Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

History Debate About Slavery Turns Ugly in Ohio Senate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 02:21 PM
Original message
History Debate About Slavery Turns Ugly in Ohio Senate
COLUMBUS (AP) -- A seemingly genteel debate about history while discussing a feel-good bill quickly devolved into a shouting match and accusations of racial insensitivity that interrupted Ohio Senate business for two hours. The fracas on Wednesday, which ended with an apology from the Senate president, grew out of frustration by minority Democrats, building over weeks and even months of perception that they are not allowed to speak freely on bills while Republicans get more leniency on the floor.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4950186
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Re: Lincoln and slavery
Noone who has studied slavery in the US could possibly believe that Abe Lincoln was a great friend of the slaves. These descendents of African kidnap victims (that is what slaves were) were to be "free" on Free Soil, only. This Free Soil/Free Labor movement was the hinge upon which Lincoln and the Republicans swung. In reality, the bolt of the 1860 Democratic convention and the formation of what was effectively three Democratic Parties allowed Lincoln to barely take the White House. The Republican Party was NOT the party of abolition, although most abolitionists would vote Republican since the alternative was to vote Democratic, the Whigs having disintegrated in 1854 after the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Until secession and the start of the Civil War, Lincoln's statements were all in keeping of the official party line: the restoration of the Union and no further expansion of slavery on US soil.
His role of Great Emancipator was a myth: while he probably wished for an end of slavery as dearly as did Jefferson (the wolf by the ears anology) on philosophical grounds, it was accomplished as a war measure to restore the Union. Lincoln was a product of his time and culture, as was culture, which was why Jefferson could read Voltaire in French and drink a Bordeaux in his cellar at Monticello while wringing his hands over slavery then go visit his "happy servants" he kept as chattels. Lincoln was a very pragmatic politician, but once again, a product of a culture poisoned by "scientific racism". He would have been happier sending the ex-slaves to Liberia most probably than to have integration in the neighborhoods and schools.
We need to approach Lincoln with a historical mind and not as a myth. He wasn't a saint, nor was Jefferson or Washington. Slavery is still a festering sore on the backside of the United States. It is steeped in the loftiest Enlightenment and the greatest crime committed in our hemisphere's history. But thank God that Lincoln was president when he was, as he issued the Emancipation Proclamation and then came the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He may not have been at the beginning, but he was by the end.
Edited on Thu May-25-06 04:15 PM by SemiCharmedQuark
You are sorely mistaken. His views progressed, just as anyone's should, as he became more and more aware of circumstances. Frederick Douglass helped him there, big time. Lincoln wanted to extend voting rights to former slaves. He openly said so the night before he was killed. He wasn't killed for "freeing the slaves". He was killed for daring to suggest that they might be worthy of casting a vote. Now why would he do that, with the war over, "to preserve the union"? I'm so sick of this revisionist BULLSHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I don't see the "revisionist B.S" in that post
Lincoln's actions re. slavery and former slaves were based mostly on utilitarian, not necessarily humanistic, reasons. While he did talk about granting suffrage for the freemen, he was willing to extend that right only to a small number of so-called "intelligent" blacks. He was even considering the option of shipping the slaves out of the country should the Civil War not appear winnable.

I consider Lincoln to be the nation's greatest president ever, but he was still far from perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He was far from perfect, but you do not line up his thoughts
in a linear fashion. He BEGAN a lot less liberal minded than he ended up. And I don't believe that his thoughts from the first part of his life should overshadow the last part. He worked for equal wages for black soldiers, and the small number you refer to was I believe, soldiers who had fought in the civil war and literates. Again, you have to put everything in context. To do anything else is anachronistic.

All one has to do is read his letter to know he was no friend of slavery. I hate how people quote up until "if I could save the union by freeing the slaves.." but don't finish that quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No "great friend of the slaves"
would have won the 1860 election. Douglas would have beat him soundly. We need to look at the american people with a historical mind and not with the myth of the average "big hearted" american. The great leaders of our country were not the greatest people in our country, but the best that could win an election and hold public office. Lincoln was a great leader who pushed us in the right direction as far as we could go. Even though that distance seems quite inadequate to people of integrity, I'll take it over Bush anyday. Whom pushes us in the wrong direction as far as he can get away with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Lincoln and the ex-slaves voting rights
Edited on Thu May-25-06 08:27 PM by nealmhughes
from my study of 19th Century US hsitory, the only thing that would have been gained was a huge bloc of Republican voters in a party that was in its infancy, which was soon accomplished until after "Redemption" and "voting reforms" beginning at end the of the 19th Century, leaving most of African ancestry disfranchised de facto and de jure.
Here is a small bit of an excellent essay that touches upon Lincoln, colonization and his statements as late as the 1858 debates:

http://www.friesian.com/racism.htm
<begin quote>
Jefferson's views that free blacks should return to Africa can easily be held against him, but even Abraham Lincoln believed much the same thing, for much the same reasons. In his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln was delabored with accusations that, since he was against slavery, he must be for citizenship and equality for freed blacks. Lincoln replied:

"He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship....

I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man...

I have said that separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation... Such separation...must be effected by colonization."

Colonization was Lincoln's preference right up until the day that a delegation, consisting of Frederick Douglass and other black leaders, with Emancipation at hand, told him they actually did not want to go back to Africa. When it came right down to it, that was the end of that. Whatever Lincoln's views about citizenship and political equality may have continued to be, the Constitutional issue was settled after his death with the passage of the 14th Amendment, though "equal protection of the law" was never properly enforced after Occupation forces were withdrawn from the South in 1877.
<end quote>

To me, I am oddly reminded of the fact that Lincoln was never in close physical proximity with any African-Americans, slave or free, until he served in DC in the H. of Reps. and then as President! His anti-slavery credo was common among many of the non-slaveholding caste in the North as well as the South, only the South's view was effectively silenced in the Early Republic by censorship and the growth of the political power of the slave-holding caste in the Old Southwest, which thwarted many of the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian impulses of the Enlightenment and "independence" that were then so commonly enunciated. Lincoln had a lot of the same spirit as these two, seeing the lands across the Ohio as then across the Mississippi as fulfilling the quest for the Jeffersonian ideal. Unfortunately, at the same time, the ability to hold semmingly contradictary ideas or at least to make public statements that indicate that one does is a hallmark of humanity.
Slaveowners saw perfectly well after the first generation actually born in captivity that all of their ideas of physical and intellectual inate inferiority were bogus: they saw African children grow at precisely the same rate physically and mentally as their own white offspring! Yet this did not debunk this myth.
In my graduate work, George M. Frederickson's "Black Image in the White Mind" is the most important simple component of my intellectual development. GMF holds that white people were simultaneously able to claim that Blacks were "passive" and "agressive", "stupid" and "crafty" as well! One is able to substitute "Jews" or "Catholics" or "Arabs" or "the French" or any other group differentiated as "other" to see this concept in action.
Lincoln was an heir of the Revolution, but Washington and Jefferson were its apostles. All three groped as a blind man without a stick on the issue of slavery. Lincoln was not a deep philosopher, by his own definition, simply a country lawyer. But what a great country lawyer he was! {Actually, corporate railroad lawyer might be more apt than country lawyer.) Whether as a war effort or due to some conversion very late in his unfortunately too short life, Lincoln did effect the freedom of the slaves. However, it was the Radical Republican Congress that completed the task he began. There were still slaves in Maryland and Kentucky when Lincoln was assassinated.
Take away Lincoln's halo. He was not a saint, but he was the most single effective US president to date and his efforts to end the war brought about Emancipation and a unified nation from Maine to California. God bles him for that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-25-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sen. Ray Miller knows his history
far better than Sen. Jacobson.

The problem is, the contempt Republicans have for Democrats in the Ohio Senate & House is palpable, all the time. They treat all Dems with arrogance, rudeness and disdain and far more so with the African American members. One need only sit in the gallery for 5 minutes before noticing the tense atmosphere. Most of the GOP'ers come from rural or distant suburban areas where they seldom interact with AA people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC