|
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 02:58 PM by Two Americas
There is an important issue here, and that is that whites have controlled the narrative about emancipation and Lincoln, and much of it is skewed to make whites look good. I am more than willing to give wide latitude and serious consideration to alternative narratives about Lincoln and Emancipation from Black scholars taking a Black perspective. I am completely intolerant and dismissive of the revisionism coming from right wing sources, which is unfortunately getting traction among liberals.
The letter Lincoln wrote to Greely is the most abused and misapplied and misrepresented document of all time, I think. The point of Lincoln's letter was to make a distinction between his personal stance on slavery and his view of his public duties and authority. It was pretty gutsy of him, because it was the truth and certain to piss almost everyone off. He said that his public duty was to preserve the Union, whatever that took. That meant that he was constrained from using the presidency to dictate Abolition. Then he said that his personal position was that all people should be free. That was a strong anti-slavery statement. Anyone accurately reading that - and ironically the pro-slavery people did know exactly what he was saying and what his intentions were more so than anyone else - would recognized that he was going to look for a way to liberate the slaves, within the framework of his Constitutional duties as he saw them. And as soon as he could see a way to cut the Gordian knot, he did.
Lincoln was a politician. So of course he compromised and horse-traded and did all of the things that any and all politicians do. Did Lincoln free the slaves? No. The slaves freed themselves. Did Lincoln facilitate that as much as any politician could have under those circumstances? Yes, I believe he did. So did the slaves at the time, and they are the ultimate authority on the subject. So did the Confederates, and they had the most to lose.
Frederick Douglass deserves more credit than Lincoln, in my opinion, for Emancipation. Lincoln did the one thing that a politician in a representative democracy can do and that we should expect them to do - he listened and figured out a way to get it done. That is especially relevant to our current political situation. During Lincoln's administration, there were many people saying that critics of him should be silent and that we should all just trust him, and saying he was the best we could hope for and that he knew what he was doing so we shouldn't second guess. But the reason we elect a politician is not so that we can all fall into blind obedience behind them, but rather in the hope that they might listen to the grievances of the people and respond. They can't listen and respond if we are all passive and silent for fear of "tearing down" some politician we are enamored with.
It is a good thing that Douglass didn't "get behind Our President" and stay silent. Lincoln listened to him, yes, but Douglass did the work and should get the credit. Today, we should be careful not to call for silencing of critics for the sake of "loyalty" to "our leader." That sabotages the dynamic process of representative democracy, and will cripple the new administration.
I don't think that placing Lincoln on a pedestal, nor pulling him down off of the pedestal is very useful. We ought to be talking about the pedestal - which is built on racism and privilege and American exceptionalism - not the person on the pedestal. Lincoln was but one player in a grand struggle, and many other players get far too little recognition. Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Angelina Grimke all come to mind.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
