4 ms·

History is quite a subject. Lincoln and Lee on slavery and the war: Lincoln: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to sa

History is quite a subject. Lincoln and Lee on slavery and the war: Lincoln: 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. Lee: I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and suffered all I have suffered, to have this objective obtained. Slavery is a moral and political evil.

krapp 3y ago
Context is quite a subject. Lincoln, elsewhere on slavery[0]: This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it. I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. And Lee, further on in the quote you provided (from a New York Times article[1]): (But he (Lee) added that slavery was) “a greater evil to the white man than to the black race” in the United States, and that the “painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction.” And also on the subject of monuments: The general did, however, object to the idea of raising Confederate monuments, writing in 1869[2] that it would be wiser “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife.” The narrative you appear to be trying to paint here, that Lincoln was the real racist between the two, presumably in service of implying that there is some hypocrisy in tearing down Lee's monuments but not Lincoln's, isn't historically accurate. Both saw slavery as a moral evil. But Lee was a slave owner and traitor fighting for a government dedicated to the preservation of slavery, despite having some vague hope that maybe eventually the whole unfortunate business might end somehow, and Lincoln, who never owned slaves, actually did something about it. Which is why Lincoln, for all of his faults, gets his face on Mount Rushmore and the penny and his own monument and the other guy gets melted into slag, and there is no moral paradox in doing so. [0]https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.ht... [2]http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/xml_docs/valley_news/newspaper_catalog.xml&style=/xml_docs/valley_news/news_cat.xsl&level=edition&paper=rv&year=1869&month=09&day=03&edition=rv1869/va.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?sou...
- starbase 3y ago
  The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now view the conflict. Seems fair to assume the Confederacy would have abolished slavery on its own before long, as most of the world (excluding Africa and Mideast) did. Which leaves us with this question: Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct. No state (no matter how virtuous or contemptible) lasts forever, and it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    > The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery No, this is complete nonsense. They both opposed slavery on a surface level due to beliefs that differed in deep and profound ways.
  - dangus 3y ago
    But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? > Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct...it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot. Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? Do their slaves get that same right to walk away from their plantation peacefully? You see the irony here right?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      >But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? It did. There was a lot of political tension before that point, but the Confederacy was the one that started the actual violence.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
eesmith 3y ago
Snopes has an article on this topic, at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-slavery/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-... . > Claim: A meme accurately reflects Abraham Lincoln's and Robert E. Lee's views on slavery. > Rating: False Concerning the quote by Lincoln, in the full letter: "Lincoln drew a clear distinction between what he felt his political duty required of him (i.e., preservation of the Union and not a forced, unilateral abolition of slavery) and what his personal viewpoint on the slavery issue was (i.e., a "wish that all men every where could be free"). Concerning the supposed quote by Lee (which you have modified!) it was recounted by the Rev. Dr. Leyburn: "Even this passage, which does not match the quote attributed to Lee above, is problematic in several ways: primarily that the purported conversation was witnessed by no one other than the person who reported it, that it was not disclosed until some sixteen years after the fact, and that Lee was long dead by the time it emerged and thus could not confirm or deny it. Moreover, even if it were correctly reported, we can't determine at this remove whether it truly reflected Lee's beliefs at the time, or whether it was part a post-war effort by Lee to resurrect his reputation in the North." Further, "“[Lee] was not a pro-slavery ideologue,” Eric Foner, a Civil War historian, author and professor of history at Columbia University, said of Lee. “But I think equally important is that, unlike some white southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.”" That viewpoint is quite different from Lincoln's, who was publicly anti-slavery: "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." EDIT: Leyburn's letter is at https://archive.org/details/sim_century-illustrated-monthly-magazine_1885-05_30_1/page/166/mode/2up?q=%22I+am+rejoiced+that+slavery+is+abolished.%22 https://archive.org/details/sim_century-illustrated-monthly-... . You can see he's already pushing the false revisionist narrative that the Civil war was not about slavery: > After dwelling with emphasis and with feeling on this point, the General then introduced another topic which also moved him deeply, viz., the persistent manner in which the leading Northern journals, and the Northern people generally, insisted that the object of the war had been to secure the perpetuation of slavery. On this point he seemed not only indignant, but hurt. He said it was not true. I would not trust that letter any more than I trust the claim Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.

krapp 3y ago

Context is quite a subject. Lincoln, elsewhere on slavery[0]: This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it. I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. And Lee, further on in the quote you provided (from a New York Times article[1]): (But he (Lee) added that slavery was) “a greater evil to the white man than to the black race” in the United States, and that the “painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction.” And also on the subject of monuments: The general did, however, object to the idea of raising Confederate monuments, writing in 1869[2] that it would be wiser “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife.” The narrative you appear to be trying to paint here, that Lincoln was the real racist between the two, presumably in service of implying that there is some hypocrisy in tearing down Lee's monuments but not Lincoln's, isn't historically accurate. Both saw slavery as a moral evil. But Lee was a slave owner and traitor fighting for a government dedicated to the preservation of slavery, despite having some vague hope that maybe eventually the whole unfortunate business might end somehow, and Lincoln, who never owned slaves, actually did something about it. Which is why Lincoln, for all of his faults, gets his face on Mount Rushmore and the penny and his own monument and the other guy gets melted into slag, and there is no moral paradox in doing so. [0]https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.ht... [2]http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/xml_docs/valley_news/newspaper_catalog.xml&style=/xml_docs/valley_news/news_cat.xsl&level=edition&paper=rv&year=1869&month=09&day=03&edition=rv1869/va.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?sou...

starbase 3y ago
The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery, even though that's the primary lens through which Americans now view the conflict. Seems fair to assume the Confederacy would have abolished slavery on its own before long, as most of the world (excluding Africa and Mideast) did. Which leaves us with this question: Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct. No state (no matter how virtuous or contemptible) lasts forever, and it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot.
- clipsy 3y ago
  > The takeaway, at least for me, is that both men were not that far apart on the topic of slavery No, this is complete nonsense. They both opposed slavery on a surface level due to beliefs that differed in deep and profound ways.
- dangus 3y ago
  But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? > Is membership in the Union voluntary, or compulsory? I'm not sure the answer provided by the civil war is morally correct...it sure would be nice if people could walk away without being shot. Wait…are you saying the confederacy should have the right to secede peacefully? Do their slaves get that same right to walk away from their plantation peacefully? You see the irony here right?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    >But didn’t the Confederate army start the actual fighting of the civil war by firing upon Fort Sumter? It did. There was a lot of political tension before that point, but the Confederacy was the one that started the actual violence.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago

eesmith 3y ago

Snopes has an article on this topic, at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-slavery/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-... . > Claim: A meme accurately reflects Abraham Lincoln's and Robert E. Lee's views on slavery. > Rating: False Concerning the quote by Lincoln, in the full letter: "Lincoln drew a clear distinction between what he felt his political duty required of him (i.e., preservation of the Union and not a forced, unilateral abolition of slavery) and what his personal viewpoint on the slavery issue was (i.e., a "wish that all men every where could be free"). Concerning the supposed quote by Lee (which you have modified!) it was recounted by the Rev. Dr. Leyburn: "Even this passage, which does not match the quote attributed to Lee above, is problematic in several ways: primarily that the purported conversation was witnessed by no one other than the person who reported it, that it was not disclosed until some sixteen years after the fact, and that Lee was long dead by the time it emerged and thus could not confirm or deny it. Moreover, even if it were correctly reported, we can't determine at this remove whether it truly reflected Lee's beliefs at the time, or whether it was part a post-war effort by Lee to resurrect his reputation in the North." Further, "“[Lee] was not a pro-slavery ideologue,” Eric Foner, a Civil War historian, author and professor of history at Columbia University, said of Lee. “But I think equally important is that, unlike some white southerners, he never spoke out against slavery.”" That viewpoint is quite different from Lincoln's, who was publicly anti-slavery: "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." EDIT: Leyburn's letter is at https://archive.org/details/sim_century-illustrated-monthly-magazine_1885-05_30_1/page/166/mode/2up?q=%22I+am+rejoiced+that+slavery+is+abolished.%22 https://archive.org/details/sim_century-illustrated-monthly-... . You can see he's already pushing the false revisionist narrative that the Civil war was not about slavery: > After dwelling with emphasis and with feeling on this point, the General then introduced another topic which also moved him deeply, viz., the persistent manner in which the leading Northern journals, and the Northern people generally, insisted that the object of the war had been to secure the perpetuation of slavery. On this point he seemed not only indignant, but hurt. He said it was not true. I would not trust that letter any more than I trust the claim Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.