HawkShack.com

An FYI, the below opinion is not something I made up or is my personal opinion. This is a general overview of the various viewpoints I've learned from talking with Americans of African descent over the years. It was quite an education. Still to this day, the divide between how Americans of European descent and Americans of African descent view America is wide and very different mostly because of their very different history in America. This has been from a wide and varied group of people from friends, co-workers, various profession levels, and ages. The main source of this viewpoint was a multi-year participation on a forum that was 90% Americans of African descent. There you learned that the American of African descent has a very different history and viewpoint of America. They do not look at the Revolutionary War, World War 1 and 2, or really any of our wars in the same fashion. They do not look at the American flag as a majority the same as Americans of European descent.

I did not find a general hatred of people of European ancestry, just an idea that people of European ancestry tend to be truly clueless as to how Americans of African descent have lived their lives and been treated in America. After listening to their viewpoints for years, I came to accept them as true to their experience with documented evidence provided that allowed me to research their claims. It was an interesting education that helped me to understand where Americans of African descent are coming from.

Lastly, I personally witnessed the two worlds when I dated a American girl of African ancestry. It was pretty shocking to see how she was treated compared to me. It was an eye opener to say the least. Even worse was how her children that I loved a great deal were treated. It really was infuriating when four year olds are called the N-word for the first time. I am always surprised how vile some parents can be teaching their children such cruel philosophies.

This has been a nation of two Americas for far too long. I hope these last pushes will help kill the last vestiges of this racist trash and continue to push until racists are no longer allowed to push their vile viewpoint any longer. Nothing pleases me more than to see racists run into the dark spaces of the world where their vile ideas can go to die.

______________________________________


to accept history? Why is it so hard for men and women of European ancestry to accept that they are the Nazis or villains of the stories of African people?

They are the people that subjugated, enslaved, mistreated, and even murdered people of African ancestry throughout their time in America. Why is this so hard to accept when it is well and clearly documented?

I read so much of the rhetoric coming out and it seems that white men or as I prefer men of European ancestry can't seem to accept that their ancestors made decisions when colonizing that made them the equivalent of Nazi Germany or any other evil group in the lives of African folk. Their ancestors during the Founding of this nation did not fight for for the freedom of the African. Did not fight for the freedom of the African during World War 1 or 2 and returned home to further oppress and subjugate the African man making him highly unwelcome and cruelly treated in America. The only examples of men of European ancestry fighting for some rights for the African are The Civil War and the 1960s Civil Rights movement, 15 plus years after the end of World War 2. I see so many such men making excuse after excuse for their vile behavior even weak attempts to justify slavery economically or make it seem as though allowing them to live in subjugation in America was better than living back in colonized Africa. And some of these folks are still trying to be the villain in the lives of African folk by continuing to act in a racist and abusive manner, while others continue to make excuses for this treatment.

At what point do men and women of European ancestry admit they will never share the same heroes and never look at America the same. Yet the African man will still come to love and appreciate America through the legacy of their own heroes and Founding Father equivalents like Frederick Douglas, Malcom X, or Martin Luther King. They will love better their fathers and mothers who stood up for Civil Rights rather than soldiers fighting in wars that ended tyranny for others like defeating the Germans, while these same European ancestry soldiers returned home to support segregation, Jim Crow laws, and lynching.

I used to talk with my buddies and other folk of African descent, I learned they will likely never love men like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. They view them as slavers and evil men who were cruel to their ancestors and supported African subjugation. And those men did. Though they did love what was written in the Constitution, even though it never applied to them until Lincoln and then again was denied them until Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. How can you expect a group of people to love the history of a nation that subjugated them and treated them so terribly?

I wish more men of European ancestry that like to talk up the Founders and the greatness of America would read Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, read slavebreaking books and how to manage your slaves, and other historical documents clearly showing how vile their ancestors were to the African man. I read some of these books and was appalled. They literally bought and sold African families breeding them like animals, selling their children, and never much allowing men of African ancestry to learn or engage in fathering. It was considered not great to allow fathers or mothers to become too attached to a child that was going to be sold. Slaveowners when they had an unruly slave would often hire some poor, working class white man to come in and break the slave who would hire out to smaller slave owners who didn't maintain their own slave force.

Then there are the history books that document the rise of the KKK and other organizations that terrorized and tyrannized the African to prevent him from enjoying the freedoms he was denied so long. Then the institution of Jim Crow Laws, black codes, and segregation with Separate but Equal.

How can any man of European ancestry other than those whose stick their heads in the sand not realize how terrible they have been to the African man and why he doesn't love America or look to the same heroes as they do? It doesn't make much sense unless you're utterly stupid.

Then we got this idiot president Donald Trump talking about Old Glory without any regard for the history of Old Glory as it pertains to the African man in America. Such ignorant leadership will never fix this. You absolutely have to acknowledge our well-documented history and men of European ancestry have to take a concerted effort to acknowledge their ancestors engaged in great evil in regards to race and that if they want a better future, they have to dedicate themselves to making the modern world better. They want African folk to love the flag and respect it, then make a nation where they feel like they are a part of it and not some group to blamed, ignored, and insulted when they tell you something is still very wrong with how they are being treated in the United States.

Europeans aren't the only ethnic group to have abducted slaves. It was common amongst Native American tribes as late as the early 1800's. Sacajawea was a slave that had been abducted by a rival tribe. Slaves were used by Egyptians to build the pyramids. And Europeans aren't the only society that committed atrocities against their fellow man. The Japanese committed horrendous atrocities during the Rape of Nanking. More recently, the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot were responsible for a genocide that killed nearly 3 million Cambodians. In the 1990's, the Rwanda genocide killed between .5 and 1.0 million Rwandans. Atrocities have been committed by all races and almost societies at one point or another. It's an ugly part of our past, even our recent past. It is not the exclusive domain of Europeans or those of us that are of European descent.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You have to understand that Europeans, and Americans of European descent, are not the root of all evil. It's pretty well distributed.

RiverDog wrote:Europeans aren't the only ethnic group to have abducted slaves. It was common amongst Native American tribes as late as the early 1800's. Sacajawea was a slave that had been abducted by a rival tribe. Slaves were used by Egyptians to build the pyramids. And Europeans aren't the only society that committed atrocities against their fellow man. The Japanese committed horrendous atrocities during the Rape of Nanking. More recently, the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot were responsible for a genocide that killed nearly 3 million Cambodians. In the 1990's, the Rwanda genocide killed between .5 and 1.0 million Rwandans. Atrocities have been committed by all races and almost societies at one point or another. It's an ugly part of our past, even our recent past. It is not the exclusive domain of Europeans or those of us that are of European descent.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You have to understand that Europeans, and Americans of European descent, are not the root of all evil. It's pretty well distributed.

My point is that in America, men of European ancestry are the villains to African folk and likely Native Americans. Not in the overall world, but in America. So don't confuse this as saying all white men evil, which is the usual translation as a white/European man tries to allay his guilt for this terrible behavior in America because they can't admit to it.

Even now you are showing an unwillingness to accept that your ancestors, people who look like you, were buying and selling African folk in America for 400 years. Stop trying to say. "well it's the world." No one is saying people of European ancestry are the only evil people, just that in America people of European ancestry are the Nazis to people of African descent. I'll repeat that again: strictly in America, not in the overall world though Europeans did screw Africans pretty badly in their nations.

Don't even try to pretend that Native Americans were even close to as involved in the slave trade or the subjugation of the African man in America as men of European ancestry.

What is my point? How do you expect a group of people of African descent to love a nation whose Founders were so evil to them? That is my point. If you were looking at history and your ancestors were treated as Africans were treated in America, would you love that nation or those people? Ask yourself that question and answer it honestly.

Look at your own daughter, imagine her being sold as a baby while you worked in the fields as a man being told you were an animal and I'm sorry, I needed the money so I sold your daughter. Get back to work or I'll have to call in the whip. Then segregation when you are told your separate but equal while experiencing the world as anything but equal. And even in the modern day having double the unemployment rate, minimal contact with white people to build the associations that help you get job, and the general feeling of being this underclass in America due to the historical teachings with an entire repertoire of insulting words to describe you. It's been a bad time. I think white/European ancestry men should wake up to why this occurred instead of denying it and fix it. So this country can be really free and live up to that Constitution that their ancestors fought for. It is not lost yet and the ability to make it a reality for all is right there in front of all of us.

Aseahawkfan wrote:My point is that in America, men of European ancestry are the villains to African folk and likely Native Americans. Not in the overall world, but in America. So don't confuse this as saying all white men evil, which is the usual translation as a white/European man tries to allay his guilt for this terrible behavior in America because they can't admit to it.

Even now you are showing an unwillingness to accept that your ancestors, people who look like you, were buying and selling African folk in America for 400 years. Stop trying to say. "well it's the world." No one is saying people of European ancestry are the only evil people, just that in America people of European ancestry are the Nazis to people of African descent. I'll repeat that again: strictly in America, not in the overall world though Europeans did screw Africans pretty badly in their nations.

What is it that I have said that gives you the impression that I am personally unwilling to accept that my ancestors were buying and selling African folk? Do you even know where my ancestors came from, let alone what they did for a living? Heck, even I know very little about my ancestry. I'm not into genealogy. About the only thing specifically I know about generations prior to my grandparents is that my paternal great grandfather emigrated from England during the American Civil War and tried to enlist in the Union army but was denied due to poor eyesight. That doesn't sound like a slave trader to me.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Don't even try to pretend that Native Americans were even close to as involved in the slave trade or the subjugation of the African man in America as men of European ancestry.

Of course, they weren't. They weren't as organized, existing in small groups or 'tribes', many of whom were nomadic, mostly agrarian. They didn't even have horses prior to the arrival of Europeans. My point was that Native Americans were not morally as pure as the wind driven snow as some might have us think.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What is my point? How do you expect a group of people of African descent to love a nation whose Founders were so evil to them? That is my point. If you were looking at history and your ancestors were treated as Africans were treated in America, would you love that nation or those people? Ask yourself that question and answer it honestly.

The majority of Americans of all ethnic groups know very little about American history, particularly of our founding fathers and the formation of our nation. IMO that's one of the problems with society today, that so many people are incredibly naïve about history.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Look at your own daughter, imagine her being sold as a baby while you worked in the fields as a man being told you were an animal and I'm sorry, I needed the money so I sold your daughter. Get back to work or I'll have to call in the whip. Then segregation when you are told your separate but equal while experiencing the world as anything but equal. And even in the modern day having double the unemployment rate, minimal contact with white people to build the associations that help you get job, and the general feeling of being this underclass in America due to the historical teachings with an entire repertoire of insulting words to describe you. It's been a bad time. I think white/European ancestry men should wake up to why this occurred instead of denying it and fix it. So this country can be really free and live up to that Constitution that their ancestors fought for. It is not lost yet and the ability to make it a reality for all is right there in front of all of us.

None of us, black or white, can identify with some of the types of tragedies that you're describing. As far as the current day inequities, I can understand why many blacks are upset. I don't deny it. I've had black friends since I was a teenager, and remain in touch with several of them today.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me and my family. You really know very little about me. Quit making this personal.

RiverDog wrote:What is it that I have said that gives you the impression that I am personally unwilling to accept that my ancestors were buying and selling African folk? Do you even know where my ancestors came from, let alone what they did for a living? Heck, even I know very little about my ancestry. I'm not into genealogy. About the only thing specifically I know about generations prior to my grandparents is that my paternal great grandfather emigrated from England during the American Civil War and tried to enlist in the Union army but was denied due to poor eyesight. That doesn't sound like a slave trader to me.

Maybe not. And that would be lucky for you. What you listed is why I don't support reparations. It would be far too difficult to tax a large group of people and pay reparations when you don't know who exactly was involved and what their level.

Of course, they weren't. They weren't as organized, existing in small groups or 'tribes', many of whom were nomadic, mostly agrarian. They didn't even have horses prior to the arrival of Europeans. My point was that Native Americans were not morally as pure as the wind driven snow as some might have us think.

Because of the movies. Sure, they weren't. They were highly varied groups with some more war like than others.

The majority of Americans of all ethnic groups know very little about American history, particularly of our founding fathers and the formation of our nation. IMO that's one of the problems with society today, that so many people are incredibly naïve about history.

And yet in the other thread about Brees some a commenter was assuming there is one truth and saying the same thing Brees was saying, when if he would learn history he would know that an African man will not look at the flag the same as a European man. The flag in the past was a symbol of oppression and fear for the African man, not freedom. American men of African ancestry still have a bad sense of the flag. It's not as bad as the Confederate Flag, but history shows clearly that come in to America was not the moving to a better life for men of African descent for the vast majority of our history.

I wish more men of European ancestry would understand that. When a man of African ancestry sees the flag and hear the national anthem, there are mixed or indifferent at best feelings, and often negative feelings.

None of us, black or white, can identify with some of the types of tragedies that you're describing. As far as the current day inequities, I can understand why many blacks are upset. I don't deny it. I've had black friends since I was a teenager, and remain in touch with several of them today.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me and my family. You really know very little about me. Quit making this personal.

The assumptions are not for you as an individual. And I think you tend to have read enough history to understand why the American Flag is not "Old Glory" to men of African descent or really many other minorities. The appreciation of Jefferson and Washington are mainly a feeling only felt by European ancestry men who know that history.

Men of African descent have no reason to love the flag and certainly look to different leaders as having granted them freedom. Even in World War 2 when we talk of this greatest generation, it was not the greatest generation to people of African descent. Many of the men who returned from fighting for freedom against Germany returned home to support laws and social norms that denied freedom to people of African ancestry.

So when I hear this talk of "all people should respect the flag", it shows a general ignorance of American history by those making the comments. Which is no surprise with an idiot like Donald Trump, but you would hope other Americans are more interested in learning the history behind this nation so they understand why a man of African descent doesn't see the flag or America as the land of the free, the home of the brave, or have much if any respect or appreciation for The Founders.

We should never be trying to force men of African descent to appreciate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who owned their ancestors as property, bought and sold their children, and continued a vile form of racist servitude even after the founding of this nation. Or to show respect for a flag that was a false symbol for them for so long. It will take some time before that flag means to them what it means to people of European ancestry.

This discussion isn't much for you either. You already know the nation's history and why American men of African descent feel as they do. I'm sure you wouldn't argue it. I sure wish more Americans weren't so short-sighted and unaware of their past. It's pretty clear why the American of African descent doesn't share the same feelings for the flag or they have their own heroes and people they admire and look up to that made America what it was supposed to be for them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:American men of African ancestry still have a bad sense of the flag. It's not as bad as the Confederate Flag, but history shows clearly that come in to America was not the moving to a better life for men of African descent for the vast majority of our history.

I wouldn't make assumptions or generalizations about men of African ancestry anymore than I wouldn't make them about Europeans. It's called prejudice, pre-judging or expressing a biased opinion about someone based on a characteristic of theirs. I have a black friend, a high school classmate and Facebook friend, that spent 20 years in the Navy. He's normally very expressive but hasn't ventured an opinion about the Floyd murder.

I think that once they framed the kneeling issue as not disrespecting the flag, armed services members, or anyone else, I'm good with it, especially if they're still facing it and remain respectful. It's a better gesture than Michael Bennett sitting on his can or raising a clenched fist. Heck, I might even kneel with them just to show that I'm at least trying to understand, that I'm not their enemy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The appreciation of Jefferson and Washington are mainly a feeling only felt by European ancestry men who know that history.

So what about Lincoln? Do they realize that Lincoln's top priority was not abolishing slavery, it was keeping the union together? That he did not go to war with the south and would have lived with slavery if the south would come back into the union? Would it change what they think about Lincoln if they learned more about him?

I honestly don't think very many Americans, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans, et al have an appreciation for history. If 30% of young Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map I doubt that many of them realize anything about Washington and Jefferson except that they're on our currency.

RiverDog wrote:I wouldn't make assumptions or generalizations about men of African ancestry anymore than I wouldn't make them about Europeans. It's called prejudice, pre-judging or expressing a biased opinion about someone based on a characteristic of theirs. I have a black friend, a high school classmate and Facebook friend, that spent 20 years in the Navy. He's normally very expressive but hasn't ventured an opinion about the Floyd murder.

I think that once they framed the kneeling issue as not disrespecting the flag, armed services members, or anyone else, I'm good with it, especially if they're still facing it and remain respectful. It's a better gesture than Michael Bennett sitting on his can or raising a clenched fist. Heck, I might even kneel with them just to show that I'm at least trying to understand, that I'm not their enemy.

Horsecrap. It is acknowledging history. Spending 20 years in the Navy doesn't in any way change the history of the nation. Your friend will know the history of the nation and will understand exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't change. A man of African descent, not black because there is no nation called black, will not read the history differently than it is. It is,as they say, what it is. He will know that had he resided in this nation during the time of the Founders, he would likely have been a slave and denied his Constitutional rights. And that Old Glory would have been as much as symbol of his subjugation as the Confederate flag.

It is in no way prejudging to state the documented history of a nation and how it will be viewed by the oppressed. Do you somehow think a man of African ancestry can't read the history of the nation and see that for most of his time in it he was subjugated and denied his rights? Do you think all these folk are standing up because the nation has been good to them?

Makes me wonder if you have spent any time at all contemplating why the race hierarchy was built as it was. Likely not. Why did they reduce the idea of a man to two colors? Do you ever contemplate or the read the history on why that was done? It had a purpose and it was not a good one.

So what about Lincoln? Do they realize that Lincoln's top priority was not abolishing slavery, it was keeping the union together? That he did not go to war with the south and would have lived with slavery if the south would come back into the union? Would it change what they think about Lincoln if they learned more about him?

This is a lie. I have heard this lie so many times that I'm surprised you were the one to state it given it has very little historical precedent other than a handful of quotes made by Lincoln to somehow justify this belief that were taken out of the context of who he was speaking to and why. The man had to convince the North to go to war with the South to hold the nation together for a reason that all were behind. I will be very surprised if the more educated people get and the more they understand what Lincoln did, he will only become more respected rather than less so. What he did was nothing short of astounding completing dual objectives of an extraordinary nature to save this nation.

Lincoln was elected to abolish slavery. If Lincoln were not elected to abolish slavery, then The South wouldn't have seceded in the first place. The entire reason they seceded was because Lincoln was elected on the Republican ticket to abolish slavery when the Republican Party established itself as an abolitionist party. It's one of the major reasons I still support the Republican Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election#:~:text=Despite%20minimal%20support%20in%20the,majority%20of%20the%20electoral%20vote.&text=The%20election%20of%20Lincoln%20led,the%20Battle%20of%20Fort%20Sumter.

So answer me this question, how was Lincoln's top priority to keep the union together if the union was not yet sundered when he was elected? And then once you answer that question, why did Lincoln at the same time as prosecuting the war versus the South complete a number of political maneuvers to end slavery?

I've heard this crap theory many times. It has no weight when all the facts are examined. It is a false theory often perpetuated by libertarian types to undermine Lincoln and what he did. I always ask the simple question, if Lincoln's top priority was to "hold the union together", why didn't he make a deal prior to his election to not pursue the abolition of slavery and there would have been no secession to begin with? Can you answer this?

I honestly don't think very many Americans, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans, et al have an appreciation for history. If 30% of young Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map I doubt that many of them realize anything about Washington and Jefferson except that they're on our currency.

Some powerful people know that lead. That is what matters most. Just as they are tearing down statues of Confederates right now, I will not be surprised if they come for Jefferson and Washington next. Things are not forgotten as much as you think if the majority aren't the ones aware. The majority are rarely aware of much. But the leaders of various movements are very much aware and work with an agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Some reading on the 13th Amendment for those that also have to listen to the horsecrap lie that Lincoln's top priority wasn't to abolish slavery. Lincoln had a much easier path to the presidency by not taking the stance to abolish slavery. He could easily have made a deal with the South to continue in the union by not abolishing slavery. He didn't have to put extensive work into abolishing slavery if his top priority was to "hold the union together." That lie has been propagated all too often.

Lincoln did the kind of political maneuvering few are even capable of. His leadership and focus on the goal of not only abolishing slavery, but ensuring that a slave nation did not exist right next door fracturing the young United States of America was nothing short of political statesmanship on a level few have ever seen or will see. Lincoln's work not only saved the nation from continuing the evil practice of slavery, but also ensured that the Southern States were not also able to continue this evil practice and deny millions of people their Constitutional Rights. I really wish this lie about his focus based on a handful of quotes when he has many others decrying the evil of slavery including the entire Lincoln vs Douglas debates would stop already. It shows a willful ignorance of history that seems to inflate a few quotes in an attempt to confuse and distort what Lincoln really did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates

Lincoln's House Divided Speech:

"A house divided against itself, cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[6]:

Never believe that lie that Lincoln was not elected to abolish slavery. He was sent to bring the House together free of slavery. That is what he did. One of the most successful presidents in our history dealing with one of the most morally deplorable issues in our history. Lincoln will be elevated as times passes while other presidents shrink.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Lincoln's House Divided Speech:

"A house divided against itself, cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[6]:

Never believe that lie that Lincoln was not elected to abolish slavery. He was sent to bring the House together free of slavery. That is what he did. One of the most successful presidents in our history dealing with one of the most morally deplorable issues in our history. Lincoln will be elevated as times passes while other presidents shrink.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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 to 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 the 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 every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm

It is very apparent that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the Union. Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, the issue was forced upon him. Indeed, most of the states of the Confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln even took office. South Carolina was the first, on December 20th 1860, followed in January by MS, FL, AL, GA, and LA. TX seceded Feb. 1st, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th. Less than 6 weeks later, the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, the event commonly credited with the beginning of the war.

I do not mean this to in any way discount the efforts of Lincoln to abolish slavery. Indeed, IMO Lincoln is our greatest President due primarily to his moral conviction opposing slavery. But he was still a politician and not quite the crusader that we make him out to be and likely would have compromised to end the war w/o abolishing slavery if such an agreement had ever been on the table.

RiverDog wrote:Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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 to 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 the 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 every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm

It is very apparent that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the Union. Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, the issue was forced upon him. Indeed, most of the states of the Confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln even took office. South Carolina was the first, on December 20th 1860, followed in January by MS, FL, AL, GA, and LA. TX seceded Feb. 1st, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th. Less than 6 weeks later, the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, the event commonly credited with the beginning of the war.

I do not mean this to in any way discount the efforts of Lincoln to abolish slavery. Indeed, IMO Lincoln is our greatest President due primarily to his moral conviction opposing slavery. But he was still a politician and not quite the crusader that we make him out to be and likely would have compromised to end the war w/o abolishing slavery if such an agreement had ever been on the table.

Do you know who Horace Greeley was? This letter was an important political maneuver to garner Northern support for his war efforts.

This is one letter and written with a political purpose. I suggest you read that letter as many times as it takes for you to understand it. It's a beautifully written letter and shows how intelligent Lincoln was with how he did things. That quote is often cited, yet taken out of the context of the entire letter which I am glad you posted. The theory of the quote does not align with his actions or the reason he was elected. And it was a public letter written to a newspaper publisher meant to assure those supporting his war efforts that he was fighting for the continuation of the union, which was of course one of his goals. He was most assuredly fighting to end slavery and prevent slavery from continuing due to secession, but would not have found the support he had if he stated it in a clear manner. So no, I do not agree that the above letter is proof that he prosecuted the Civil War for the sole reason of preserving The Union, nor do his actions and political maneuvers support that.

That is exactly why Lincoln will be elevated in the future and his accomplishments proven even more extraordinary. In the modern day, we watch politicians maneuver in public, write letters, and make speeches all the time that don't support or contradict their actual belief, so to truly understand a person you must look instead at their actions.

Lincoln as I stated to you had to maneuver in extremely difficult circumstances to find support to prosecute a war. Even while prosecuting that war, he maneuvered in a way that kept his support while putting slavery on a path to extinction.

Because a man is unable to clearly state his belief as a politician as we have seen many times in public politics, does not mean he is not working towards a goal that others do not realize until it is done. Lincoln was a political mastermind who knew what he had to do to keep his support for the war, while never forgetting that his eventual goal was a the destruction of slavery which could not happen if he did not first sustain the Union.

Suffice it to say, that letter and quote does not somehow controvert all the other evidence clearly showing his primary purpose and goal was the end of slavery. It just so happened that the South seceded changing the priority from the destruction of slavery to first re-establishing the Union so he could end slavery in the entire land. You cannot exactly end slavery if half the nation is divided, can you?

So before you make the presumption based on a letter or a few quotes as to Lincoln's priority and stance, I would spend more time studying his stances prior to election, why the South seceded in the first place, and what type of political maneuvers Lincoln needed to make to garner support for the war and that war needed to be won first to ensure slavery was destroyed in America.

Suffice it to say, your interpretation of that letter and quote along with so many others who state the same is greatly flawed. And when historians and future people spend the time to fully comprehend the context, time, and intelligence exhibited by Lincoln to prosecute a Civil War while working to end a great evil, he will only rise in stature.

But yes, Lincoln was a great Crusader. He was just far smarter and more intellectual about it than more outspoken abolitionists who could not have accomplished what Lincoln did with masterful, intelligent, and ruthless pursuit of a House United with slavery ended.

That letter is amazing and so intelligently written. No president in recent memory could have written such a letter. We have such terrible leadership now. The strength and intelligence in a single letter. I miss that kind of leadership.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Do you know who Horace Greeley was?

He was a notable journalist and very active in politics.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This letter was an important political maneuver to garner Northern support for his war efforts.

Of course, it was. Lincoln was no babe in the woods when it came to politics. His emancipation proclamation was as much a political, strategic ploy as it was freeing a suffering people, not the least of which was to recruit blacks to fight in the Union army.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This is one letter and written with a political purpose. I suggest you read that letter as many times as it takes for you to understand it. It's a beautifully written letter and shows how intelligent Lincoln was with how he did things. That quote is often cited, yet taken out of the context of the entire letter which I am glad you posted. The theory of the quote does not align with his actions or the reason he was elected. And it was a public letter written to a newspaper publisher meant to assure those supporting his war efforts that he was fighting for the continuation of the union, which was of course one of his goals. He was most assuredly fighting to end slavery and prevent slavery from continuing due to secession, but would not have found the support he had if he stated it in a clear manner. So no, I do not agree that the above letter is proof that he prosecuted the Civil War for the sole reason of preserving The Union, nor do his actions and political maneuvers support that.

Stop lecturing me. I never said preserving the Union was Lincoln's "sole" reason for his prosecuting the war. What I said was that his top priority was preserving the Union, and that he likely would have compromised had one been in the offing. Lincoln obviously felt that a free United States would, in the long run, be a stronger nation than one half slave and half free...a house divided against itself cannot stand, and he had a deep, moral sense that slavery was wrong. But he was horrified by the war.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Suffice it to say, that letter and quote does not somehow controvert all the other evidence clearly showing his primary purpose and goal was the end of slavery. It just so happened that the South seceded changing the priority from the destruction of slavery to first re-establishing the Union so he could end slavery in the entire land. You cannot exactly end slavery if half the nation is divided, can you?

There's other evidence that Lincoln's top priority during the Civil War was preserving the union. I can't give you any quotes, but I've read several books and watched a number of documentaries on the Civil War, the best of which was done by Ken Burns.

I pretty much agree with your appraisal of Lincoln. As I stated, he is IMO our greatest President.

It is very apparent that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the Union. Lincoln did not go to war over slavery, the issue was forced upon him. Indeed, most of the states of the Confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln even took office. South Carolina was the first, on December 20th 1860, followed in January by MS, FL, AL, GA, and LA. TX seceded Feb. 1st, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th. Less than 6 weeks later, the confederates fired on Fort Sumter, the event commonly credited with the beginning of the war.

The election was held on November 9th 1860. You as a politically aware American should know election day and Inauguration Day are very different days. So your timeline is correct, but you should know the difference between when a president is elected and when he takes office. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected. They did not wait for him to take office. The direct reason they seceded was because Lincoln was an avowed abolitionist and The Republican Party was founded on the abolition of slavery.

Lincoln very much did go to war over the issue of slavery. I don't quite understand why you don't see the clear reasoning. It's a pretty easy line, but I will list it:
1. The Republican Party and Lincoln was elected to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a well known supporter of abolition having debated his opponent Stephen Douglass on the direct issue of abolition during the Lincoln-Douglass Debates. I hope you are aware of them.

2. The election was held on November 9, 1860 which Lincoln handily won.

3. The South secedes following his election, but before he takes office.

4. Lincoln needs to maintain The Union first. Why does Lincoln need to maintain The Union? First, to ensure the country remains solvent. So of course that was an objective. But also because you can't very well abolish slavery when the States supporting slavery have seceded and the law will no longer apply to them. Can you abolish slavery if that happens? The answer is no.

So the direct reason he went to war against The South was to maintain The Union so he could abolish slavery across the land, which is what he did. So this argument that he did not go to war to end slavery is a false one that does not how an understanding of the times, what the conflict between the North and the South was, who backed Lincoln, and what needed to be done to abolish slavery.

I hope you start to see the bigger picture than to focus on a letter and quote taken out of context of the overall time and expedient of necessity of first focusing on ensuring The Union does not break without in anyway changing Lincoln's primary objective he was elected to do: abolish slavery. He got the job done.

And I'll leave it there hoping you can see the error of your theory that first starts with the biggest chink in the theory that The South would never have seceded if Lincoln wasn't elected to abolish slavery.

RiverDog wrote:There's other evidence that Lincoln's top priority during the Civil War was preserving the union. I can't give you any quotes, but I've read several books and watched a number of documentaries on the Civil War, the best of which was done by Ken Burns.

I pretty much agree with your appraisal of Lincoln. As I stated, he is IMO our greatest President.

There is more evidence indicating that saving The Union became the priority because The South seceded because he was going to abolish slavery.

I have also read on Lincoln and The Civil War. It's pretty clear secession and the need for The Civil War would have never occurred were Lincoln not such an avowed abolitionist who had he votes and power to abolish it. For some historians and students of The Civil War come to the false conclusion that Lincoln somehow would have compromised is extreme speculation at best. The South certainly did not think Lincoln would compromise or they wouldn't have seceded. It is very clear The South knew Lincoln was going to abolish slavery with very little chance of compromise, thus the reason the seceded in the to begin with.

I figured you would see the bigger picture rather than buy into theory that Lincoln was "less of a crusader" or the like. I've heard that theory too many times and does not fit the facts as we know them as I illustrated.

This is a small disagreement. I'm happy to know you're not a racist or fearful of the foreign. Racists have been a poison in this land since they swallowed the poison of the racial hierarchy. It's good to know that poison is continuing to be healed from this land.

Aseahawkfan wrote:There is more evidence indicating that saving The Union became the priority because The South seceded because he was going to abolish slavery.

Most of the confederacy had already seceded before Lincoln took office. Keeping the Union together was his over riding priority on the day he took office and throughout his entire first term.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I have also read on Lincoln and The Civil War. It's pretty clear secession and the need for The Civil War would have never occurred were Lincoln not such an avowed abolitionist who had he votes and power to abolish it. For some historians and students of The Civil War come to the false conclusion that Lincoln somehow would have compromised is extreme speculation at best. The South certainly did not think Lincoln would compromise or they wouldn't have seceded. It is very clear The South knew Lincoln was going to abolish slavery with very little chance of compromise, thus the reason the seceded in the to begin with.

There's no doubt that the results of the election of 1860 was the primary reason for the South's seceding, and I agree, that had they not gone to war that Lincoln would have likely set into motion the eventual abolishment of slavery. But once the war started and it became clear that the war wasn't going to end quickly and relatively painlessly, he desperately wanted to end the war and save the union. Things went very badly for the North at the start of the war.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/thomas-j ... 46209.html

They're coming for The Founders next. I knew this would happen at some point. We'll see how much juice Jefferson and Washington have due to starting the United States. I don't think they'll stand up to the litmus test myself. They were slavers. The price of such actions has to eventually be paid and often in blood as it was. I figured the reckoning for slavery would continue on until The Founders were more accurately represented in history versus how America teaches about them without clearly illustrating their involvement in the evil of slavery. It wasn't until the 16th president that an avowed abolitionist was elected president to end slavery with The South forcibly brought under control to ensure a slave state did not continue next to us. We discussed this a while back and I knew it was coming.