Piece of Trash

“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.”

– Abraham Lincoln, 1862

So what’s incorrect about what Sen. Obama said?

Pam, what you mention is completely true, and I agree. However, I think the senator’s point – stating that he does not view Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator” – is more about the fact that Lincoln only freed the slaves because he felt that doing so would save the Union. He clearly did not do it in the name of equanimity, or compassion, or to acknowledge the basic human rights of all mankind. To give Lincoln credit as a champion of human rights is ignoring the fact that he would, just as easily, have decided the other way if the wind had been blowing from the opposite direction.

That Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves is fact. And the effect of that proclamation was for the good of mankind. And that is commendable, because there was considerable opposition to emacipation. But, Lincoln was not a crusader for equal rights. He was President during arguably the most difficult period in U.S. history, and he made a political decision. Clearly, he did not care whether slavery was preserved or not.

And you know this how, Vinny, pray tel? Please do tell had Lincoln NOT done anything that we would still have slaves? That is just as ridiculous as saying that there would be a CSA and a USA had he not acted. If you have ever done any kind of extensive study of the period and of Lincolns presidency, you would clearly see he was not opposed to slavery. He was opposed to losing an entire region of the country as tax revenue. Lincoln did not end slavery. The union ended it. The elected representatvies ended it therefore the constiuents of the north ended it by making it a federal law to abolish slavery. Yes, Lincoln signed it into law, but did so reluctantly because he was trying to reconcile with the south after the war. At great costs he signed that into law because the rebuilding of the wore torn south costs the taxpayers a great amount of money.
That was the deal. The south would “accept” the law if the union would pay for the reconciliation. I have some friends that still benefit from the money they have inherited from that generations reconsiliation.
There is no doubt that Lincoln was a great president. Perhaps maybe the greatest president because he saved the Union. But one thing is for certain – he did not single handedly end slavery. You have every right to believe so, but I am sorry to say, if you do, you are only kidding yourself.
And to sit there and degrade Obama, a well educated sucessful man, shows how ignorant you can be at times.

As it was already said, the EP was a military document – not a call for justice.

Keep spinning though, neocon fundamentaliist christian right wingers!

That is exactly correct Vinny. Rosa Parks did not do anything new. Many blacks before her were doing just the same thing. She happened to work directly for Dr. King, and THAT is why it got press. Further more, SHE did not start the movement, just as Lincoln did not “singlehandedly” end slavery. Nobody is saying the EP did not put fourth many motions that HELPED end slavery. Of course it did. But that was not its intent. Just as it is now, Lincoln was not the King. He was still just one of many officials in office. Now whether he was for or against slavery is not the issue. He could not change it in any direction if he wante to or not. Matter of fact, most of the men in government at the time were not only for slavery, many of them owned slaves. The real problem with slavery than was the fact that slave owners were claiming them as :dependants” and getting out of paying taxes. This created a great delima. The tax code of the time had no real solution to deal with the fact that slaves were not recognized as people be being claimed for tax purposes. So, they reluctantly had to change the laws.
Of course, we all know this is not why the South broke away from the Union. Or at least not the only reason. (Remember, the south over the last hundred years leading up to the civil war was never for the constituion, they were in favor of the articles of confederation. It took many straws of the federal government mandating more laws onto the states to finally break the camels back). So, as you can see, it was not just one issue in the course of a year. Again, the only issue slavery provided was what I mentioned above. Anything other than that was just personal feelings that didn’t merit a national debate. I think that is what Obama was trying to get at. Unfortunately he did not enunciate that and his words were taken out of context.. But over all, I agree with him. Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator we want to believe him to be.

I’m a bundle of contrary opinions this morning — I was reading through Time magazine this morning when I came across the full context of Obama’s quote, above.

A connected idea attracts us to Lincoln: as we remake ourselves, we remake our surroundings. He didn’t just talk or write or theorize. He split rail, fired rifles, tried cases and pushed for new bridges and roads and waterways. In his sheer energy, Lincoln captures a hunger in us to build and to innovate. It’s a quality that can get us in trouble; we may be blind at times to the costs of progress. And yet, when I travel to other parts of the world, I remember that it is precisely such energy that sets us apart, a sense that there are no limits to the heights our nation might reach.

Still, as I look at his picture, it is the man and not the icon that speaks to me. I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn’t immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

But it is precisely those imperfections–and the painful self-awareness of those failings etched in every crease of his face and reflected in those haunted eyes–that make him so compelling. For when the time came to confront the greatest moral challenge this nation has ever faced, this all too human man did not pass the challenge on to future generations. He neither demonized the fathers and sons who did battle on the other side nor sought to diminish the terrible costs of his war. In the midst of slavery’s dark storm and the complexities of governing a house divided, he somehow kept his moral compass pointed firm and true.

I hope you’ll agree that Obama’s not quite the “piece of trash” you make him out to be. The entire piece is quite the tribute to Lincoln.

Sorry, Vinnie but I’ll have to disagree here.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states that had seceeded..Lincolnd neevr free slaves in DC, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, or West Virginia which were under his command, let alone Whit House slaves who shoudl have been manumitted by Congress.

The 13th Ammendment was ratified after Lincoln was assassinated, though Lincoln’s proclaamtion did start the way for the 13th Ammendment.

As for Obama being a potential American slave, I doubt it as his dad is a Kenyan and Illinois is a free state. Also, his mother is white and slavery was passed from the mother, not the father according to old Southern slave codes.

“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.”

– Abraham Lincoln, 1862

So what’s incorrect about what Sen. Obama said?

Pam, what you mention is completely true, and I agree. However, I think the senator’s point – stating that he does not view Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator” – is more about the fact that Lincoln only freed the slaves because he felt that doing so would save the Union. He clearly did not do it in the name of equanimity, or compassion, or to acknowledge the basic human rights of all mankind. To give Lincoln credit as a champion of human rights is ignoring the fact that he would, just as easily, have decided the other way if the wind had been blowing from the opposite direction.

That Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves is fact. And the effect of that proclamation was for the good of mankind. And that is commendable, because there was considerable opposition to emacipation. But, Lincoln was not a crusader for equal rights. He was President during arguably the most difficult period in U.S. history, and he made a political decision. Clearly, he did not care whether slavery was preserved or not.

And you know this how, Vinny, pray tel? Please do tell had Lincoln NOT done anything that we would still have slaves? That is just as ridiculous as saying that there would be a CSA and a USA had he not acted. If you have ever done any kind of extensive study of the period and of Lincolns presidency, you would clearly see he was not opposed to slavery. He was opposed to losing an entire region of the country as tax revenue. Lincoln did not end slavery. The union ended it. The elected representatvies ended it therefore the constiuents of the north ended it by making it a federal law to abolish slavery. Yes, Lincoln signed it into law, but did so reluctantly because he was trying to reconcile with the south after the war. At great costs he signed that into law because the rebuilding of the wore torn south costs the taxpayers a great amount of money.
That was the deal. The south would “accept” the law if the union would pay for the reconciliation. I have some friends that still benefit from the money they have inherited from that generations reconsiliation.
There is no doubt that Lincoln was a great president. Perhaps maybe the greatest president because he saved the Union. But one thing is for certain – he did not single handedly end slavery. You have every right to believe so, but I am sorry to say, if you do, you are only kidding yourself.
And to sit there and degrade Obama, a well educated sucessful man, shows how ignorant you can be at times.

As it was already said, the EP was a military document – not a call for justice.

Keep spinning though, neocon fundamentaliist christian right wingers!

That is exactly correct Vinny. Rosa Parks did not do anything new. Many blacks before her were doing just the same thing. She happened to work directly for Dr. King, and THAT is why it got press. Further more, SHE did not start the movement, just as Lincoln did not “singlehandedly” end slavery. Nobody is saying the EP did not put fourth many motions that HELPED end slavery. Of course it did. But that was not its intent. Just as it is now, Lincoln was not the King. He was still just one of many officials in office. Now whether he was for or against slavery is not the issue. He could not change it in any direction if he wante to or not. Matter of fact, most of the men in government at the time were not only for slavery, many of them owned slaves. The real problem with slavery than was the fact that slave owners were claiming them as :dependants” and getting out of paying taxes. This created a great delima. The tax code of the time had no real solution to deal with the fact that slaves were not recognized as people be being claimed for tax purposes. So, they reluctantly had to change the laws.
Of course, we all know this is not why the South broke away from the Union. Or at least not the only reason. (Remember, the south over the last hundred years leading up to the civil war was never for the constituion, they were in favor of the articles of confederation. It took many straws of the federal government mandating more laws onto the states to finally break the camels back). So, as you can see, it was not just one issue in the course of a year. Again, the only issue slavery provided was what I mentioned above. Anything other than that was just personal feelings that didn’t merit a national debate. I think that is what Obama was trying to get at. Unfortunately he did not enunciate that and his words were taken out of context.. But over all, I agree with him. Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator we want to believe him to be.

I’m a bundle of contrary opinions this morning — I was reading through Time magazine this morning when I came across the full context of Obama’s quote, above.

A connected idea attracts us to Lincoln: as we remake ourselves, we remake our surroundings. He didn’t just talk or write or theorize. He split rail, fired rifles, tried cases and pushed for new bridges and roads and waterways. In his sheer energy, Lincoln captures a hunger in us to build and to innovate. It’s a quality that can get us in trouble; we may be blind at times to the costs of progress. And yet, when I travel to other parts of the world, I remember that it is precisely such energy that sets us apart, a sense that there are no limits to the heights our nation might reach.

Still, as I look at his picture, it is the man and not the icon that speaks to me. I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn’t immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose.

But it is precisely those imperfections–and the painful self-awareness of those failings etched in every crease of his face and reflected in those haunted eyes–that make him so compelling. For when the time came to confront the greatest moral challenge this nation has ever faced, this all too human man did not pass the challenge on to future generations. He neither demonized the fathers and sons who did battle on the other side nor sought to diminish the terrible costs of his war. In the midst of slavery’s dark storm and the complexities of governing a house divided, he somehow kept his moral compass pointed firm and true.

I hope you’ll agree that Obama’s not quite the “piece of trash” you make him out to be. The entire piece is quite the tribute to Lincoln.

Sorry, Vinnie but I’ll have to disagree here.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states that had seceeded..Lincolnd neevr free slaves in DC, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, or West Virginia which were under his command, let alone Whit House slaves who shoudl have been manumitted by Congress.

The 13th Ammendment was ratified after Lincoln was assassinated, though Lincoln’s proclaamtion did start the way for the 13th Ammendment.

As for Obama being a potential American slave, I doubt it as his dad is a Kenyan and Illinois is a free state. Also, his mother is white and slavery was passed from the mother, not the father according to old Southern slave codes.

Actually, I don’t believe obama would be a cotton-picker on a plantation if slavery were still in effect. obama, who as harry reid and joe biden know is a, clean, articulate negro, who only uses a black dialect when it suits his purposes, is smarter than the average field-hand, and would no doubt have been working in the Big House.