun just as there's a difference between Obama and Cheney.  I'm just saying let's not make a hero or a devil out of our politicians and understand them as people in a social and political context who have ALWAYS had mixed results.

Otherwise, the door to radicalism is wide open and I welcome you to walk through it.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:20:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What You Utterly Fail To Grasp (0.00 / 0)

is that Frederick Douglass was a radical, and he had a profound influence on Lincoln and his policies.

You insist on thinking that there's a wall separating the two, and there needs to be a door to walk through, when, in fact, the two of them were in the same room together.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 15:52:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

being in the same room as frederick douglass (0.00 / 0)

talking to him, being influenced by him, and all else, does not change the fact that lincoln was on the more conservative side of the debate on reconstruction, to the best of my knowledge.  And that is one of his many legacies, regardless of who he was talking to-- if douglass had such a profound effect on Lincoln, where is the evidence in the policies lincoln promoted towards the South towards the end of his life?  Where is the evidence that Lincoln as far beyond a political life of statesmanship as you're saying?  Can you really see him pulling a John Quincy Adams, but on the issue of Black people's social and economic rights rather than slavery?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 19:52:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently, Frederick Douglass Could, In His Own Way (0.00 / 0)

Can you really see him pulling a John Quincy Adams, but on the issue of Black people's social and economic rights rather than slavery?

And that's good enough for me.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 20:54:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How About (4.00 / 3)

organizing online a national effort to meet with our Representatives and Senators when they return home for their President's Day week long holiday?  If groups and individuals showed up at their every public appearance, noisely if necessary to get an audience, we might be able to jump-start such a debate.  Maybe we could call it "Let The Light In" and enlist the J-Street Project as an ally or co-sponsor.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:27:35 PM UTC

This Seems Like An Excellent Idea To Me! (4.00 / 1)

Have to discuss it some more.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:37:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good luck (0.00 / 0)

This issue, like abortion and a few others, is not lobby-able.  Neither by you, J Street, or AIPAC. Reps and Sens are where they are on it. There is no possibility of pushing them around.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:37:28 PM UTC

Just Like Abolition and Integration Were Not Lobbyable (4.00 / 6)

Nothing to see here. Just move along, now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 18:39:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Changing Their Minds -- Bottom Up (4.00 / 3)

The immediate goal is not to change their minds but to change the terms of the debate.  Start with a low-cost national effort, and get some local media coverage.  Write letters to the editors and diaries online, then, the debate shows up on Rachel Maddow or prompts a question or two on Meet The Press.  Doing nothing surely results in nothing.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:00:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what if you're wrong? (4.00 / 3)

this is what I don't get about hawkish pro-israel people - if you are correct in all your assumptions, what exactly will happen if Israel manages to so destroy its image in the world that it loses its only real ally that backs it up 99.999999% of the time?  What will happen to the people who live in Israel if that happens?  This is why, as Paul and many others have pointed out, the argument that it is pro-Israel to inflict collective punishment on Gaza and to not engage a legitimate partner (Hamas), is moronic.  

The Israeli elite has already gutted the credibility of a two-state solution with the wall, etc., so people who call themselves "pro-Israel" damn well better learn to treat Palestinians like human beings or accept that they prefer ethnic cleansing to consensus based democracy.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 19:15:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He is not change relative to (0.00 / 0)

the recent history of the Democrats.

He is a good public speaker, and he benefited from Bush hate.  Bush haters don't realize the Democrats are every bit as responsible for the Iraq war as the republicans.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 21:23:06 PM UTC